got a gabble too. Oh, sorry, John. Go ahead. >> Come on now. Steal my thunder first thing. Okay. I will now call the January 7, 2026 meeting of the Burners Township Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:32
p.m. Please stand. Ordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law. Notice of this regular and reorganization 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
your lane Basking Ridge New Jersey. was mailed to the Burnersville News, Whippony, New Jersey, Hurrier News, Bridgewater, New Jersey, and was filed with the township clerk all on January 9, 2025, and was mailed electronically to all those people who have requested individual notice. The following
procedure has been adopted by the Burners Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. There will be no new cases heard after 10:00 p.m. and no new testimony heard after 10:30 p.m. I believe there were uh several people that an oath of office.
>> Correct, M. Slayman. I did uh administer the oaths of office to Mr. Krauss, Mr. Lindman, Silver, Miss Trap, and uh Mr. Lazinski. Hopefully, I pronounced that perfect. Um so, they're all, as I stated, I I administered the just before
they're all qualified and uh board members. Welcome aboard to all of you. Back to Miss Bowman, Mr. for the first. So >> Bowman >> here,
>> Mr. Krauss >> here, >> Leazenski >> here, >> Lindamman >> here, >> here. >> Miss Silver, >> Miss Trap >> here, >> Mr. Soi >> here, >> Wen >> here,
>> Mr. here. >> And for the record, Miss Layman is present. I heard from uh Ma and Miss Herrera that they would not be able. >> I'll second like may I have a nomination for the
office of chairperson of the board for the year 2026. >> I will make a nomination to nominate Miss Bowman. I'll >> second. >> Any other nominations? All in favor? Iationsations.
>> You're there for life. >> You're getting out now. Um so then, Miss Layman, thank you very much. Um and I'll will I will ask for a nomination for vice chair of the board. Um if there are no objections, I would actually like to
make that nomination. I'd like to nominate Beth Popar to be vice chair of the board. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I are there any other nominations?
>> Uh seeing none. >> All in favor? >> I >> post abstain. Um, so we are also going to need a nomination for vice chair promp of the board.
>> I will make a nomination. Carl Krauss would be >> I'll second. Are there any other nominations? None. All in favor?
>> I post. Uh, may I please have an appointment um for the board engineer also be a motion resolution 26- I'll second. Mr. Crow,
>> yes. >> Leazinski, >> yes. >> Lindamman, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Silver, >> yes. Miss Trap, >> yes. Chairwoman Bowman, >> yes. Okay.
Um, may I please have an appointment of the board traffic engineer and adoption of the and a motion to adopt the resolution 25-026. I'll second >> Krauss. >> Yes. >> Leazinski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lindamman. >> Yes. >> Miss Pear.
>> Yes. >> Miss Silver. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> May I please have an appointment of the board planner? >> I will make a nomination to P Aing
board planner as well. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> uh may I please have a nomination for the appointment of board secretary? >> Nomination to appoint.
>> I'll second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> uh may I please have a nomination for the appointment of board attorney and the adoption of resolution 26-01. >> I'll um I'll do a nomination for the
resolution of 26-01 and for the attorney of the board for 2026. Correct. Salvo, Salic, Corsini, Warner, Casey, Onik,
and Fisher, PA. >> I'll second that if I don't have to repeat all of that. >> I think I got them all right, but I just shini warles. >> Thank you, sir. >> I'll second.
>> Thank you, Miss Trap. Uh, Mr. Krauss, >> yes. >> Leazinski, >> yes. >> Mr. Lindamman, >> yes. >> Miss Pear, >> yes. >> Miss Silver, >> yes. >> Miss Trap, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> Happy to have you with us. >> Happy to be here. >> Um, so I need a motion for the adoption of the 2026 rules and regulations of the board. They were previously circulated and an adoption of resolution 26-03.
>> Motion to approve the 226 rules and regulations and the resolution 26-03. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Krauss, >> yes. >> Leazinski, >> yes. >> Mr. Lindamman, >> yes. >> Miss Pear, >> yes.
>> Miss Silver, Miss Trap, Chairwoman Bowman, >> yes. Thank you. Uh, may I please have a motion to adopt the stated meeting dates? Uh, also resolution 26-04. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Mr. Krauss. >> Yes. >> Leazinski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lindamman. >> Yes. >> Miss BAR. >> Yes. >> Miss Silver. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, and we would like to have
an adoption of the official newspapers. May I please have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to um adopt the official newspapers. Do we have to read them? >> Uh, Burnersville News, Whip, uh, Whip New Jersey, and the Courier News,
Bridgewwater, New Jersey, we designated as the official newspaper. Six, the Daily Record of Morristown, New Jersey, and the Star Ledger of Newark, New Jersey is designated as newspaper. given notice by the board secretary when the publication schedule of the Bernardsville News or Courier News do
not enable it to publish advanced notice of special rescheduled or emergency meetings. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I post abstain.
>> Uh I would like a motion please for the adoption of the policy of adequate notice resolution 26-05. >> So moved. I'll second >> Krauss. >> Yes. >> Leazinski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lindamman.
>> Yes. >> Miss Pear. >> Yes. >> Miss Silver. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Uh and now for the adjournment of the reorganization portion of this meeting. May I please have a motion? >> Motion to close the reorganization
portion of the meeting. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I. Thank you everyone. Thanks for bearing with us to get through our reorganization. Um, so next on the agenda is the
approval of the minutes which were previously distributed from December 3rd regular session. Anybody have any comments or a motion to approve? >> Thank you, Miss Par. >> Second. Krauss.
>> Yes. >> Octar, >> yes. >> Miss Trap, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman, >> yes. >> Um, next on the agenda, the approval of resolutions. We have quite a bit here. We have two months worth. Uh, Miss Layman, we have only a limited number
who are eligible. >> That's correct. Yourself, uh, Mr. Krauss, Miss Par, and Miss Trap are the only four eligible for all seven resolutions. >> Okay. So we'll try to move through these pretty quickly. Uh first is Ashish and
Pretty Sha blocked 10507 lot 1141 Sentinel Drive ZB25-026. Do I have a motion to approve or any comments? >> Motion to approve as drafted. >> Octar second
>> Krauss. Mr. Krauss. >> Miss Coar. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. Uh motion to approve the resolution of Jeffrey Jeffrey and Elizabeth Stoddard block 2905 lot 12 74 Winding
Lane ZB25-030. >> Motion to >> Motion to approve ZB25-30 >> as written. >> I'll second that. Sorry to >> Crabs. >> Yes. >> Miss Pear. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Uh motion to approve Zachary Bond block 1405 lot 3129 West Oak Street ZB25-024 >> motion to approve ZB25-24 as written >> yes >> Miss Par
>> yes trap >> yes chairwoman Bowman >> yes >> thank you >> uh motion to approve Michael um Jose Michael deise Uh and Lauren, block 1304, lot 10, 62
Oakley Street, ZB25027. >> Approve ZB25-027 as written. >> I'll second Krauss. >> Yes. >> Miss Pear. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Motion to approve John A. Barbieri and Jessica Barbie. Block 1202, lot 48, Southern 8, Southern Place, ZB25-021. >> Motion to approve ZB25-021
as written with no changes. >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Kra, Miss Pac, sorry, >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion to approve DNA window and door LLC block 2001 lot 22 24 Ash
Street ZB25-028. >> I will make a motion to approve drafted. >> I'll second Krauss. >> Yes. >> Miss Par. >> Yes. >> Miss Trap. >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And uh last on the list, I hope
everybody had a chance to look at it. Um, Seth and Lisa Borsick, block 6802, lot 11, 23 Linden Drive, ZB25029. Thank you, Chris, for your work on that one on all of them. Uh, do I have a motion to approve as drafted?
>> I'll make a motion to approve as drafted. >> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Miss Pear, >> yes. Miss Trap, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Bman, >> yes. >> Okay. You had no edits.
>> She did. >> I saw the versions. >> There's a reason they all say V2 or V3 at the top. >> Oh, okay. >> A little bit. >> Not too bad. >> All very minor. I'm getting better. >> No, you're doing a great job. You're doing a great job.
>> All fantastic. Uh, so Mr. Schlly I think for the subcommittee appointment for the landscaping committee for >> give us a little background on what we need >> well last year um Pingry school was in
to uh soccer fields with done with that their approval was subject to a out and take a look at adequately on site. Um out and they they owe us like 46.
Second part of the landscaping committee's additional trees should be planted on site or in the event that you think that uh part review uh for the permission to get on property
and so on and so forth. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I have any volunteers that would like to do the >> I nominate myself. >> I know. >> That's great. Okay. So, we have Liz, Miss Silver, Miss Pear, and Mr. Krauss.
>> No, I mean, if you really want I remember going to one of them. We had some questions. >> Yeah, it would be it would be good to have someone there. be able to answer questions. Yeah, >> you can make it during your normal hours or whatever site visit or if if we have any. Last time we had some questions and it was kind of like we didn't know what
the homeowner we were ask we were talking to the homeowner about some changes that weren't sure exactly what we should say. Remember >> you know it was >> Yeah, I think it'd be good on this one. >> It would be helpful if you were there. I think we were trying to, you know, I
remember called Dave Treaty, >> right? >> He had someity and we were trying to figure it out and we didn't want to give the wrong information. >> Um, Joanne, I'll ask you guys to provide your availability. Um, take it from there. Um,
>> great. Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um uh the next on the agenda is the completeness hearing for CI Mount Airy LLC. Do we have somebody here? >> I don't expect anybody here. >> No.
>> Um I I spoke to them th this uh this afternoon. Um actually >> anyway, I'm going to refer to my completeness review memo dated January 5, 2026.
there. In that memo, it lists eight outstanding items. The applicant does plan on requesting waiverss for a few of those items. They couldn't make it tonight, so they asked to put off their
waiver request until next month. But because of the timing issues, the board has to take action on the completeness. So, I would suggest is just deeming the application complete for all the items in my memo and the applicant maybe now
and next month they'll submit some more items, but they're definitely going to be coming back next month to ask for something. >> So, we can deem them complete. >> I'm sorry, deem them incomplete. >> Incomplete. Okay. Feel much better. Yes. Thank you. >> Um,
it was it just simple. Does anybody have any questions or comments? So the as a incidental information this applicant was one that the board dismissed last year. They originally made this very same application in 2023. Went to actually a couple completeness
hearings. They never got complete. they were uh very long to respond to any of um's calls or anybody else's calls and the board finally just dismissed it without prejudice saying >> right
>> but unfortunately they came back with a submission that was leading so I don't know what's going on but they plan to show up next month and um >> okay yeah because there are a few items on here that are definitely not Um yeah,
there there there are I think three of the items which the board actually waved those same items last year. Um this is a situation where it's an existing bu property with three different buildings on it. They just want to subdivide the property into three lots so that each
building is on its own lot. There's no physical improvements proposed at all. It's all just paperwork. It creates a ton of variances and it does create issues with access, you know, over one lot to get to another and and some things that would require easements and
that um but there it is worthy of waving some other things such as like environmental impact statement for something that's not proposing any physical improvements, right? >> That's the kind of stuff they're going to come back and it's certainly things in here that I would not recommend.
>> Right. Okay. All right. Imagine it's for some sort of a lot of safeguards only be put in place but nothing relating to the physical world >> for a ride and tried to find these buildings and I I I was unable
>> on Mount Air Road there's an old house actually it looks like a house it's actually man by whitneck like is that >> No, it's on the uh between where the VNA and the Y. >> Yeah, exactly. Yes. Yeah, >> there's two office properties where
there's buildings in the front and the back, >> right? >> Office building. >> And this one actually has a house up front. You don't really notice it because there's a bunch of vegetation there, but >> Right. No, I I saw the Okay, so these were the houses. >> Yeah. And then directly behind that is an office building. And directly behind
that is another office building. Montgomery School and Learning Academy. I'm sorry. >> Okay. No, no, that's okay. >> That would call for a motion to deem the application incomplete. >> Second. >> I didn't hear.
>> I thought you said I make Oh, I'll make a motion. Sorry. >> Application. Application incomplete. >> Second that. >> Thank you, Mr. Lindamman and Miss Pear. Mr. Krauss. Yes,
>> yes, >> Mr. Lindamman. >> Yes, >> Miss Pear. >> Yes, >> Miss Silver. >> Yes, >> Miss Trout. >> Yes, >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next on the agenda, Nage and Tanya Chander. This is block 5701, lot 11, 37 Gold
Boulevard. Bulk variances ZB25-091. Did I pronounce your name correctly? >> It's so I I think it's everybody's coming down with that. >> Madam chair, just real quick before we get going. Um everything was properly uh all
content was good was properly finally served. is that >> you win as well Wonderful. Do you want to you want to tell us a little bit about why you're here? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh thank you for the time. Um we are here because uh we've
been we moved into the house in 2019. Um May I ask you just to speak into the microphone as best as you can? >> Okay. Is that better? >> Yes. Thank you. >> So, we've lived there since 2019. Um, you know, we've um had decent use of the house. We've uh gotten to understand
what we want out of it, what we don't want out of it. And one of the big issues has been the rear deck. Because it's south facing, we get blasted by sunlight. So, summer we never use it. And because the stream is back there, we have a lot of bugs and all three, my wife and both daughters, they're like
bug magnets. So, we just never go out there in the summer at all. So, at this point, we know what we like. So, we're wanting to one enclose that deck. Um kind of like make it a little, you know, glass window four seasons room. My wife
works from home. Um we're going to be upstairs. We haven't touched at all because it's um we left it to see what we need to do. So, at this point, we want to expand some of the rooms, um, make the bathroom bigger for the girls, and also give her an office up there.
Behind it is that she can look at the entire backyard. Question two, building. Tell me a little bit about the stream. Sure. Um from our understanding that it is um you know in this process we found
out that um it's considered wetlands and protected. So um most of the time summers unless it's rains it's still water not a lot of movement. It's beautiful but we can't enjoy it from the backyard because it's it's also attracts a lot of bugs. Um there's you know areas
where there's reads and all. Again, very picturesque to look at, but we just can't use it in the back. So, and we know now that all right, there's a bridge there, all that stuff, which is great, but our neighbors also told us, you know, you can't at this point. It's more it's great to
look at, but we just can't enjoy more most of the time the still water and um and the combination of bugs and just the exposure, >> right? >> Lovely property. We love it. It's just that's one thing, you know, it's it's dead space to us at this point. So,
capture it and use it as a fourseason room. We don't really cook out much. So, we're not really looking to make like a fire pit we use once in a while, but uh general it's because of the
base. Maybe because it's the southside, we want to make it really tall and bring all that light into the rest of the house. But we also know that it's a you know it's an old street. So we want to be mindful of all the we want the house from the front to look like it's originally on the
street. Fact we have the luxury that we have a lot of privacy. Nobody can see anything from the either side and the neighbors across the street between their plantings and ours. There's limited views just not a lot. So we really have the luxury of a lot of
privacy. So by adding this this house, it's not really disturbing anything on the front side because from the front, you'll never even know this exists. Fine. So still kind of maintaining the visuals from the street as one of the
original houses, but it's really just making it a little more modernized and comfortable for our lifestyle by encapsulating the space. No, we're going to get rid of that and we're gonna build a whole new structure. Correct.
>> There's a twocar garage connected to the house and then there's another building. >> Yeah. So, from what we understand is I guess this area was built in the 1960s and the gentleman that had this house built was a car collector. So that separate structure is a
garage that >> that for bring workshop and then we usually you know have the kids go out there with their friends and next door. So, we were
parking our cars and apparently the owners before us, even though it's connected to the house, they expanded the inside in a weird way that um they created a laundry room and an extra bathroom there, but
one of the parking spaces, but they only partially built it out bays. One is partially built with maybe foot left over just dead space. So what we're looking already created this
laundry room, but they've done all this I don't know weird stuff in there where there's really no head height or anything. So we're just let's just capture that entire space and make it open a laundry space. So, the twocar garage will remain a I mean, sorry, it's a
onecar garage really. Right now, you're saying it'll remain a onecar garage or a nocar garage. Just a onecar garage. >> One car garage. And the uh the adjacent building, that's usually where, you know, like I'll park my vehicle. I'll just have >> And then you have a um a shed too on the
property. >> We do. Um I use that term loosely. It's been there for some stuff in there, but um it's >> that something you're keeping or are you going to removing with this project? >> Um that's what we're debating right now.
I mean, we kind of use it for like the snowblower and all, but we don't really get much. Oh, we'd like to keep it only because it just, you know, it's that's included in the coverage lot coverage. So, if it was removed, you'd have a lower lot coverage. I'm just trying to see if there's anything you
might want to say. We don't need that. They're going to get rid of it during the process. >> Um, you know, out of all those, I think we would be willing to sacrifice the fire pit only because it goes back. I'd prefer to keep potential storage space. And there because it's already sitting on a
concrete slab that and we're willing to, you know, if we keep the um the fire pit, maybe we can circumstances are, >> but it's on the 2025. >> Yes. And we're getting rid of that as well because it's not
>> We're getting rid of the papers. Okay. >> That's included in the the >> Yep. So, we're getting rid of that. >> All of that is included. So is the for the calculation David is the patio AC miscellaneous that's the
>> fire pit >> is that >> included >> or is the carpet not included at all in >> the fire pit's under patio >> oh patio >> yeah it's under patio Yeah. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I'm work. So, we engaged a
contractor to kind of start all this and we're going through this Dave about some of this stuff. It's been a interesting process getting to this point trying to get all this information all the from him. But in general, we we
understand that it's the impervious versus pvious. How do we get that to a manageable thing? And now with this addition, that adds the >> Sure. And I know one of the concerns is runoff and at least with the addition what we're designing it with, the idea is that it's a flat roof and we're going
to do a brief capturing this runoff is going to be done at the roof level. So we have but part of the idea is you know we're already making this addition the office is already going to be up there. So instead of looking at some unsightly
roof raise up there and really treat it as a green space. No, we designed it in that this addition is actually a standalone structure. It's not tied structurally to the house. So that way, you know, it can bear the load. And to address the runoff issue,
if we do see phase on the roof, it's capturing almost everything that this um addition is going to generate. I would that would be >> so I have one question though with regard to that because I have heard that um they require a certain amount of
maintenance and if you don't then you sort of lose the benefit of the green roof >> very unsightly go It's my wife's office. She insists, uh, we have a basement. I was like, we can build an office there. She's like, I
need daylight. So, this place cannot look bad. >> I mean, Hey y we are because we're treating this, you know, we're going to be here till our kids graduate. So we're treating this as a lifestyle investment. So for
having that, you know, having that aesthetic appeal, >> correct? >> Out on the screen roof >> because if if we have to go out, then we're going to have to put railings for life, safety, and all. And at that point, it's really just, you know, one, we're addressing the runoff issue
because of the addition and the aesthetic issue because if out at the yard. She doesn't want to see this big >> and and the idea is that is that it's sort of like grass and maybe some >> Yeah. some low Yeah. low low growing and
all. And it comes in like you know 2x4 4x8 sedum trays that you put on low slope roof. But it's not really um fast growing plants. >> And what do you do with like when it snows and because of flat roofs the >> it has a slope to it. So all that you
know we're going to it's we're going to we're designing so it slopes towards the that's where all the water can handle a certain amount. It'll be designed for snow. But you know, any type of
runoff, it's gonna Well, that's the bonus with green roofs is, you know, the sedum trays and all the plant things they use are built for those types of environments because mainly they use those on high-rise buildings and all for, you know, the occupants to be able to enjoy green space stairs. So, it's kind of designed
around those parameters like you have, you know, environment um you could have, you know, higher buildings around you. So, you have limited sunlight. So, all the plantings are really designed for those types of environments. >> They're on on a on a flat roof surface. They're not
>> It'll still be on a flat roof surface. Yeah. And the ridge lines of the adjacent buildings aren't tall enough to really prevent it getting sunlight. other exposure. Yeah. But it still goes sun goes >> the other drains or the roof drain somewhere else or where does the
existing roof structure drain to? >> Right now the existing roof structure just drains to the >> and is there I guess we the back is what worry about more than the front, right? Because the front does it slope to the >> all flow back to the
I'm just saying if the the green structure failed and all the water's just flowing out the back, just hypothetical, right? Then then it's going into the stream, of course, so not really impacting anybody else. It's just going more water into the stream,
>> but it discharges on federated to the stream, >> right? Of course. Yeah. >> How does that work though in the winter when plantings are not really absorbing a whole lot of water? reason to go right off, isn't it? >> Yeah. At that point, >> not going to have the quoteunquote water
management from like November till March, >> last couple weeks. I'm just wondering if there's other way to get some of the water that might not be that'd be going to the back right now, not going to the back so that if this fails, it offsets a
little bit, you know. going to be able >> work. like that >> and we that is an option for us. Our concern is to the point of the soils it's we also have a high water table that's going to be that's factors into
the dry well is you know if we have a high water table >> water just kind of run off into the stream anyway >> the quant the runoff from this roof on the sedition >> yeah that's what we're talking about
right >> exactly in the neighborhood just through a little It's going to be a river, not a stream anyway, right? >> Yeah. Gotcha. >> But to that point, you know, every rain, every time it rains, it it becomes a river. like our our both our neighbors I
think the last uh last year I think it was or maybe two bridges got swept away because of that whole backyard is Was the flood hazard permit obtained yet? >> Wetland areas.
a gorge where the stream is I mean I property and I kind of walked to the end of your driveway back to the stream today but >> how deep is that and does that fill to the top when >> when it rains it fills to the top but you know any given day summertime usually when it doesn't rain it's it's
maybe 12 to 14 inches That'll have to be represented on here. It looks to me like >> of that area, but >> yeah, >> I have a question for Mr. Schlly, but also for the applicant. Do we have the
exact number for the existing lot coverage before um the proposed addition? Because I'm noting in your memo here, Mr. slide that it says it probably exceeds 15.48 and so I wasn't sure if that meant there
was some like uncertainty on the existing coverage. >> Yeah, because the the walkway that was mentioned earlier that's shown on the survey which is being removed is not included in the existing coverage. So the existing coverage is is actually
more than calculated on the plan. Okay. >> That the amount that it's over is going to be removed. The walkway that makes it higher is going to moved >> as part of their plans. >> As part of their plans
>> that's not included in your numbers. >> No, my the breakdown I give is based on what's shown on the plan, but both Mr. Mr. Quinn and I had questions on various items. >> Most likely going to change what the total proposed number is. That that's my
main concern that that we that proposed number is knows what they're approving and and if they do approve. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Our >> that's something that we can establish tonight. >> I'd like to. Right. for our our mindset is if we can at least understand we have
uh uh approval to at least proceed with the addition with uh the engineering on how do we manage this runoff right with all the likely not most likely we are getting rid of the walkway in the back uh we'd
like to retain the shed if we need to sacrifice the patio we're willing that and all that and the combination of the green roof off for the addition Somewhere in there, I think is the answer. >> Yeah, exactly. We need to approve a
specific amount, but it's hard to know if we don't know >> what you're asking for. Yeah. >> Um asking for the addition and the uh four season addition and revisions.
what lot coverage ratio you're >> so one of the things that we can do is we can agree to a percentage that we're willing to go to and it can be a number not to exceed.
So like >> that's it right >> yeah number knowing what's there now. >> Yeah. >> Sure. So I guess so that question if we can all agree that you know if we can
try if we can hit the 16.55 >> or less >> that's what you're requesting is 16.55 a maximum threshold >> have to sacrifice things we can then you know start looking into those options >> as you're aware if the board approved 64
>> come back and ask for further relief. Sure. Understood. Yep. >> All right. So, if we're proceeding with the idea that it's your request, the applicant's request is for 16.55%. Should we maybe go through the memos and
see if there's anything else that needs to be addressed? Circle back. >> I have a question uh related to uh water runoff. Will you be adding any additional lighting to the outdoor area
in the back? So, no lights holes or >> we don't you know we're we're really building it to enjoy it from the inside out. So we're not really anticipating and if if we add you know what uh maybe if we do it'll be it'll be downfiring. We're not looking to have anything
freestanding. I don't like you anymore dark sky style firing low light >> be a condition of any approval to do any lights they got to be shielded >> it's not a problem we don't have an
issue >> do you want to take us through your memo >> I review memo dated January 26 One and two are just factual providing some numbers
three raises several questions about the coverage that A there's just a path error. Um individual items don't add up to what you're showing. I'm going to run through these
That's each one. B, that was the walkway that's not shown, which will be inconsequential as to the proposed total because it is being removed. E just questions the numbers that are
shown for the patio AC and walkways. The the numbers showd roof overhang. I don't know, maybe it's four feet or so out the rear of the four. that's going to count as coverage.
The the typical eaves over the house, you know, 18 inches or whatever it is, they don't count. >> Yeah. >> But any any extended structure like that counts like counts as cover. >> There's a note on the plans that references an exterior
>> on the plan. >> Yeah. After our conversations, we eliminated all that because that falls into that flood zone area. So, we were planning on doing something, but now we've eliminated all that because we're not trying to build anything into that flood zone area. So, we modified the deck also based on that. So, we're not
not encroaching into those spaces. >> That'll take care of >> he did uh the you know when he did the last survey it showed us all that. So, that's why we modified the deck to pull everything back so it's not encroaching in
>> F. Also on the plan, it looks like a a short wall, a seat wall or something. >> Yeah, that was just an artifact from the original design of the cooking station. So that's gone. Yeah, it's Yeah, it's just like a 4ft walkway that deck
>> or uh five. We discussed lighting. any lighting you mayward lit number six uh about the regulated areas D you'll some
of your approvals but not all that lined up seven is contract is going to require a conservation ement for the wetland eight. Uh same thing for the repairarian
zone a separate easement also with regard to the repairarian zone zone at 50 ft. We need environmental consultant confirming that it's not 150 >> guessing it's 50 if the wetlands buffer
was 50 but I >> nine is just a standard prevention ordinance. >> Ahead. Thank you. >> So, I have a question though. If it were to be if the repairarian zone were to be confirmed at 150, what does it what does that do?
>> It probably doesn't do anything because the permit that they would get matter. It would just mean a regulated area and that the easement would cover 150 instead. >> Not going to
scenario. Sometime they'll make You want to do you wanna Let's go there. Yes. There's not going to be a lot of options options for slow motor. You have to pull
Ander, I I see that you're the architect. You signed these plans yourself, correct? >> I did. Yes. >> Have an understanding of how this process works. >> Um, do you see any issue with anything in buy or Mr. Quinn's reports? >> No. No. Um, you know, that's kind of one
of the things when I was speaking with them. I understand the wetland, the green area of the green roof you think is sufficient for the additional runoff. Mhm.
>> That's in there. need restricted maybe. >> I don't know. Well, I guess for the sorry for the town's purposes, if somebody were to come in and want to put a new roof on and replace it, would somebody in the town office go back and look at the resolution? See, I mean,
would they because they'd be working off of a a variance >> question they would be supposed to be. I mean, I'm just saying like whether they're supposed to or not. I mean, like, you know, my thought was the deed restriction idea as well. I mean that's putting a pretty big restriction on your property or you know if you were to
>> I know in town we haven't been making it happen. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That roof could be whatever >> it's only visible from The building department would connect the law. >> The building department definitely would not connect that. It wouldn't if it was
just a roof replacement, it wouldn't even go >> The township doesn't I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. that doesn't require any sort of deed restriction by wells, but if once in a while you get somebody's doing like a rain garden or surface improvement get that could easily be
erased by a future homeowner. Um, in a in a case applicant could uh the the resolution with the uh homeowner notice. >> Yeah. But let me ask you this. So where I was going with that is if a future
homeowner were to buy it and want to replace the roof and make it all rooftop, would it then trigger them to could they come back to the zoning board, get relief, say, "I'm going to put a dry well in now and I would like to have a a regular roof and then expunge the deed
restriction." >> Leave that to the engineering department if it's just a drainage. >> No. I was saying you're only going to the construction office. >> They're not they're not looking at what we're talking about here. >> My only my concern if it was not to be
deed restricted is a new buyer would come in and replace the roof, remove the the green roof and and just put a regular roof on and then now we're over on impervious coverage and there's no water control. So I would I might be
inclined to consider some sort of a restriction so that but as long as they can and they can it's not the easiest thing to do but they somebody new could come in and say all are we're going to we're going to remove the green roof but we're willing to come before the zoning
board and put in a drywall for the overage on the impervious coverage >> or they reduce the width of the driveway. They do something to right, but it would force somebody's hand to come back. They couldn't just get rid of the the green route and we would just
file the resolution it. They know. They can see the language in there and they know >> it doesn't >> it doesn't mean >> what I was going to pipeline >> on top of that I guess might you could impose like an obligation on on the
property owner the south >> that if they do want to replace the roof have to go to the township engineering department and raise this issue >> kind of who >> well exactly well who >> I feel like the truth is that if someone put a a drain as Well, we're not going
to the property and confirming that the drain is there 10 years down the road. I mean, someone could remove that. Also, >> I'll say the unique thing here for me is I I don't think >> I I don't know. >> Does anything else need that kind of maintenance? Like a like a dry well would not need the kind of maintenance
that we're talking about here. >> Move a dry ground would be a much >> a much bigger project. Yeah, that's true. >> Yeah, this is exp. I mean, it's it's a lot to expect of a new buyer to have to do it. Also, >> it is I agree. But I think at the same time it's, you know, it's are we
designing something where we're living in for the potential buyer? Are we designing it to do the green thing, >> you know, respect the existing property or are we designing it to respect a potential buyer? >> And we're treating it as we're designing
it to respect the existing footprint and we're doing everything we can even, you know, there's a financial cost associated with it. We're trying to do it the right way, but we don't, you know, at that point when does it become to
don't get the incentive to do the right thing because it's going to hurt us if we try to sell the house. >> If you were in the 15%, we wouldn't have this discussion since you're going over the 15% that we're having discussion. We have to to evaluate these different options. >> No, I get it. I completely understand that part.
>> We're not want you to go green. We >> And I'm not worried about the buyer. I'm just worried about the runoff in the future should something change. So, I'm not worried about your I'm not worried about your future buyer. I'm worried about the property and and the quality. >> Well, I guess I'm just sort of and and I
certainly appreciate >> water runoff situation, things like that. But half his property is already where the water table is already running off the property and he's got a stream that runs down the property. So how much additional
water runoff is really to happen as a result if somebody takes off his property is already technically >> well they're I mean they're putting on water >> I I I see it as they're putting the burden on because they're going over the coverage already. So, we're just trying
to mitigate the over coverage by putting some burden on the >> I mean, like I said, half his property is already just >> certainly don't want to make it worse. That's correct. I appreciate that, but it's already falling
neighbors from the stream. >> So, how to do it? Sum it all up. Record the resolution. The resolution has a condition that the green piece also impose an obligation on the property owner to maybe certify annually to this
engine department that the green roofs >> I executively approve maybe the photographic evidence >> I don't know if that's >> maybe not annually every two every two or three years or something I don't know I'm just trying to sple ideas that >> from being deed restricted >> I think it should just be that if the
roof is replaced at any point in time that they have to come back The likelihood of someone buying the property. Not operating fully. That's the number you want to ask. >> Well, because we're also saying that they we incorporated the walks in there,
right? So, we're getting rid of the walkway. >> Did include you did incorporate the walkways in there. >> I think that was part of this number. So, because we're eliminating that. >> No, that's not >> I didn't see >> that walk is not in there. >> That's not in there. Okay. So yeah, we are willing to pull that o that overhang
back to make it more of a sopet condition if if we you know go over the 16.5. >> But there's like several items here in Mr. Schlly's memo that seem to put you over what you were proposing. So my concern is if we approve the 165,
right, you're I mean are you comfortable with removing some other items to get to that number? um because I think that's probably going to be necessary in order to hit that given these additional coverage um that's listed here >> or ask for a slightly higher number.
>> Yeah. or or he's maybe >> I mean at this point we understand right there's there's certain things that may have to go and I know we've made kind of like a triage list you know if it needs to be >> area if it needs to be fed those other
things if we need to pull back the roof >> five or something just a little >> I guess for my education if I can I would prefer if I can say 16.75 and we all you I' I'd prefer that. I'm not saying I want to build my mindset isn't to max
out anything on this thing. My mindset is if we can build the addition, if we can build what we are proposing and it doesn't impact anything and we could fall under like say 16 55 16.65 around there, we're happy to do that.
>> Don't want you to have to come back. It's >> I agree. Now I'm Yeah. come back with >> and we, you know, we understand >> we'd rather not come back. We'd like to kind of, you know, get construction done, get everything started in spring with the understanding that there's a
couple items on our property we may have to sacrifice 75. As long as we can get underneath it coverage to be percentage because otherwise >> you want to give forgiveness for the overhang. >> I don't want to just say 16.1% because
then it could be used any has to be substantially all the the addition using that. >> Well, part of that issue is establishing what the baseline is, right? So, I I think that I I think that we
were in a good spot. Um, >> sorry. >> I think we were in a good spot. Um, so my concern is that you are already on a very wet piece of property.
>> Ghost of Windows pass. >> You're already on a wet piece of property. you do have a a stream, it does flood, right? I don't want to exacerbate that for you or for anybody downstream. Um I think in my personal
opinion, I think 0.55 if you're comfortable with that and we're comfortable that the the roof green roof can accommodate any additional runoff from this.
I personally am comfortable there. I would like some that roof needs to be maintained and continued otherwise they would have to come back. So for me I would look for some sort of
safety net there. >> If I can ask supposed to update the town every year on how your maintenance is happen typically with lots. But maybe for this one we say the
burden is on property owner to report the condition of the management BMP. >> I would ask can a flat roof have a water pathway? I mean, can't it be sloped in a drain in the middle of it or something? I mean, can't there can't be a It doesn't just have to be flat and run off
this way. >> You can't put a gutter on a >> You couldn't just put a small gutter on that would handle any over. >> I mean, >> from the from the trays. Oh, yeah. I'm sure >> all have that. They all have some gutter on the outside of it, but the option is
you don't utilize it, >> right? But if it does fail, the gutter is going to take the water where to >> the stream. Okay. >> In fairness, would do we think that the overhang brings us to? Do we have an idea of what that might be?
>> Four feet off the back of the sun room, which is >> the overhang is going to be a 4 foot by 27. So, it's 108 square feet. >> That give us >> Don't ask me to do math. bugs in the backyard. I don't know how
affected the patio I mind the patio and the sh off parts of the driveway or something. 100 square feet is 22%. The shed is 100 square feet. Overhang is probably 0.25% something
like that. >> And is the overhang covered by the is there any green element that picks up anything? >> Overhang is it's it's part of the roof. So it's all going to be covered. I haven't seen the joint
>> if if that if that is the case then coverage as being sort of mitigated one for one >> capturing a captured >> still have the 48% that's over in in
from the original 15 Just to be clear on that, the that's that's legitimate pre-existing lot coverage that 15.48 that wasn't something I mean it's still over the norm, but that's been there
those previously verified pre-1980 coverage requirements were put into effect that >> that it was a pre-existing non-conforming condition. was yeah it was actually a little bit higher but when prior earners came into the zoning
board back in 2000 varants and as part of that project they reduced the coverage a little bit so was actually pre-existing higher uh but the applicant here started with 15.4
not approved by the town. So if he's got 15.48 that's approved. So that that's over. Um did did you have a chance to look at the environmental commission's report? Okay. Um, for the record, do you mind if
I we go through that as well? Um, the majority of the property except the small area in the rear lot is in the FEMA 1%. So, you'll be addressing that um with the engineers. Uh, also note that the lot is in the zone AE
according to New Jersey. Again, you'll be dealing with that with the engineers through your application. Uh, they're asking for you to get a confirmed stream buffer. It's the repairarian zone. >> That's for the repairarian zone. Um, you
have the letter of interpretation already. Uh, the applicant should also show the 50-ft buffer from the wetlands behind the addition and toward the west. The plan currently only shows to the east. Has that been addressed yet? >> No, that that that'll be addressed as
part of my comment. What they have to it the environmental commission is correct that they didn't uh account for a piece of the wetlands that is accounted for by their environmental consultant engineer. >> That's going to be reviewed when they drove the line.
>> Okay. >> Applicant has already agreed to comply it based on green. >> Um and this is their October 27th 2012 2025 letter. Um the environmental commission notes the presence of freshwater wetlands and surface water body on the subject property. Best
management practices to protect these sensitive ecological areas should be implemented during the site work sediment and erosion controls and post construction. Organic lawn care protect and preserve natural soil vegetation grading buffer zones within the stream. Uh the environmental commission also
notes the ex existing lot coverage exceeds the maximum amount. Increased impervious coverage increases the volume of quantity of of water runoff which can contribute to local and potentially area wide flooding. So that's what we're trying to
save here mitigate. Um the commission asked the board to suggest the applicants increase impervious coverage manage storm water by planting native trees and shrubs. It's another idea. And they would like to know if any tree permits have been taken out. And I think we determined you're not removing any
changes. >> We're not removing any. >> Just to be 100% clear, you're going to comply with all the comments and uh recommendations set forth in uh Mr. SL memo, Mr. Quinn's memo, the environmental commission memo to the extent still applicable, not otherwise superseded.
He's got to make sure. >> Uh >> so I I I think my thought process is you should ask for what you want to ask for. If you're mitigating um or if you're balancing one for one your roof um and that's what you want to ask for, you
should ask today what you want to ask for and it's up to the board to determine whether or not we're all comfortable with that. >> Um you want to amend your application? What number impervious coverage? >> Um we'll you know we'll hold the 16.55.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, and I really do appreciate how mindful you are of the impervious coverage. So, a lot of the points in the letters really will be addressed at a later time because we've established that you won't
go beyond 16.55%. So, whether the walkway or the patio or the this or the that doesn't matter. Um, I get it. And the question I had was I know I think it was a few months ago we had uh I guess uh
>> people are going to be curious about it too. >> Right. Exactly. Because Yeah. Um Yeah. Does anybody have any questions for the professionals or for Mr. Chander? Um, want to talk about before I open it to the public? Do we want to talk about
whether or not there's going to be a deed restrict whether or not the resolution should be >> Yeah. So, based off >> Yeah. based off of what Tom was suggesting and what I'm suggesting as well to to his credit. Um, these are the conditions I understand it and you know
anything wrong here. So, the applicant's going to >> Before you do that, do you want me to open it to the public? >> Um, let me do this because this might create more discussion. >> Okay, got it. >> Rather than do public twice. >> Okay. Uh, applicants going to install a green roof ultimately subject to an approval. I don't know. Tom, do you
want to take that on or do you want to punt that to the township? >> Okay. Township engineering. Okay. Gotcha. You might want to take a look if you're curious. Okay. Should the green roof be removed, the applicant shall install alternative storm water mitigation measures subject to the review and approval of the township department. U
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the township engineering department that the green roof is being maintained ultimately subject to the satisfaction in the terms set by the township engineering department. So my thought is that you give the township engineering department the leeway to decide how the annual reporting is going
to go. Um that's just my suggestion. Um the applicant shall record a copy of the resolution with the county clerk's office. That way future property owners are put on notice of the conditions that applicant would be complying with all the uh comments in Mr. Spice, Mr. Quins,
and the environmental commission. I think that's all the conditions I got. Maintenance of the provides um schedule >> maintenance manual >> provides and I guess what capacity
>> like doing permitting I provide >> oh how to keep it alive and functional >> specify on an annual I don't know but the engineering department I don't think we've ever had to deal with up with
ask on somebody when >> I just feel like it's too vague to say maintain it. Like what do we even mean by that? Like that the plants are watered. Like what are we saying has to be done? I think we need to be a little more specific. I
>> mean the whole point of you know green roof is you're you're adding a extra layer of insulation on the roof. So you're reducing self then >> I >> they're designed to be self-maintained, right? It's not like we're going up there doing >> Yeah.
>> Um they'll be, you know, weeding as needed basic type of stuff, but they're specifically engineered for the idea that these are, you know, selfmaintained um plantings. Can we just say instead of maintain can we just say that they certify that it
>> functional >> function that it functions that it exists and continues to function >> won't be remove it will not be removed and it's >> yes because I feel like maintain is too >> it's going to be the first green roof in Basking Ridge is that >> we haven't heard of one before that's why right because
>> I have I have boss on my roof >> want to understand like okay if this is the first time we're all dealing with it what are we all agreeing to So you did the research on your own. >> I'm I'm lead certified. So you know I usually design these for highrises and all. So I was like well if I'm designing
them for those like >> Oh they don't it relies purely on the environment. Yeah. So they're designed >> very rarely because most of these are you know in response to people having older buildings in like you know Hoboka and Jersey City but they want to have
some type of escape. So you convert the old roof, get rid of all the HBAC system >> buildings where they've done this, but I don't know how. >> And the whole idea is they're engineered to be as low maintenance as possible. So capturing the water, there's you're not going to deal with weeds
engineered for that. Can I s Can I suggest a rewrite of that condition? Okay. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the touch of engineering department that the green roof is being maintained in a manner sufficient to accommodate the excess lot coverage posed by the
proposed addition on an annual basis. >> They pay me by the word >> annual functionality in some annual. >> Yeah, I also liked leaving it to the engineering department to decide the schedule. I'd rather
>> I agree. I agree. >> I would prefer to deed restrict it than >> Yeah. This a resolution a recorded resolution will do the same thing. Should >> record a resolution. >> Well, you know, it'll come up in a title report when somebody the next buyer is going to have to say. >> So, if we record the resolution, does he
have to report it once a year? Well, I I think the idea with that would be that the township engineering department's always like keeping eye on it and making sure that it's always being >> I just maintaining it. >> Yeah. >> But right the deed restriction is just more
>> saying there isn't any maintenance. That's what I'm confusing. He's telling us there really is self-maintained. So what are we asking him to certify on a yearly basis? >> That it's that it's the existing condition. You're maintaining that there it's there. There's plants there.
Okay, you're certifying that it it does what it's supposed to do and that it's mitigating the engineering department deems that it's doing what it's supposed to do block coverage that the addition that into the property, right? I don't know anything about green roost,
but I presumably got to make sure >> the engineering you think the engineering department is going to make a visit on a yearly basis to his house and >> present a report confirming that. Oh, okay. Okay. >> They're gonna send him a letter, but he's gonna say it's
>> an affirmative obligation on the homeowner to let the engineering department know every year, hey, it's still working. U evidence thereof, you know, and if the engineering department wants to take a look at it, I guess that would be they'd be empowered to do that. >> A lot of that is done up front, but it's
not totally just forget about it after, you know, You got like lawn. I mean, if it's the weather is good rain, you're not getting extreme demand. No foolproof solution to make sure that
real house, man. That's a real purpose. >> Maybe. Maybe, but not from us. >> Just throwing it out there. >> It's a good idea. >> But Mr. Chandrew, are you good with >> Are you good with the outline? >> I am. >> You're okay with it with with the reporting? >> Okay. >> Annual basis >> and reporting would be I guess I just
want to understand what's this reporting >> same letter every year. Put a new date on it. Right. >> We can do that. That's not a problem. We want to set a date certain for that like I don't know January something every year just on an annual basis as long as it's done every year. >> I'd go with annual basis. >> Annual basis. Fair enough. Okay.
>> I think we beat that horse. >> Yeah. >> Back to life in the back. >> All right. So, given the new information, does anybody else have any questions? Um, does the public have any questions for this applicant?
None. Uh, no comments for the applicant. Um, all right then, Mr. Chander, is it okay if we take over? >> Summarize. >> So, give us a summary, Mr. Soieski, please. >> So, the applicants here are seeking um
um one variance for lot coverage, uh 16.55% proposed where 15% is the max permitted. Um I did list the conditions before, but I'll go through them again if you guys want. Um, starting with the easiest, the applicants are going to comply with everything in Mr. Schlly's memo, Mr. Clint's memo, and the environmental commission memos. Uh, to
the extent they're still applicable, uh, apply to the application. Um, applicant will install a green roof on the top of the addition on top of the addition. Jeez, I need more coffee. Um, so ultimately subject to the review and approval of the township engineering department. Uh, should the green roof be
removed, the applicant shall install alternative storm water mitigation measures, ultimately subject to the review and approval of the township engineering department. Uh the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the township of engineering department that the green roof is being maintained in a manner sufficient to uh accommodate
the excess lock coverage presented by the proposed addition on an annual basis via a letter to hearing department. I'll make it sound a little more eloquent when I write it, but you get the gist of it. U applicant shall record a copy of the resolution of approval in the county
clerk's office. And I think that's it. Now, please let me know. uh our screen. >> Hopefully there will be more. >> Put a sign in front of your property. It says >> no. Hopefully there will be more and then we can >> That's what I'd like to see.
>> Uh would anybody like to um kick us off? >> Oh, just real quick just to point out because they have to ultimately the the township engineering department's going to look at the green roof to begin with. They're going to be put on notice that this thing exists from the get-go. So for what that's worth at least, you know, they're
inspected. >> Yeah, exactly. To begin with. So, >> okay. >> I'm seeing this as the the wetlands aren't reducing what he's doing. >> Um, do you agree? >> Not an undersized lot. So, you're
>> No, no, no. Okay. All right. So I I'd like to make a motion to deirect the board attorney to draft a resolution memorializing the variance request ratify the relief request. You have a second I'll second
Dr. MR. Yes, >> letinski. >> Yes, >> Lindamman. >> Yes, >> Miss Pear. >> Yes, >> Miss Silver. >> Yes, with a note that I disagree with the annual reporting, >> but yes.
>> Yes, >> no change. No changes. >> Uh, yes. And Mr. Chander, thank you. I >> thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you for indulging us. Thank you for teaching us something new. And good luck. I I hope >> when it's when it's completed, we'd love to see it or a picture of it or something. And honestly, just
>> fire pit's still there. We'll have a cookout. >> I don't mean that. Just >> Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you everybody. >> It'll inspire other consider putting in I know a poll. >> I'm sorry.
>> U the >> Thank you very much. >> Yes. Um we've >> ask questions is going to open. >> Oh yeah. >> We're going to open testimony. Right. Right. Yeah. >> Um tried.
>> Oh, okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you again. Yes sir. >> It's got to be enough to accommodate the lock coverage that's already covered. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we've completed the uh we've completed this application. So, let's
move on to the next. >> Next on the agenda is the um is another interesting one. It's an interpretation for New Test New Testament Ministries uh block 2301 lot 3240 Whit Knack Road. This is an
interpretation of the zoning ordinance ZB2503 case ZB25031. >> Madam Chair, I'll just point out real quick. This is uh not your typical fair. I'll let uh applicants >> part of a green loop. >> So first
>> a residence. Yeah. >> Um just to to put close the loop on that. Um because this is an interpretation and the ordinance doesn't require notice for it. The MOU all doesn't require notice for it. So the applicant wasn't required to notice for this. So the board has the jurisdiction here inside the case without any notice. So we're good.
>> Okay. Do we need to swear in professionals? >> It's still technically a hearing. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll treat it as a hearing for those purposes, but it's not your typical development application here, right? Um but I'll throw it over to applicants council. Let him do his introduction. >> I'm the attorney. Yeah. Arthur Hopkins
and uh The uh the subject of the application is 40 White Knack Road and asking Bridgetown. >> Uh either works. Um >> yeah, either works
>> in block has been said 2301 lot 32 and it's in the >> uh the existing house of worship had been a Jewish synagogue. What my client is proposing is to convert two of the floors of what had
been a building into uh residences for their clergy who would be working on site. Um there's not going to be any change to the footprint of the building. there's not going to be
any change to any and particularly with reference if you go at your conditional use ordinance you have all the different criteria and that they are all met in my understanding um where my client got stuck is that your um your code basically says that
within the R1 zone houses of worship andor houses of worship with clergymen's residence on the same premises are permitted Don't know what clergy um I have provided the board with
what I've written other than to say that it is pretty clear that in terms of statewide uh if you will a monastery, a rectory, a convent or any multiple
residence uh is a accessory used for any church. So, um I looked at your code and I believe your planner looked at the code and we couldn't find any definition of men's residence in there. Went and
looked statewide at cases But it seems to me and again I I I just mentioned our friends to was it James Roman Catholic. >> Yeah. I mean they just looking at their website they have a number of houses which
located there and and so residents should more than just one. It's interesting because they didn't use parsonage. If they' use parsonage, you could at least make an argument based on tax law that maybe it's just one one person, one
resident. But residents, I have my client with me and he, if you will, he could talk a little bit about what they want to do. And yeah, let's let's swear him in as well as our board professionals. Let's get everybody sworn.
Okay. Do all three of you swear or from the testimony provided with the truth, the whole truth. Nothing with the shoes we got. Okay, great. And before actually real quick, Mr. Hopkins, before we go any further, I just want to couch this for the board, right? Because this isn't our typical fair. Um,
>> right. So, typically you guys see applications for, you know, variances or, you know, site plan and variances. This is something very different. It's um court has the power under section 70B of the MLUL to and I'm going to quote the statute hear and decide requests for
interpretation of the zoning map or ordinance or for decisions upon other special questions upon which the such board is authorized to pass by any zoning or official map ordinance in accordance with this. Long and short of that means that um court is empowered to basically interpret the zoning ordinance
if requested by an applicant or answer special questions relating to the ordinance. So here you're not being asked to grant a variance. You're being asked to render an opinion as to what the ordinance means. Right? So just keep that in mind as we go forward because again
conditions so to speak. You're really just trying to answer a question that's being asked by the applicant. That does that. But the question the question is is >> not whether or not it's a permitted use. It's it's whether or not it's an accessory use. >> Well, >> correct.
>> I'll get to that. Yeah. So, I don't want to I don't want to get ahead of anything. Um but and Mr. Hopkins, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding. Right. Essentially, what's being asked by your client by the applicant is for the court to decide whether or not what you're presenting here is a permitted use on the property.
Correct. >> Right. So either meaning it's either a a prince a permitted principal use or permitted accessories >> but also you have to grapple with the phrase clergy which has to somehow >> right
>> and I've practiced 45 years I've done a fair amount I've done you know you know so but my understanding You're essentially acting as a quad.
You are what makes sense. What was the intent of I guess you have was there intent when that >> Right. part it's part of the calculus certainly. Yeah. Said it's part of it's
it's definitely part of the process. >> Yeah. So you know but what what what I feel is when you get into even statuto. So then you have to start to say, okay, getting that to the code. If you said, well, it's just one clergy person.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, was that really the council's intent? And that's what that's the decision. We're brand new to the lesson Samuel. I'm a pastor of this church here.
You're happy to be in Basking Rage. So we've been in Newark for last 42 years. Good amount of time. And the way our church functions is all of the ministers in the church,
myself included, have left everything full-time ministry. Much like the Catholic priest, he also serve single uh
if there are there are some that are married but they remain celibate after after coming for the ministry. So our primary only ministry is to the church. So we don't
have anything else. Uh that's why we live on the premises pretty much. We have churches all over the world. So uh in work we have been living there same place for the last 42 years
asking which which we happy to we have lots of congregants here in this area. That's the reason why have our residents. So, so mainly uh it's just we're not trying to make it fancy, you know, it's
just so that we can have bedrooms and bathrooms, you know, just and it'll be split because we have both brothers and sisters like the priests and nuns in the
Catholic uh church. Uh we have both mainland ministers in the one section would be for section would be for the sisters lower would
so that's what you see in the I think actual plans that were that's the gist of plans that we have >> brick location. How many brothers and sisters do you have? >> Right now we have
eight >> total. >> My dad was a pastor, so I I'm kind of familiar with living in a parsonage and all those types of things. And and uh I I was just wondering because I looked at the location and and have services once a week. Do you have
multiple services? How does what's the structure of what's happening at the location? We have we have three services for sure every week. Sometimes we have five services. So it's it all depends but at least
three. >> Saturday, Sunday service. >> Wednesdays we have Bible study and Saturdays and Sundays we have and and then sometimes we have prayer meetings on Thursdays, Fridays. Uh it it
all changes. you know that's I mean sometimes you may have like an a minister who just comes by just to visit and that's why we have some extra rooms there in the plan but but that's that's all but we have at least eight and and
we get moved around uh from place to place. So >> how many How many permanent I'll call it um pastors would be on residence or sisters on res? >> That's that's eight.
>> Oh, eight total. Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean in case you know someone you know sometimes we have special events you know we have special meetings that we have visiting ministers come but that's the only reason why have them and
then >> but it would be restricted to I call it clergy men clergy women not um I want to stay over because I'm a petitioner you know it's getting late for a Bible study in five minutes stay over anything like that >> not at all you never know I mean you
have a lot of rooms Yes. Yes. The whole point the whole point of the purpose >> you could have a sleep in. That's different. That's >> sleeping there and living there. You know what I mean? That's a different type of >> and and the whole point is that this would be the residence for the ministries. That's the primary intent
especially because we have no other place you know we left everything you know to the church. We have a a school uh that's in operation right now. We have about 19 kids
>> residences. >> No, no, it th those rooms are already assigned. So it's it's not going to interfere in this area >> of other classrooms for the children. >> Correct. Yes, there there's already something. You guys are already occupying this property. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Um Mr. Sam, I hope you don't mind me asking. Um title pastor, Reverend, Minister, >> either either one. Yes. >> I I I would just call myself a brother. You know, that's >> brother Samuel. I like that.
>> Okay. Um another sort of relevant question. How many uh congregants do you have? >> We have about 280. Okay. Yes. Mhm. >> No, we don't live there right now. >> We live in Newark.
>> I see. >> Yes. So, so that's the whole point, you know, because >> plan us to move. >> That's okay. >> That's right. Exactly. We are already there as a church. We have been having services. The school is in operation since September,
but It's a full-time >> Sunday school or >> No, it's a full-time school. Yes. >> Are the residents or brothers and sisters going to be teachers also? Are they teachers? >> No. No, they're just ministers for the church. So, we we go to serve, you know,
people in different places, you know, going, you know, among our congregants. So, we serve, you know, at different children or women's or evangelism, different things. So, so we serve at
different capacities. >> Yes. No. No. Then they're not they're not teaching in the school. No. >> What is the average >> folks of your eight folks? >> Um I have been in the ministry for 21 years. Uh the senior pastor has been
there 50 years. We have and there's one person who just joined the ministry last whole range of possible that that your number of eight
um clerics would increase to 10 at some point in time or is it simply that you have eight and you have others who visit and that's sort of a permanent >> it it may it may fluctuate you know So, so that's the reason why, you know, at
at any point we are not planning to build another extension to the building. You know, there's no plan for that at all. So, the whole point is trying to manage within the premises what we can do for our not trying to not trying to
make it sensive or elaborate, just something that we can live in. Yes. No, they they're there they're there sometimes they have visits that they their primary focus currently is their
primary focus certain location and you have you have a house of worship like you know like a meeting assembly area. Yes. Yes. What exactly is going on? >> We have a sanctuary there already. >> Okay. >> And this would be a section that's not
in use right now worship. Yes. reuses, right? Prayer. Prayer. We have Bible study. We think our congregants
sometimes uh we go sick uh hospitals. like the services different ways, you know. So, it's it's everything everything that we're doing is basically church related. >> So, I understand what you're trying to
accomplish and I don't necessarily um this is any different than any other church. My question is if If if if an applicant were to come before us to build a church, we would be
looking at parking accommodate. Um certainly you would have to go through sewer and water. Do we have the capacity? Um I I'm very familiar with the area. It
backs up to, you know, an office park. The office is really defunct. So am I concerned about whether or not there's sewer? I'd be more concerned about identifying and describing or creating new language as to what a clergyman's residence would be and have that carry
to any other property when I feel as though this is specific to this property. What we describe and we define here may not necessarily work at another house of worship on another property. I was gonna ask Mr. Schlot
once we approve or >> interpret this use >> then it's going to still go before engineering and the building >> property is presently on a septic system that will have to go through the health department applicants aware of that uh
you know reertified is that all be handled >> where all the normal construction. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Different parking. >> They can determine on the use only if you determine that this is
permitted >> that renovation and putting in several bathrooms where there were none before or maybe one and showers or you know whatever. I I would think that that has to all be go through the permitting process and that's
>> this has no bearing on any of that. >> Can we make a determination though and and sort of um it to this location? I mean when we when we hear cases we base it on the the particular
>> attributes of the case of the property, right? So it it doesn't set precedent. I'm fearful of set setting precedent by precedent by saying this is how we see this is how we interpret the the clergyman's residence.
>> Well, not exactly. >> If we were to if we were to say yes, if we were to say that no, it's clergyman means a single clergyman, then they would have to come back to get a use variance >> in order to expand that. Hold on. >> Not necessarily. You could find that,
but you may also find that it's an accessory use. Therefore, it's Um I would also note I think if you if you look at it through this lens and I think correct me if you're wrong Mr. look at it through the lens of this particular project you're deciding
whether this particular project is a permitted use but you're asking is this does this fit the definition of clergy >> so >> this use >> this particular what's being presented before the board not a broad I mean I guess there's implications broadly
speaking >> right >> ordinance language it means anybody who wants to do this is going to come >> well and if it was another church or if it was another place of worship, they could certainly come back to us and say, "Well, you approved this definition or
this interpretation for that property, so why would you not approve our church or something?" >> This particular property, not any other property. We're talking about this property, >> right? But I'm saying if we issue a ruling, I would assume that at least a similarly situated
applicant that was a place of worship, it would could use that. And I don't I don't see any issue with that necessarily because we're still talking about a a religious institution coming back to us without setting precedent.
>> No, I'm not concerned. I I just I'm just saying it I I think it could be used as precedent. I don't see why it couldn't. >> It's not necessarily precedent, but it's it's certainly like for example, they're pointing to the Roman Catholic Church, St. James. Right. >> Right. >> It's an example, but it's not necessarily a precedent, right? because
you're applying to this particular property in this particular instance limited to this whether or not this particular contemplated use I want to say proposed use because it's not we're not looking at at an approval of any kind of improvements here but this whether or not this contemplated use
fits is a permitted use or not >> that's right but it's persuasive that St. James he's coming to us as the lawyer saying here's St. James they're doing this they're using it in their legal brief somebody else could come and do the same thing well you've you know St. James is allowed to do it and they're allowed to do it. >> St. James wasn't do it too, right?
>> They to be to be fair like St. James didn't come to the zoning board and request an interpretation, right? So, I guess it's it's how you define the the term precedent, right? And when I think president, I think like binding, you know, from a court that says like this is how it's going to be in every single
case. Very similar circumstances here. This kind of stands on its own merits so to speak. I mean, you know, if another, you know, very another house of worship could come in and want to do something similar to this, but it might be something that you find doesn't, you know, necessarily isn't necessarily
permitted based on how that particular project is presented, right? So, just because you decided here doesn't mean you have to >> but I'm just saying it could look arbitrary if we're like we approve it for this type of religious house and not another like if I I I don't know. What what if I came in and said, "I just
created the Church of Carl, and I want a 100 rooms in this building to house the people that >> just got certified to be the Church of Carl." >> That has to be different than this application. >> They all and you could distinguish it. I'm just saying it would certainly have
some weight. I would think >> maybe >> what I'm struggling with a little bit is that, you know, you guys are talking about St. James and and some of the other Catholic stuff and whatever. A lot of times those are separate buildings. They were actually built as homes and as residences. This started off as for lack
of a better word a business and you're converting a business building into a residence >> synagogue. But >> but well, >> but it's still somebody wasn't living there. It was it it had a it had a business purpose type of thing. >> Question about and the discussion about
precedent. I'm sorry but my question is what's the zoning officer going to do with information? somebody comes in and we grant this and is and somebody comes into the zoning officer and says, "Hey, >> gonna act on that or they still gonna send out." >> Yeah, I agree.
>> When the president comes officer makes it >> and the zoning officer depending on how long down the road it is, they'll, >> you know, just become something in town that that's what >> Can I ask I think one of the things is we have a relatively new zoning officer in town, too. So, he's being careful.
Can I can I ask what which has happened where we've had commercial type buildings that are getting converted into residential type buildings? Um what are the restrictions
or what is how does that come into play from a zoning perspective? What what's required for that? Because I sort of see that that's sort of what this is happening. >> Architectural standard, right? applicant has the right to have one resident >> right
>> now they can go ahead and >> without any approval construction code requirements architectural standards for anybody building house they can make the backs and height and clock cover
>> apartments. Wouldn't they have >> it's permitted? We have one of the affordable use in that location of the new ordinances adopted last year by That's the because there are other types of facilities commercial and otherwise right that could have all kinds of
changes focus on. >> Yeah. Yeah, we're getting to I hear that. So to that point, I guess again there's like two major two main questions here. Is it is this a clergyman's residence and therefore a permitted principal use of the property?
Right. So you know that's the question we need to ask and we also need to get answered by the applicant as well because this is ultimately their case. So >> then two principal uses then if it's if it's both the >> where they live and then also the place of worship,
>> right? So the ordinance defines it as a let me pull it up because I want yeah the so houses of worship and or houses of worship with cler which implies that the governing body intended for the house of worship with
the principal use of the property. Right? So that's question one. Is it a permitted? Not could it be a I mean meaning meaning that it's not a clergy of his residence but nevertheless it's an accessory use of a house of
worship and therefore it's per >> right >> can we take a poll on it I think it's an accessory use but I don't know what other people are maybe we can take a poll on that think what if we no did approve a I'm sorry interpret it as a um
acceptable use Right. >> What if they said came back and said, "We want 16 rooms. We want a 100 rooms." Is that okay? Like what's the limit on what principal use and number of rooms could be in a >> Well, again, you're you're judging it based on what they're presenting to you right now, right? Let's say they wanted to add another again, correct me if I'm
wrong, council, if they wanted to add another five, six bedrooms, probably have to come back because it's a different >> Well, it depends with the zoning officer. We're only here because the zoning officer kind of punted us on a Well, that's that's getting more into
like the legislative >> portion. I mean, ultimately, you know, situations like this, this would be something for the annual report to tell the governing body, hey, you guys better take a look at this because ordinance isn't exactly clear and the zoning officer couldn't figure it out. Now, we have to figure it out, >> right?
>> Project for another day. >> Structure on this under That's the the difference I'm seeing between the two. >> Well, they're living on the property for a different for a different purpose though. For >> Yeah, that's >> it's not for the school. It's for >> wrong. I'm just saying it's different
that way. >> Yeah. But I'm not seeing the distinction between this use of convent, rectory, monastery in the accessory uses that's quoted here and what they're looking to do. It sounds the same to me,
>> right? But that's why I don't think it's a principal use. I think it has to be accessory because it is listed. And and to Tom's point, there's a provision under uh additional use standards uh section 21-10
Oh, no, I'm looking the wrong one. 21-12.3F4 uh which states, and I'll quote it, no house of worship shall be located within 100 ft of any property line. Uh however, the setback requirement requirements for a separate clergy man's residence located on the same premises as a house
of worship need only satisfy the requirements established for other residences in the zone which is arguably it could be stated that you know I'm just saying what it could be um that implies that a clergyman's
residence would be a separate building from from the main building. Right? That doesn't necessarily mean it's not right. Right. >> So, so let's look at it. Let's just let's circle around for a second.
>> What would be the alternative >> if we were to say, and I think Mr. Lindamman uh touched on it, if we were to say that we're not willing to make the interpretation or we were to say we don't find it a permitted use, would he have to come
back to the zoning board for it with a devariance? at which time we could evaluate the project as it stands. >> Yes. If you find that it's not a permitted use in any way, shape or form, then presumably they have to come back for a D1 D1 use.
>> Yes. excuses and the only question is one or more >> well and also whether it's separate or part of the same structure I mean you know there's there's a lot to evaluate >> either way even >> right
>> right that's another question but it's you know principal use is the truth, >> right? >> I believe based on my research
other than you're so I guess your contention is that the house of worship here is the principal use, right? I'm just revisiting and the residential component of it, let's just call it that, is accessory to that use. That's what >> and the ship case says that in the
context of a daycare set, >> right? >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. And yeah, the opinion, you know, theoretically, the board's opinion could be that, you know, in this particular case, this is an accessory use. However, you know, just based on on
the fact that it's, you know, in the same building, it's not a separate building. um you know the clergy are are living on the premises would be serving this particular location and not it's not you know serving as like a hotel but you know like just a general
like you know boarding house for for clergy folk for who serve other you know parishes or uh you know locations there's a way to write you know for the board to to opine through the resolution what types of parameters and and a
distinction between this particular use and other potential uses. Can we set an occupancy limit or no? >> We're not really setting anything >> in our in our resolution. I'm just curious. >> I mean, you could theoretically you could speak in the resolution to the idea that um
you know in this particular let's say just for sake of an example this particular instance eight ministers seems to be an accessory use. However, if it was 100 ministers you know then we're you know
right potentially a lot. You don't know. I mean, I I feel like >> But if they said, "We're not going to do a school anymore. We're going to make more rooms." Do they have to come back or did we approve it?
another wing which is separate from classrooms and activities. So it's a very se while it's attached it's a it's an entirely separate discrete >> off of the church you know and it's and
and to get to the other wing you have to pass through the sanctu I mean you can get you have you can go through the sanctuary but there's also another entrance there's a >> is there a corridor that goes around it is separate >> it is separate it's kind of separate by itself
>> from the rest of the building it's quick >> to comment on that. The it could end up being 100. What What exactly? How did it end up here? If you didn't need site plan approval, if you didn't need zoning approval, how
did the zoning board? How did that the zoning officer know that you wanted eight people to move in? So, you just came and asked. So, >> yeah. So potentially if this other example would be a situation where they didn't ask and they just did
>> because if they do ask again then they would you would give if they asked to do a hundred 100 clergymen it would come back here for interpretation. >> You get 100 people. >> Yeah. No I'm just using the same same example like saying that's what I'm
asking. >> Yeah. by by the number control the number. >> Um, isn't that addressing this, >> right? Exactly.
>> Could we say our interpretation is it's up to 10 or something? What whatever we decide? I don't know. I mean >> this particular one that I mean but but I'm saying in this in the context of interpreting clergymen's residence,
couldn't we interpret that how we want? There you go. I see. >> They're specific to the site. >> Okay. >> They're gonna They really ought to be the ones. >> Got it. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. >> Well, if we allow 13,
we know there are 13 rooms going in. >> Yes. just just to get some understanding there. You know, the truth of the matter is >> you'd have to go back to engineering >> to have them approve
plans when we do the building plans. So at that time they will say don't put 13 rooms. So you know this is just a concept in the sense of understanding >> exactly what's exactly >> exactly
>> and it's not even and again >> I hate to be the lawyer exactly I hate to be the lawyer >> well this is a tough >> answer yeah interpretation answer to the question and I just another thing I want to point out um because we're talking
about the hypothetical of 100 ministers living on this property right at a certain point you know you got to Keep in mind for it to let's say we go down the route where we consider this an accessory use of the property an accessory use it has to be incidental and subordinate to the principal use. So
if it becomes to comes to a point where it's 100 person you know living facility is that necessary to the house of worship or is that now a principal use right exactly so that's in that sense like that's why you judge based on what's presented not necessarily you you
can't there's a million hypotheticals we come up with here but at the end of the day we have to kind of render our decision based on what they're asking in this particular instance is this particular that's contemplated permitted or not Right. And I guess, you know, you could, you know, in explaining why why it is or
it isn't, >> you could say, "All right, well, you know, in this situation, there's only eight people living here, 13 bedrooms. You have a couple guest residences. This particular situation, yeah, this would be an accessory. That doesn't apply to, you know, somebody comes in for 20, for example,
different property. Yeah. Right. >> So, are we are we approving >> plans? You're answering whether or not this is a permitted user. >> Yeah. >> All right. Not approving anything. >> These plans have nothing to do with >> Well, they do, but they don't. That makes sense.
>> And you said it is it's done by resolution, though. So, there is a resolution. >> Oh, yeah. resolution come out of this 100%. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask >> it be tailored in a way that says that I'm sure it'll get kicked around a few times between everybody's comments on it, but uh it'll be a good >> have one other question. Um I'm assuming
the answer is no, but is there any rent being charged to the the brothers and sisters? >> We don't even have a personal bank account. >> Okay. Okay. >> That's how we live. >> Okay. Everything is as I said, you know, I I
used to be an engineer before I left that job to be >> saying I'm thinking about doing the same. I mean, this might be a weird question. Do you own a car then? Are there eight? I mean, if we had 13 cars, >> all we have about six cars, they're all
titled to the church. >> And is there enough sufficient parking to handle We have 80 80 parking congregants. >> Okay. >> I saw that there was like a back lot too. >> There's a back lot >> overflow are. Yes.
>> So in truth I mean you meet all of the other standards. We we saw all the other standards in in Mr. Schlly's uh report. >> Okay. I thought I thought you I thought they met you. You meet the size of the property. Correct.
>> Right. 98 Dave, if they let's say that the board says this is a permitted use one way or another type, they want to go ahead with building this making the renovations, they don't need to come back for conditional use approval that point. It just goes straight to the building department.
>> Okay. >> And it goes through the building department or it goes to the planning board? just goes through the building department. >> Any of the parking have to be changed, right? >> Oh, you add residence. It doesn't
increase or change. >> Got it. their brothers and sisters. Not I'm going to say this families that are going to be cooking outside or I mean not that they can't cook outside. I'm just saying it's not like it's not like 10 families with kids that I think
there's restrictions on hours and stuff like that for different things. >> Yeah. Yeah, the same restrictions are in place. >> Having a backyard. >> That's right. >> I'm not saying >> Yes. >> I'm not saying >> we we don't have anything of that nature. >> Yeah. I mean, large families versus
individuals or >> we they're all all the eight so far they're all single. So, >> what happens? >> Oh, the church. If it's at all relevant, if they did want to deviate any further from the conditional use standard, come back here
for a D3 use, additional use, I should say >> right. Exactly. Yeah. So, I think that it is it's it's a lot to digest, but I think that if we could if we can focus
on just this location that we're not creating language for the township committee or nor for the planning board and I I looked in the master plan and there's nothing I didn't find anything there either. Um, so I don't want to define language for
the township. I would prefer that that was done by the planning board or by the uh township committee. However, if we can look at this just as this location, whether or not it is an accessory use, I
think we probably all agree with that. Um, yeah, I'm getting shaking of heads. I think I think that we could all probably agree it's an accessory use. And if we look because we can't help ourselves anyway, right? We're all looking at it
as whether or not it works at this location. We're all thinking that, right? We are. Um so I think that if we can limit it to this location and we can look at it as a as an accessory use and and write it up that it's specific to this
location and and >> Oh yeah, I'm going to have fun with this. >> Why it works? Well, in the >> technically it it I well, from my perspective, it works here. Um because of the location, because you're right
next to a a um uh an office zone, um they just turned the uh one office park into the residence, which is the living facility that's right behind. I kind of feel like this sort of works in this area. you know that that's not where
we're voting on right now, but because we're looking at it as an interpretation for this location, I can find comfort. So, I would I would ask if >> the explanation of the structure of the church and the explanation of the people that
>> the purpose of their use >> right on the edge of, you know, highway and Absolutely. And I I don't find it to be intensifying anything. >> I But I see no one in the audience here like having say about this either. So
>> takes offense. He takes offense in that one. >> Yeah. But Todd doesn't live there. >> One thing though is >> well buffered too. It's well buffered between the >> as far as the septic system though. I mean certainly you're going to have additional flows here. So
that's that's board of health has to worry about that and if if if need be a new another tank would have to be added. Correct. Something to that effect. Yeah. Right. So, um, so >> I don't think >> I think what you're
>> I don't think so >> this >> but but it does sort of I liked the your explanation about accessory versus principal and I don't know if that can be in the resolution but like it's it's accessory because it's not the entire
use of the property and maybe it's you know it it could subsume that If it became all residential, it would no longer be accessory. >> Word words incidental, subordinate, and customary makes it an accessory use. >> Yeah.
>> So, it's incidental to the house of worship. I'm not speaking for the board. I'm just throwing this out there as a possible opinion. The board hasidental to the house of worship, subordinate to the house of worship, and customary to houses of worship. >> Right. Out of curiosity, what percentage of the overall
um square footage are you converting into residential? >> Um it's about that that area is not being used. customers because only about 15% of the building
that plays into it being an accessory use. >> Exactly. That's what I was going to say. If that's another condition we can put in >> I'm saying about approximately >> Yeah, I got it. >> Less than 25% something. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Less than a quarter
would be good. Less than a quarter would be good. >> Less than a quarter works. a relatively small portion of the building. Mr. >> Yeah. Well, can can we say actually less than 25%. >> I I would I would hesitate on like saying because it's less than 25%
specifically than it is, but I think >> Well, it could it could be something that in this case it's less than 25%, >> right? >> Which is why we felt that it was accessory. >> Yeah, I I hear that. I'm just just specifically wording it. Mike, I I I hesitate to put like a specific number
on it. just leave it like general like hey because it's only a smaller portion of the building. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> An interpretation. Do we have to stipulate to your letters? >> No exists. Exterior site change crux of
the issue testimony shall be printed and there's really nothing in there that the the environmental commission. So your letter is covered by the >> an outline of here. >> They'd be required to get all that stuff anyway evening
it as a condition or not. I don't think you can really impose conditions on a situation like this because it's not really >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> No, I but and you're comfortable with everything in your memo that we've touched on everything. So
Okay. Does do we open this to the public as well? Well, I would. Yeah. So, does anybody else have any comment or question? >> Nope. Uh, does anybody from the public have any questions or
>> Yep. Come on. >> Questions or is or are these comments? >> Okay. So, warning on this one. >> Yeah, I got Stein 172 Riverside Drive. >> Ridstein, do you swear affirm the testimony about provide the truth? The whole truth, nothing but the truth be God. Please.
>> I just when I was growing up with one of my best friend, his he was son of a Presbyterian minister. They actually moved out of church. Well, they had accessory house and a family. So really
question is I I understand what you just said. They're all, you know, brothers and sisters. They're celebrating a lot of them. But this goals will turn into 18 people of, you know, 18 families
also. This >> No, not necessarily because what we're what we're deciding here is whether or not this particular instituted, right? So, if let's say somebody wanted to turn this into an apartment building, that'd be an entirely separate process. They probably need a D1, right? Apartment buildings aren't multif family is not
permitted here, right? Yeah. >> I thought by the >> right this is not a like you know for or against it was just >> yeah throwing it against the wall like everything else been >> right. >> I had that same question before understanding what the makeup of the
church is and thought that you know >> I thought it was like a family living in one side and a family living in the other first or second floor. um if it's structured this way and if it out this way you know >> I also want you know like at the church
of coral um >> you know like we have an occupancy in this room you know maybe you can't have more than 144 people in this room so the fire code I guess they determine
there's a a square footage per person and may I know you don't want to exact numbers but this probably something to be thought you know for living space per person about you know
>> I think all that will be handled at the constru during construction and building permits so all of that permitting >> I said I'm just >> will be evaluated >> against the wall I you know means nothing to me one way or another I'm just sitting there I'm just like you're
you're trying to fight it out here trying to figure out and >> I know we've gotten burnt before by making exact numbers and so >> right >> have that problem again that's what I was I was thinking
>> thank you Mr. Estee >> actually Mr. Stein brought up raised a point in my mind I think correct me if I'm wrong board members but I think the fact that it's individual ministers and not families living in these residential component that factors into
it being an accessory to a house of worship. Right. >> I don't I already >> I did before. That's why I'm bringing it up. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Good. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, public comment is closed. Um,
now is this aation and motion? >> Yeah. So, I think >> why don't you why don't you outline what we're actually going to be voting on. >> Okay. If let So, let me try to put it like this. Um,
let me do a straw poll first, I guess, before we get into it. So, I think this is my understanding. Nobody thinks this is a principal permitted use, right? But everyone thinks it's a permitted accessory use, right? Okay. So I suppose
um the motion would be to adopt the opinion that the use presented here is a permitted accessory use. Um backtrack I'm trying to get it correct like as precise as possible. It's motion
to adopt the opinion that this what is presented here is a permitted accessory use of this particular property based on the concept plans that were provided, testimony provided as well. Um numerous
factors uh few of them being and please pop in um that a relatively small portion of the building would be occupied by this uh residential component. Um this residential component is limited Yeah, exactly. Oh, the Yeah, all the
accessory lang. Yeah, this particular use presented here is uh uh incidental, subordinate and customary to a house of worship use. Um other reasons being its individual ministers, ministers living here that serve this
particular house of worship. Um I'm sure there's other reasons that write down in my notes ask what happens if they decide the building
to sell the building. Somebody else comes in and says shelter of some sort or something else for So, so it would not it would no longer be licensed for that. >> You might end up No, this this is
limited solely to the what's presented this residential component. Now, without getting too far into it, there's a lot of case law that suggests that shelters are accessory uses to churches, but we don't need to get into that because that's not being presented here. And that's a >> I guess is there just anything that
>> doesn't get to be there. >> Um if the building get sold, >> not a house of worship. >> It would have to be house of worship. >> Does it have to? >> Well, it could be anything. It could be the property could be used as anything that's permitted in the R1 zone. If if they want to do something that isn't already permitted, they'd have to come
to the zoning board to get a use variance. I couldn't make it like turn it into like a hostel. Okay. told to another house of worship. They could use it. Just house of worship used it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> I apologize. I didn't ask you. Was there Anything else that you wanted to share? >> Good check. Yeah, >> keep going. >> We're good at that. >> I got you know it's funny. I I had surgery.
>> Where are you? >> Okay. So, so do you think that you >> outline that? >> You're ready to kick it over to us and >> give me one second. I'm just trying to write down a couple minutes. Fill some time. Ask more questions. Everybody go for
>> uh Does anybody else have any any comments to make before we kick off to a maybe a motion? Might add one more line. >> How would we know how they're using it? Never know any property. >> Any property.
>> Yeah, it's true of any. Yeah, I know. >> In fact, we would want it to stay the same way, I would think. >> All right. Do I need to open it back up to the >> one more time? I need to open it up to the public. >> Todd, >> come up here and >> to see if there's any questions or
comments. >> That's Oh my god. What's the term? Um Oh my god. When When they're in the Senate and they How am I forgetting this? >> Yeah, I know. Um Yeah, I think Yeah, I Yeah, but I think this is this is enough to to give us this and you guys we talked about a lot of stuff tonight, so
it's a lot to kind of encapsulate. I'll if need be I'll go back to the tape and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is the general gist of it right so the motion would be to adopt the opinion that uh this proposed that's what presented here is not a permitted principal use but is a permitted
accessory use by virtue of uh the occupants of this residential component uh being ministers that would be serving be serving this this specific house of worship um a relatively small portion of the building would be occup occupied by this residential component. Um this
residential component is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the house of worship and you know this type of living arrangement is customary to houses of worship in general >> sense. >> Yeah. And I'm sure there's other reasons too that that are were already put on
the record that I can go back to, but I think that's a general way to off That's what Yeah, I think that's great. >> I didn't hear you >> adding a component of >> Yeah, you could. Yeah. Yes. Just like transients or like gas housing. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah.
>> Well, They've already stated that they're going, >> but that's not the p the the primary intended use, right? Yeah. >> Long-term. >> I would I would still consider that a permanent as opposed to somebody.
>> Right. Exactly. I mean, you have a guest pastor and I'm there for there for a week. That's >> not your primary how you're using the residence >> longterm. >> I think I think I add batting. Um, also the board also
consider it an accessory residential component will be housing long-term residents with minimal guest accommodations. Minimal guest accommodations. if on resolution, right? >> The board says it. >> I think you got you got to tie it to the plan.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It'll it'll Yeah. >> I I apologize. I've never done it interpretation ever before. I don't think many lawyers. >> Got a new terror. Yeah. >> That was the proposed motion, I guess. So the motion the motion would be to um
uh grant the or >> find motion to adopt the opinion >> adopt the opinion >> that >> that this is a permitted accessory use >> all of the stipulations outlined >> by the board attorney >> and all the reasons set forth on the
record via testimony and uh other evidence. >> Am I making that motion? Well, how about if we would anybody else like to make that motion >> have to make it by in the same verbage like >> whatever you'd like it to be. >> So moved.
>> Uh motion to accept that this is this interpretation is an accessory use based on the testimony provided today. >> Fair enough. >> I'll second. Wonderful. >> Krauss,
>> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Silver, >> yes. >> Miss Trap, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Bowman. >> Yes. >> Luck. Thank you. >> Welcome to Welcome to the town.
>> We didn't scare you off after >> you've been here. We've been here for a year now and it's so happy to be here. Yeah. >> Need to visit. >> Okay. Just a couple of housekeeping items. I believe we have to uh cancel next week's meeting, the special meeting
for next Thursday. Correct? >> Yeah. I didn't see anything on the agenda. So, unless you're >> we'll cancel next week's meeting. Um do we have any comments from members or >> Neil? >> Um yep. So, I would like love to make a
comment. I I welcome our new members. We are so happy to have you. We know uh some of your experience from from your past and we're very happy to have you. Very happy to have the continuing members. You guys are doing a great job. You've you've you jumped right in and
not everybody does that their first year through. I'm very happy to have everybody returning and thank you for your confidence in me. Motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? >> I