mr sl there we are okay sorry everybody for starting a few minutes um late tonight uh the first item uh uh that we're going to do is call to order uh tonight's Township of Bernard Zoning Board of Adjustment um the first
item on the agenda is our flag salute so if you can stand please stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and
justice for all in accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting laws notice of this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building on Kier Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey it was also mailed to the Bernardsville News
Whippony New Jersey the Courier News in Bridgewwater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerkall on January 9th of this year it was also mailed electronically to all those who had requested individual notice the following procedures been adopted by the Bernard's Township Zoning Board of Adjustment there will be no new cases
heard after 10 o'clock tonight and no new testimony heard after 10:30 uh Miss Keeper can you do a roll call for us certainly dr arwell Mr krauss Miss Padichi and Miss Silver have all indicated they are unable to attend
this evening uh Chairwoman Jun here Miss Bon here Miss Herrera Miss Pear here Miss Trump here Miss Warner here Mr quinn here Mr schlly here and for the record uh Miss Kefir is
present madam Chair you have a quum you may proceed great thank you Miss Kefir obviously we have a little um fewer members on the board tonight given that it is uh our uh school week uh that is uh on break so we have a few less members but we do have a quorum so
thanks for everybody who made it tonight um the first uh item on the agenda is we want to just discuss there's a a third case that we're hearing tonight Pucci um and I just want to clarify uh
if there are comments to be made about that application just so that we can schedule accordingly mr zelli good evening madam chair members of the board board professionals Frederick Zelli Post Pollock on behalf of that applicant mr mrs paduchcci uh it is my understand that Mr greg who's in the audience is
request or has requested an adjournment uh we disagree with that we oppose it uh notice and just for for purposes of the board who requested the adjournment or who we going to hear neighbor to our right number 15 okay
and I can he can speak for himself as to his reasons but it's just a heads up we are not consenting to it okay so you're ready to proceed with your case tonight yes okay thank you and is the neighbor here okay i just want to get settled what
we're doing tonight so that we can plan accordingly and if I'm not mistaken sir you are an attorney correct i am but I'm here on my own behalf today exactly so for that to be extra cautious while Mr zel's counsel for his client can make representations and propers I'm going to
swear you in if you don't mind sure please raise your right hand do you swear to God or testimony about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you and of course as I suspect you know we're not going to talk about the merits of the application this is simply a request with respect toment correct as I
understand it there may may be if I understand correctly an issue with notice which certainly the would want to hear any concerns with notice because notice is jurisdictional the board cannot proceed tonight or ever until proper notice is served so we may need
to make a determination with respect to that as well we don't know what we're going to hear about it right but with the chair's permission just give us your address sure and then explain the request for the what if any concerns you have with respect to notice very good thank you is
this being recorded yes okay uh Gregory Bag 15 Pittney Court Basking Ridge can you spell your last name b as in boy e G G okay and for purposes and clarity of the board what we're doing here is just listening to um Mr beg's uh comments on
why we might not want to hear this case tonight if I understand correctly yes okay um so first of all I did not receive notice what I did receive was a card uh in the mail or dropped at my door that said "If you would like to
receive this letter please fill out the card put it back in the mailbox and it will be delivered." And who is that card from uh that's a good question i don't know okay i returned it to from the post office i returned it to the post office right okay is that Yeah I can address
from a legal perspective although maybe it'd be prudent um do you have any concerns with respect to the notice that was or was not provided to you well I am requesting an adjournment at which point I will be represented by council unless we resolve the matter with the neighbor which I would much prefer rather than
being here sure um so I'm I'm reserving my right to make arguments about notice but that's what I'm aware of i did not ever receive a letter i just want to understand if you received notice or not yeah no I understand i'm going to get that i want to see if there were any
other issues for now at least i understand you're reserving your rights yes mr zelli do you wish to weigh in on whether or not you believe notice was proper and why i believe notice was proper it was mailed on March 24th we submit an affidavit it has the receipts
attached to it uh so in fact 16 days notice was given when statute requires 10 so I think there's been ample notice provided i don't think there's any issue with and and I'll I'll make a determination but at least at
this stage um the only issue that's been raised with respect to notice is the fact that I guess you received a part but not the actual notice and it was from the post office apparently um they never returned anything no I I understand that but for a moment I'll
speak to the requirements of an applicant to provide notice what they are and what they are not um and the legislation is the legislation we may not love it but it's the statute that governs us as an attorney I know you're aware uh that the statute is what governs us uh under the municipal land
use law uh the requisite notice to be provided is at least 10 days prior to the hearing the applicant must publish in one of the official quote unquote newspapers and the extent they still print and there's special legislation that's in existence now that covers
those that don't print the newspapers uh uh uh the um online digital Um it appears from the affidavit of service that I reviewed uh that was done and that publication was done and the content of the notice was sufficient in
my opinion uh the publication was done on March 27th uh uh from the affidavit and from the copy from uh the Burnersville News they have their own affidavit as well so the publication part appears to have been done correctly both by way of content
and timely publication the other method by which one an applicant must serve is certified mail or personal delivery um which is what we call personal service under the statute uh and the way that is done is the tax assessor provides what
is called a 200 foot property list and the subject property in this case lot I don't even have it but but whatever the lot number is 14 um is the subject property and what the tax assessor does is they provide a list uh
showing all the properties within 200 ft of the perimeter of that subject property lot 14 I guess it is here and so long as the property these properties even touch it you know sliver uh is sufficient you are within the 200 ft you
must get that notice what is required under the law is that it be mail by certified mail or delivered by personal service um the affidavit uh provides that it was certified mail uh
and that was cross referenced by Cindy uh Keeper and checked off so I understand that she could reconfirm uh that uh all these addresses were proper within the 200 foot appear to have been served or at least sent correct the
affidavit i certified it when I got that and I also reviewed it again today and we also have copies of the certified mail receipts uh with the March 24th date stamp and bear with me because I'm literally just looking nowadays they
don't have names says property owner various new statutes um protect people uh because unfortunately this is a my own opinion um not that of the boards um to me it's unfortunate uh that we have
to be so protected nowadays but to the extent we have to be thankfully we are um I'll stop editorializing um I'm sorry sir your street address on 15 15 it's right next door to 21 they're numbered that way for whatever reason 15 is
listed here 15 PY Court Basking Ridge New Jersey March 24th so apparently uh it was certified mailed sufficient with the affidavit for purposes of the board to make a determination that it has jurisdiction based on the service and
and the fact that the content of the notice was sufficient i will tell you that 10 days in advance and here it was more than 10 days um is all that's required i am personally aware of situations where things have been sent in our US postal service is what it is
uh and sometimes people have gotten it the day of the day after the hearing um but all that is required is 10 days prior sending mailing of uh the notice u in fact I think it's even conceivable if
I'm not mistaken that if the post office messes up and somehow loses it or something that might even still constitute service but here per the affidavit it appears as if um legally service was sufficient content of the
notice was sufficient under the municipal land use law the applicable cases the pond run case uh in particular and it appears that it was timely published more than 10 days in advance and timely certified mailed to everyone
within the 200 foot list on these tax assessors list which applicants are allowed to rely on um the uh was mailed at least 10 days prior so the fact of the matter is unless and until something different arises um in my legal opinion
the notice was sufficient for purposes of jurisdiction of the board now there's an additional issue and that is you're requesting an adjournment yes um so putting aside the notice issue for the time being uh it appears to be sufficient appears the board has jurisdiction to hear and decide tonight
if the board decides to do so why don't you address the reasons for your request for an adjournment uh and then Mr have an opportunity to weigh in as to why he opposes he still does uh and then the board particularly through the chair can make a determination but I will also
offer some relevant uh uh bylaw and other legal guidance right well thank you um on the issue of notice and I don't know I'm you know I'm requesting an adjournment and if my lawyer when he returns uh chooses to debate that I I
don't know whether that'll be necessary or not my purpose of being here is to request an adjournment to have additional time but related to that issue is the fact that as I understand it they're submitting a revised proposal this evening and we've discussed that um
and I have said that I'd be happy to discuss what is being newly proposed but I need sufficient time to do that um with regard to my request for adjournment section 2 col2-5 of the board's rules and
regulations state the following quote the board may also grant reasonable requests of interested parties to continue a matter in order to avoid sfford such parties sufficient time to prepare engage counsel obtain witnesses
or for other good cause however the board shall do so only to the extent that the applicant's interests are not unduly compromised or prejudiced with respect to the applicant's protected interests pursuant to prevailing law where adjournment for a continuence
would extend the statutory period within which the board is required to act the consent of the applicant thereto shall be evidenced in writing or shall be made a part of the record i did ask for consent and um it was not granted uh
I'll continue the board received the application from what I could see from the file in the short time that I've had to review it um on February 12th although I will tell you that when I reviewed the file initially um there was
no date stamp of date of receipt of the application on it was lacked a stamp and then when I was provided records there was this date stamp of February 12 2025 so it's not clear to me when it actually was received um because of the what I originally viewed did not have a date
stamp on it and when did you originally review it monday monday i learned through my neighbors I think Saturday or Sunday or Friday or Saturday or Sunday and I came and viewed the file on Monday and there were a few discrepancies i really don't feel like I
want to get into that but I'll continue to cite the rule and really it's just a request for an adjournment um the application was deemed incomplete on March 5th a notice was sent to the applicant on March 19 scheduling the
hearing for April 9 the March 19 March 19th completeness notice would set a statutory date of July 17 2025 right for the expiration of time for the expiration of the time which means that it would not be unduly compromised by
granting an adjournment here because the board could still act within the statutory time period uh section 2 colon 2-6 of the board's rule state where an applica where an applicant refuses to consent to a continuence so that objectors can be heard or the board has
insufficient opportunity consider the to consider the matter such as him presenting a proposal revised proposal tonight such refusal by the applicant may be deemed arbitrary and unreasonable by the board should the applicant move
the board to decide the matter without granting a continuence under the circumstances the applicant shall be at risk of a denial of the application for failure to sustain the burden of proof and/or failure to afford the board an
opportunity to reach a sufficient informed decision 22-5 and 22-6 and also New Jersey statutes annotated 40 col 55D-73 and uh 2
col2-6 of the board's roles um that's the information I was provided by my attorney who could not be here tonight so no do you have any other further bases
for the request this is not trivial there's substantial issues here they want a for nearly 40% increase in the floor plan away from the merits of the case just just I just really want to focus on your reasons for the attorney review their existing plans
review the revised plans have my attorney look at them have an engineer look at them let's see if we can resolve it so I'd like some time to do that sure the board understands um the if you have nothing further on the request for
I'm sorry i do not okay thank you thank you uh the the the uh Mr zelli do you have a response do you uh continue to object and if so why uh I do um just briefly with regard to the notice the fact that they received the card from the post office means that the certified
mail was done properly obviously we can't control whe someone that's physically received and as a matter of law the card is not required to be provided the actual green card but if it was received and provided even further substantiates that
the mailing was done but it's literally just on mailing it that's what the law says there's a little green ticket in the file I can't even read it to see what it says I tell you what I did that's understood just a matter of the statute requires them to send it and if
they who they sent it I get it not it's Not it's not much it's not much noticed well the the uh I I don't mean this other than literally um it may be that the statute should be changed um
but it hasn't yet you may be you may be right on that i agree but uh Mr zelli please continue with the chair's permission if the application had not been sh Well you haven't seen the new revision there is a revision coming uh if there were no revision I would be
They had 16 days we only had to give them 10 mr beg is a partner at a prominent construction law firm i'm sure he would have access to engineers or whomever he would want uh to consult he's certainly not an unsophisticated recipient in this
case uh and so I take the position and do take the position that he should have been prepared this evening to deal with the application as it was filed that having been said the resolution revision that we're going to be showing this
evening is one which is designed to drastically improve the situation to bring the impervious coverage count uh very close to uh to compliance actually especially if you I know you don't want to get to the merits but I'd like to understand the difference in the application like the
significance of the difference in the application can you just give me the it's going to significantly reduce the impervious coverage variance um honestly there's you as we've all talked about before the discounting of the uh pool surface when you get to that if you take
that off you're down almost to the 20 that's how drastically we've changed it and on the floor ratio floor ratio is that's no change so what I would suggest is that the board hear this evening if during the course of a
hearing you feel that the revision is such that they were unfairly you know ambushed by it or something like that at that you could carry it uh you could adjourn it at that point for the continuation but at least we would get started the other thing I would add in just practical matter two things one as
you all know anytime we adjourn one of these hearings that delays the project of the applicant in this case Miss Ponuchi actually flew in from Florida this morning specifically to be here tonight so in a German we had no idea about the German suggestion at that time
that's all I can say with the chair's permission the bylaws were accurately stated bag excuse me bag be e g yes yes m um the uh and uh the time to act was
accurately stated uh so uh if there were a German so as to for the uh neighbor who may or may not be objecting um uh an opportunity uh to review discuss uh potentially resolve
potentially not resolved if not resolved get council andor an expert involved uh it would not bring us to the point I imagine if I may chair uh the uh Cindy if it were carried would it be carried
to one month uh to the May meeting such that uh it would still be two months or so away from our time to act and requiring applicants consent to an extension of time to act we would carry it to May okay so it would only be one
month uh it would give everyone an opportunity to review the new revision including the objector uh and to make a determination as to how to respond thereafter um I think it is within the discretion of the board to either grant
or deny the German request it's within I would submit within the range of reasonableness um but uh it might be prudent uh to give serious consideration to the German request was to ensure that we put everybody involved a fair
opportunity uh to appear and be heard um and it's unfortunate that applicant had had to fly up but it's a user fee situation and it's a you know it's it's a it's dictated to a large extent by the applicant it is
unfortunate but um So it's for the board to consider as to what is the most prudent course of whether it wishes to grant the German request or not um and maybe to the board and particular the chair
okay okay thank you thank you so I suppose you'll deliberate or Well it's not it's an actual it's not an actual vote per se on merits of the application or anything to do with that it's just a matter for the chair to make that determination frankly from her own
discretion on behalf of the board but the chair may wish to hear from the board members as well and take that into consideration no well I'm always happy to hear um any comments uh from the board members and I assure you that we give serious consideration to every
request um that comes in um based upon what I have heard here tonight I am comfortable that the notice uh was sufficient it may not be in the form that uh you wanted it but the notice itself was um sufficient um I appreciate
the fact that we have time to act to July having said that you know that isn't a reason to to give in an adjournment um but I do give credence to the fact that it sounds like there are significant changes to the application that neither the board has reviewed or
any of the people on notice have reviewed and for that reason um I would be comfortable uh adjourning this i I appreciate Mr zelly's comment that we could hear it and then adjourn it i would rather not do that i'd rather do
it much more efficiently um there are times and many times in the past that we have carried meetings to uh to future meetings if if it's in uh the best interest of the case such that we can hear everything that we need to hear and I think that's probably in the best case for this one um those are my thoughts
just want to check with with other members of the board my question is the documents that we received to review have they changed significantly yes they have yes and I would want to Okay any comments the other way okay so uh
we're going to carry this uh Mr zi I do uh I do feel uh for Miss Fucci i know it's break time i don't know if that had you know weighed into flying back up here it is very uh unfortunate it's a cost i appreciate all that but the the
likelihood that we would finish this case tonight is near zero based upon what I've heard i think there's a high chance that we would have ended up hearing it going on for a long period of time and then coming back anyway so I think it's in the best case of everyone
here to to carry it to the May meeting cindy would do we have room on that schedule for for the next They will be the first applicant on you'll be the first applicant on the May meeting so that's excuse me May she's going to tell us because I'm going to announce it very
loudly and clearly date time and place because I that's what the statute says and I'm all about the statute so May 7th May 7th this matter will be carried without further notice to May 7 at 7:30
p.m at the same location we're not moving right Cindy okay but at this municipal building that is daytime and place for carrying this matter so just just to be clear on that that's without further notice without further notice if there are new plans will there be new
documents such that I've submitted the electron I'll be just about two hours ago we submitted them to you'll submit proper sizes okay and the board will receive that in advance which will make it more the bank has those as well okay i don't think I do and and the reason we
we've made the determination that the notice is sufficient for jurisdiction jurisdictional purposes so that is why we are carrying it without further notice um may I ask for a interpretation from council your council at this point yes i
did speak with Mr schlide he had a chance to briefly look at the new plan and something occurred to him that wasn't directly because of the plan but it is important the existing swimming pool this is a culde-sac it's in front of the adjacent property's rear line okay apparently when that was built some
years ago that was missed there was no variance obtained for it we have no seeking that i would cheat that varian i think that that's something that can fall under the catch all especially since we have no control oh are you asking from a notice perspective notice perspective yeah no and and and
and my advice to the board is that it does not change my opinion that the notice was sufficient uh number one there might be a question this what we call a cleanup variant sometimes it's not an actual legal term uh but uh the the um uh you want to get sometimes it's
discovered that additional variance relief might be necessary and it's prudent to request it and if it's there's an entitlement to it it's prudent for the board to grant it so it cleans up things that existed that were nonconformities
so I think it would fall well within what we call the catchall provision because the notice did have language saying including any all other you know variances waiverss that might be uh necessary or determined or discovered sometimes these things are discovered
well into the hearings uh it's not a devarian so it's clearly within the catchall in my opinion so in my opinion the opate continues to have jurisdiction uh and again does not have to do any further notice thank you thank you sure thank you very much have
a wonderful evening good evening thank you i'm sorry Mr pushi sorry do I get to address you counsel i'm sorry sorry i know it's not what you wanted to hear i'm very sorry okay i think we're getting
Okay so um we're going to go to the approval of minutes that's 5A on the agenda which is the minutes from the March 5 uh regular session madam Chair we actually move them on the most recent agenda um because I was wondering why I
didn't have they weren't vetted by council yet so yes there were really cutting down this agenda tonight and Madam Chair um can we have a vote to Yes uh we should take entertain a motion
to excuse the absences of the ones who had contacted Miss Kefir in advance of tonight's meeting i'll make a motion to second it thank you all in favor i I
um now we're at the approval of resolutions the first one is CIG um resolution so that's uh 5A on the agenda madam Chair that as the board will call that a dismissal without prejudice uh
this as I understand it correct me if I'm wrong for this applicant or Mr schlly or the the the uh the applicant submitted this application well more than a year ago or so and there were multiple deemed incomplete uh and uh
as is the appropriate course we have a resolution dismissing the matter so it takes takes it off our quasi judicial docket um and to dismiss it without prejudice if they were in fact to reappear within pursue the application uh this would not bar them from doing so
um so it's more of another cleanup on our on our calendar would that be accurate correct thank you okay do we need a motion a motion second okay so so we're looking for a motion um to dismiss
is is it just a motion to approve the resolution adopt the resolution dismissing without prejudice okay and I think there's one typo Miss Spellelman so a dismissal without prejudice uh put an E on the end of the C yeah something got You know what the I see something
there it's not Yeah it's version two i'm going to attribute that to uh the computer um otherwise I would make a motion to um to uh approve as amended yes which is a dismissal without prejudice is there a second i'll second
thank you Miss Popar m yes miss Par yes m Trap i don't believe I'm eligible on this one yes I am eligible on this one yeah dismiss without prejudice yeah because there's there's
been no hearing okay then yes chairwoman Junior yes okay thank you okay next is uh an approval of uh resolution of the Guber which was
ZB24013 i actually had a fair amount of not insignificant comments on uh this resolution that um and this was also a denial so I would uh appreciate uh not voting on that one tonight and moving
that to our next uh meeting the board's pleasure to carry it we can certainly do so is that okay everybody we'll circulate some comments and we'll get back on that one okay so 6B is carried uh to our next meeting uh next
is uh the Pangry application 6C on the agenda uh I think uh that was circulated in advance uh were there comments or edits i know there were some edits uh of the application
yeah are we other substantial in number okay okay so uh it has come to the board's attention that there are several edits on the Pengri application it was quite a long resolution and there are several edits to it so we're going
to carry that one as well and I I think if I remember correctly Mr sai that they were delaying the um approval of that resolution will not delay the project okay that somebody So Madam Chair Roger Mayor on behalf of
Pingry um that's my only concern is that we are on a terribly tight um is the res up at all i I don't know if it will or not honestly well the the plans have to be revised in
accordance with the conditions of approval in the resolution and to the extent those conditions may be changed but I think they were less um substantial the the edits so why don't we try and go through them if we can we had made no comments pretty comprehensive quite
frankly they were more Yeah let's go let's go through them let's go through them thank you very much appreciate Page four item four third line uh okay these are very modest it's typos
it looks like a lot of them the word it should be the word is uh page nine item 18 the last word of the paragraph should be constraints we're missing a
T i'm glad we're moving through this and not carrying this uh thus far uh uh page nine item 19 uh the last sentence uh the word way should be changed to away
uh page 10 very beginning of the sentence um very beginning of which sentence the very first sentence of the oh on top I think on net just yeah we had a phrase in there that was unnecessary it says to
on net eliminate it should just read to eliminate concur um the page 10 item 21 very beginning of the fourth line uh add the word the between of
and yep Uh and uh page 19 second line should read townships 19 second line uh oh it says township master plan it should be township apostrophe s
master plan uh page 20 item one should be applicant and applicant respectively so the applicants um in the very first uh the beginning of the sentence says the applicants it should be the
applicant and then at the end of the sentence oh 20 one on the for the conditions I'm sorry the applicant right it should read the applicant shall post and then apostrophe not as apostrophe on
the bottom of page 20 and uh page 21 item two uh should the applicant we're having a little problem with our singular plural so my apology and page
23 uh condition item T uh should be remove the indent at the very typo it's just a typo okay just a typo and that is it um so they were just
typos the most part typos with those revisions hope hopefully it otherwise accurately memorializes the decision of the board uh and I'll find out as soon as you let me know whether or not we have a motion a second and we adopt by majority resolution who's eligible to
vote um everybody here except for Mitch okay and all we need technically is one believe it or not for someone else to make the motion but we have three so I wasn't here for the second part of their I was here first oh I'm sorry i I apologize i have you marked off also so
we have two engineers and Miss Par let's not lose anybody else i will make the motion is there a full moon tonight i will make the motion to approve the resolution with the specified changes okay yeah and uh I will second that
miss Pear yes chairwoman Jun yes thank you motion adopted thank you very much appreciate it somebody's a good proof reader we're not somebody's making too many taos that would be my problem i would
also say Mr s did we set the landscape committee associated with that uh application we usually do that when when they're ready for it all right thanks again okay um next on the agenda is the resolution
uh for Cavalick uh that was ZB2425 [Music] oh and I I did have one myself that's my own error yeah I I had one just with respect to um the positive and
negative criteria on page seven um in paragraph 27 we list two the additional drainage infrastructure and landscape features that would result in the proposal would improve drainage conditions i thought that also could be listed as positive um
uh criteria in the paragraphs above yeah the same one thanks hey there we go great mind oh good good uh the the the um so yes so what I would submit is uh the third line which said the board finds that the proposal promotes etc etc
etc uh and where it ends with the township I would add and in other words more positives and and then I would add that very same phrase in Roman numeral two of 27 the additional drainage infrastructure etc
that is a benefit not just on balance part of the reason why there's no detriment but it is also in and of itself a separate independent yes so that change would cover madam chair's
concern are there any others so is there a motion to um adopt the resolution as amended i'll make a motion to adopt the resolution as amended thank you Miss
Pner junior yes okay I'll secondar yes yes one more resolution we're resolved to get through uh and then the last one is uh 5E
Schneider ZB24026 i think we did have a just FYI a few plural singular issues taking care of them all I believe good but uh other than that you'll let me know if it's an accurate memorialization of your decision okay any additional uh comments
uh or edits to this resolution or a motion to uh approve with the uh corrections miss Pear and Engineers again you are eligible i will make a motion to approve with corrections thank you Miss Par and I'll second
miss Park yes engineers yes thank you hopefully the preliminaries wow by the way the uh the preliminaries will prove to be more we'll see difficult than the main events
we'll see usually usually that doesn't take as long so I appreciate everybody's patience um apologies to to go okay accepted um so next on the agenda is a completeness and public hearing for
Rocker which is ZB25001 are you here tonight yes uh good evening Madam Chair board members board professionals members of the public it's very nice to be back for this board my name is Michael Silver i'm an attorney at the law firm D francesco Baitman
located in Warren Township New Jersey and I have the privilege of representing the applicant this evening Jonathan Rocker um does the board of the board professionals have to weigh in on the completeness of termination for the application no we'll cover it at the end yeah we'll do it at
the end thank you and then in light of uh what we saw earlier this evening um Mr warner if I could just confirm that our notice is is sufficient and that uh notice was proper absolutely as I always do I intend to do it uh and Madam Chair
I did review board members I reviewed the notice found the contents to be submissions that timely served uh both by way of certified mail on March 13 and published on March 30th I believe it was uh both of which are the last time I did
the math at least 10 days prior to this evening uh so the notice content was sufficient serve uh and publish so therefore the board does in my opinion have jurisdiction here and decide this application this evening we'll see if
there's any journal okay thank you thank you very much so uh so we're here this evening to present an application for a standalone single C variance for property located at 40 at block 4301 lot 12 as shown on the tax maps of Burner
Township more commonly known as Fort Colen Lane property is situated in the township's R1 residential zone at the intersection of Miker Road and Colts Glenn Lane property consists of approximately 2.7 acres and is the only
remaining undeveloped lot within the Colts Glenn subdivision which received planning board approval dating back to 1989 1992 and 1993 at the time of its creation the lot was fully conforming under the R3 zoning
district which at that time permitted 2 acre lots um however in 1997 the township reszoned the area to the R1 zone which requires a 3acre minimum lot size thereby rendering this lot legally under size this evening the applicant is
seeking bulk variance relief pursuant to uh section 70C1 of under the MLUL to permit the construction of a single family home on this undersized lot should the board grant the requested variance the applicant intends to construct a fully conforming single
family home within the permitted build building envelope of the R1 zone no additional variances are being sought additionally the applicant intends to file a an amended conservation easement in accordance with a recently issued letter of interpretation and fill
isolated wetlands general permit from the D just by way of background the lot is currently encumbered by an older conservation easement granted at the time of the original subdivision approvals that easement was based on a wetlands delineation that is now
outdated and in 2023 the D issued an updated LOI confirming the current wetlands boundaries and in 2024 issued a general permit authorizing the filling of most of the wetlands on the site the remaining wetlands which are limited to
a swale in the front yard area near Colt Glenn Lane will be protected within new within a revised conservation or an amended conservation easement to be recorded in favor of the township um just to assist the board in visualizing potential this potential development the
applicant did submit as required under your uh submission checklist requirements conceptual architectural plans illustrating what a compliant single family home within the permitted building envelope look like these plans are again intended to just demonstrate
for the board the feasibility of constructing a conforming dwelling it's not uh being proposed uh for construction plans the the application is obviously exempt from site plan review and I just wanted the board and the public to be aware that the eventual
home to be constructed here may differ from the concept plans that's been provided but it will comply entirely with the township zoning and construction regulations um as noted in Mr review letter dated April 4th 2025 i think the board should be aware that the
applicant's property directly adjoins three other lots in the R1 zone each developed with a single family home two of those adjoining lots lot 13 120 Maker Road and lot 11 18 Colts Colts Glenn Lane are also non-conforming in terms of
their lot area i say this because I wanted to highlight for the board that it's therefore not feasible to acquire land from those parcels without increasing their non-conformity the third adjoining lot lot 14 116 Maker Road is significantly oversized at
nearly 13 acres but it only shares a common uh property line with the subject lot in the amount of 15 ft so acquiring land from lot 14 would not meaningfully increase the con uh conformity and would instead create an irregular and
impractical lot layout so there's really no options to make the lot conforming is what I'm essentially trying to highlight and as Mr pointed out in his report uh just to orient the board a bit uh to the Colts Glenn neighborhood there are currently
eight lots that that access Colts Glenn Lane since the 93 subdivision approval seven single family homes have been built on those eight lots notably five of those eight lots are undersized under today's zoning standards these include lot six lot seven lot eight and lot nine
um thus I would just ask that the board take note of the fact that the applicant's lot is not unique in its non-conforming size and I would ask that the board consider that the the lot area for the applicant's property is well within the established pattern of the development in the
neighborhood um in the interest of neighborhood consistency the applicant by way of its application already stipulated to the following conditions number one the applicant stipulated uh and agreed that the driveway access to the property shall be from Colts Glenn
Lane not from Miker Road the second thing that I do need to elaborate on just a bit to make sure that the um record is clear on it is the the building materials used on the side and rear facades will match the quality and appearance of the front facade so if I
could may just elaborate on that so I would just note that certain architectural accents such as decorative stonework for example may be used exclusively on the front facade we're committed obviously to ensuring that the side and rear facades reflect the same
high level of quality and design um but we need a little bit of reasonable flexibility in this regard naturally from an architectural standpoint the side and rear elevations will not be identical to the front um so I would just ask for uh just a bit of
flexibility however um the board wants to word that in the resolution should should we be granted approval um so uh before I we we have one witness before I turn things over to our our witness uh just a couple of comments in
Mr sly's letter I wanted to address namely comments four five and six um so as I had mentioned earlier the applicant is fully committed to complying with all bulk pipe coverage and setback requirements as well as with the complying with the t town township's
landscaping and tree replacement ordinance so there were some concerns raised in in the report and I I certainly can appreciate the concerns we we appreciate it but we would just respectfully request that um that that it it would be appropriate necessarily
to impose development conditions beyond those required by the ordinance um the applicant Mr john Rocker is a is a highly regarded builder with a long track record of of designing and constructing premium homes in Bernard's Township and throughout the state and we
intend that a home will be built here that is entirely consistent with the character of the Colts Glenn neighborhood and Mr rocker certainly has the track record to support that um we we're concerned about subjecting this lot to
development restrictions for example such as a maximum front yard setback that's not required of any of your other um residential lots in the township and again another concern was was buffering um or vegetation along Mika Road and the western portion or or adjacent to the
western the lot that's west of the subject property and we just feel that that those concerns can be adequately addressed through the lens of your adopted landscaping and tree replacement ordinances so can I just stop you there for a second because I just relative to that point I want to make sure I
understand Mr sl's um comment when he I think you you put a maximum front yard setback of 125 is suggested and Mr well do you both swear to God or refer to the testimony you're about to give the truth the whole truth and nothing truth yes I thank you so I get
uh is is your point that you were trying to make it behind the next door neighbor like is is that why you came up with that number i just want to understand the point the next door neighbor um really the one that's going to mostly compared and uh adjacent to it the one
who's in closest proximity to it that's the one on Colts yeah yeah that's uh that house isund about 106 ft from the street mhm and the concept house that we're seeing here is 122 feet from the street you start moving that house back
more then that house essentially is going to be lining up with the next door neighbor's rear yard and you're going to have incompatible front yard rear yard situation um that typically is undesirable i don't know why any builder
would want to push that house further back than it is you're just adding impervious coverage and well I can't think of a reason why but I my opinion I wouldn't want to see it much further back uh so it's it's shown at 122 I just
threw out a number 125 I think much further than that then the houses are you just have conflicting uses you you have one the front of one house kind of looking at the back of the other house uh I mean it's not going to be that drastic but they'll be offset and um
just seems appropriate to keep them generally in line uh not necessarily exactly the same but Okay so so your concern as opposed to being too close to the road your concern is how far it is back oh yeah yeah yeah no they're not they're not Yeah they're compliant with
the minimum setback it's just I wouldn't want to see it pushed too too much further back if I may is it a generally accepted principle of planning to have front yard setbacks somewhat equivalent as opposed to jagged or to the extreme of one is
behind the rear building line of the front building line of one is behind the rear building line of an immediately adjacent neighborhood yes general uniformity not cookie cutter style but general uniformity
if I if I may um so obviously we'll have our our engineer testify to where we think a house would be placed um it's not I I actually tend to agree with with most of what what Mr schly just testified to it's more of a specific number if the number 125 is chosen and
the applicant wanted to do a certain type of driveway again increase the impervious coverage which I don't know if they can even do that um I didn't want to create an incumbrance on the property where because the drop because the house was set back at 128 ft that
somehow uh a future a property owner would have to come back or or Mr rockford would have to come back that's all I'm trying to avoid not to belver the point which is what I generally say before I belver a point the they the they the um if without if a number isn't set then
there's no number there's no max there's no limit uh and the concern perhaps remains so maybe something to think about we should start the application sure okay um so I have uh Mr paul Fox it's uh he's Mr rocker's uh engineer he
prepared the variance plan that's before the board um so I would ask if I can uh call Mr one and only witness well I also have uh Mr rocker here who's the applicant so one one professional witness and then the applicant is also here if he doesn't mind swear i can
swear both that way if he speaks he's covered so if you'll both stand raise your right hand because I already got our professionals both of you swear to God or affirm testimony about vowed to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do i do thank you both thank you i'm sorry can I also
ask for a clarification and it could be just I don't know how to read this stuff but on the diagram the plans you have both a front setback here and then you also call this side front set back
that's correct considered a corner lot even though two front yard anywhere anytime you have a street there's a front yard adjacent to the street okay so the front yard that we're talking about in this case is the
front yard from Colt's Colts okay sometimes might be referred to as a primary front yard as opposed to a secondary front yard right okay appreciate it thank you okay uh Mr fox if you wouldn't mind
putting on the record your educational background and your credentials in the field of engineering so that the board can accept you as a professional witness in engineering sure uh I have a bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from Union College in upstate New York i have a master's of
engineering degree in civil and environmental engineering from Cornell University i'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey in New York i've worked at Apgar Associates since 1996 i'm the president of Apgar Associates i'm also the municipal engineer for
Harding Township to the north of Burners as well as the burrow engineer for Far Hills to the south of Berners uh you have a surrounding yes I've also actually have the opportunity to serve as on my own land use board where I live and uh as well as be the board chairman
so I've been in all the seats Chester Township i would I would ask if Mr fox would be accepted as a professional witness in the field of engineering yes your business address is the
address 13 place New Jersey for the record yes we've been there since 1970 and uh Mr fox you prepared the variance plan or oversaw the preparation of the variance plan before the board this evening yes I did you're familiar with the property yes I am can you walk the
board sure the plan you prepared so this is uh sheet two of the plan set i haven't made any changes to it other than putting it on the board uh this shows Colts Glenn off to this side and then Mer Road along the top of the sheet
so this is a corner lot with two fronts and in this case the sideyard would be to lot 30.08 08 and the rear yard would be to lot 30.10 to the rear and just for the record the last revised
date on that plan uh the last revised date on this plan is February 5th 2025 we're bringing it up on the big screen and little screens as well great so this plan shows that originally there
was a wetlands area uh on the property two wetland areas really and that resulted in a very large conservation easement over the lot uh the applicant has previously obtained a permit from
the DP to fill the main wetland area and thus we would eliminate the uh conservation easement except for over this one small wetland area here uh as you can see this gray shaded area
represents what is presently the developable or improvable area of the lot once the conservation easement is eliminated then the entire uh area within the setbacks is the improvable area of the property so from that
perspective we're actually improving the condition here what finished um uh height would you be filling it too uh so on our concept plan the finished floor elevation for the home is
459 so that's about 4 and 1/2 ft above where the existing elevation is and now I'm I'm talking about sheet three of our plan set which has a proposed home that's conceptual in nature as well as a conceptual driveway
storm water collection uh septic system and uh walkways and grading i think you said 459 it's 456 uh 459 is the proposed first floor
elevation yep right there in that big shaded area that I Yes that's correct why is the looking at the corner why is the proposed first floor so much higher than the garage and the outside uh so the garage proposed garage elevation is
457.12 that's really not a significant grade difference between the uh between the garage and the home we have to provide for certain grade separation between structural elements wood of the home and the exterior grading but usually it's not
it's almost two feet uh yes it's quite variable and depending upon what construction methods are used that can be modified but that's not unusual for uh work that we do in this area so there's no reason It's just
uh it's necessary from a grading standpoint to make sure that we're able to continue uh the storm water surface runoff in the same direction that it presently runs so that's part of the grading that we show here is to maintain
that present storm water runoff arrangement and I know it's stipulated that the driveway will be accessed from Colts neck that's correct stipulated that the house will face Colt Snack i know the driveway is going to but like
could the house be turned we can it I believe it does face but we can stipulate that it'll face I just want to understand it's facing to that yep absolutely and if I may this is a little it's not pertinent to what you're
testifying to right now but um this was subdivision uh from when I heard I forget what the date was it was it was it was it was uh final in either 92 or 93 i think 93 was
final and final subdivision approval do we know when the subdivision was finalized whether this was determined to be a lack of a better term quote unquote buildable lot residentially buildable
lot it was it was and at the time though I guess the uh the wetlands existed where they existed the building envelope was where it was now it's
changing on the file map the bulk of the this lot is encompassed by wet land and buffer what they did was they got the wet land redesated as an isolated wetland therefore eligible for fill
apparently during the initial file map period subdivision this wetland complex was assumed to be all connected so it wasn't eligible to be filled things must have changed over the years since the subdivision was created where the EP actually came
out and determine that this wetland is actually isolated so therefore eligible fill if I'm understanding correct apologize for this is material but maybe it is relevant um it was
subdivided as a buildable lot but the realities on the ground literally figuratively were that you couldn't build a home at the time no no no i think you saw to my mind I wasn't here for a different a different you saw Mr yes mr fox different envelope what he's
telling you is that that shaded area was the envelope available for the dwelling got the setbacks were less as well what's that the setbacks were less as well so th those setback lines shown on there are they the current setbacks correct okay the setbacks used to be
less so where you have a 100 foot setback now you had a 75 setback back then so your building envelope is bigger to start with right got smaller over time right but and I positively miss it but if you if you use the shaded area the buildable envelope which apparently
was the buildable envelope at the time buildable area at the time you're set back would have been what if you built the house and then shaded area how far back i would uh suggest it would be about 175
ft i guess that's where I was literally or figuratively going okay all right thank you we've done uh the soil testing to confirm that a septic system can be built there so we're confident of that design uh that's really the extent of my
testimony with regards to proposed uh the concept site plan here does anyone have any questions gradient plan not a site plan forgive me i I have um we could focus on engineering because I do have planning questions for for Mr fox but we'll we'll
stick to engineering i know Mr fox is not a planner correct we're seeking a C1 variant so he can certainly testify to the partnership from an engineering perspective so why why would you deviate from these plans at this point anyway was it was
this just sort of put together quickly to show what can be done was this the original thought and we have rethought not at all this was just to show that a a home in similar size and stature to the rest of the neighborhood could be
built and developed on the home final uh selection for what the actual home design would be is really not been determined yet is is there any desire to move it further back i mean it was is there a thought process behind that there isn't and what I would say is this
is a beautiful neighborhood customuilt homes and Mr rocker is going to look for the the right buyer that wants to build a be beautiful beautiful home and there's we want them to be able to to to
construct a home here as if it was a conforming lot where they wouldn't go to a a land use board they would submit their building permits just like any other resident in Verner Township that has a conforming lot and they would be able to build a a custom home similar to the homes that are in that neighborhood
so coming here seeking again setback variances or anything like that coming here and seeking permission we we're seeking permission for this slot to become buildable without Without your permission this lot is not buildable and it was a requirement per your checklist
requirements because they're I would imagine your checklist requirements aren't necessarily geared towards just undersized lots you're considering lots that might have a setback issue lot coverage issue we had to submit architectural plans i I would say and Mr
warner maybe you've seen the the the coxbook on this but a lot of a lot of boards don't typically require plans to be submitted for just an undersized lot because the board sees plans and they focus on the plans but we're not we want somebody one day to build a custom home
here it may be somewhat of a grayish area but but maybe our planner could weigh in if he wishes to do so but the the um I it may be uh that feasibility is one reason why one looks at a concept
want to make sure that something that not not can be developed on the lot that would comply with all zoning ordinances bulk regulations etc that might be one reason in addition to just
simply saying it's a checklist and it's on the list with no reason whatsoever um that might be one of them um and may be some relevance uh to from a planning perspective as Mr
schlly testified in his opinion there is a setback given that it's a developed neighborhood that would be a setback perhaps too far um but why am I saying all this when
Mr shai's right here so you can tell me where I'm wrong i agree with that it's to show that it a house can be built in a conforming manner as a representation but also that you know the board part of the board's job is to see that there's no significant substantial detriment to
the neighborhood i think that plays into how um the property is developed as a whole and developing the property as a whole includes the house that's going to be put on it if this were granted without a maximum front yard setback as
you have opined would be appropriate for the board to consider and if not stipulated to perhaps even impose um would it be true then that uh as of right the applicant come in can come in
and put the front yard set back at a 175 ft or whatever would be behind the immediately adjacent neighborhood neighbors rear building lines yeah they certainly could i mean I wouldn't think that they would do that i I don't know
why anybody would do that but they could i Got it yeah i don't think that somebody building a custom home here would want to do that i think that's very unlikely maybe that someone would have a range say that again i'm sorry maybe that someone would have a range and what
would be reasonable maximum primary setback Yeah i I mean like well look at the end of the day I I think Mr rocker is willing to accommodate the the board i think my my point is in in pointing this out with the with the maximum setback is
there's nothing in the ordinance anywhere in the township that I'm aware of that poses that imposes a maximum setback so again as I stated earlier and I don't want to I don't want to belabor this um because we're flexible on the concerns have been uh well localized by
by Mr schlly but my concern was that we choose a number like 125 and then because they wanted to configure the driveway in a certain way they wanted to set the house back at 130 that that that was that was my concern and I know you're saying "Well we need a concrete number but I don't understand maybe not
understand i think that if all of the lots in Bernard Township don't have a maximum setback requirement and the lot area variance that we're seeking has nothing to do with setback to me it doesn't because we can fully conform with the setbacks it
there's there's not really a nexus between the two it's a developed neighborhood with a vacant lot that's now going to be developed long after many other homes are developed but any home and if the applicant is seeking variance relief as per our planner and I
may not disagree with them that's the way I say I agree with it uh the the the the um it may be relevant uh to the criteria that the board needs to consider uh in Reny's determination and
ultimately to be pragmatic if everybody's flexible then why are we belaboring So maybe we should continue it mr we can my my point is um is that a house on
this subdivision could be torn down in a number of years there are there are other homes in the Colts subdivision that aren't that don't have the same setback there's one home in this subdivision that's hundreds of feet set back so I immediately adjacent we could maybe the board would want to consider
all of this in the context of the negative criteria negative okay i'm not going to belver this i just I the we're seeking a variance for for lot area but um Mr s can I just ask you the the 125 number
like how do you come up with that is it the like are you looking at the depth of the house to the left i'm just looking at where the front of the house on the house to the left is situated yep and that's 106 106 so where would 125 put it if they went to the
maximum that you're suggesting the front of the house would be at the back of that house well then we'd be starting to talk about well how deep is the house yeah that's what I'm asking you is that how you were thinking about it though no I wasn't thinking about at all i was just looking at the house thinking about the concept representing
the generally the size of a house that you're going to have there it's going to be I was like 20 ft back it's kind Yeah presumably the this new house is going to be as deep say as the existing house next door if the front of the house on this house is 20 feet further back the
rear of the house of this this house will be 20 feet further back from the rear next door not thinking it out in that great detail but just can I add one layer to it if if say somebody did want to push it back further but well
screened with a lot of trees and and arborite and whatever um and it they they weren't looking into somebody's backyard would anybody care probably not so if it if the condition was um if it's
not screened then you have to comply to no further than 125 ft but if if you if the setback is further then the house would have to be screened on all sides screening you might you might consider
screening anyway thing I'm going to talk about is that there's a pool in the property next door too so the further you push this house back the closer you get more non-compliant that pool next door comes right is there a pool on the property there is i didn't but not on the photo we saw right no no on the pool
the adjacent property not property has a pool because I was saying you could cause them to have to have cover i guess the question I would have with this is these neighbors that are to the left
Are they you know since this is a concept build have they had the opportunity to say "We don't want a house that much further back or having it placed here on the property is going to cause an issue
here." Okay sorry um the other the other thing is you know I I do appreciate that moving it more forward you run into the problem that you do have a wetlands consideration right there so there's not much further
you can actually move it forward and I I guess that but I don't think you can move it back too much um one of the concerns that I have is um at least given the size of what you have put here on the concept you are very
close to that um being defined as a major development in ter in terms of the storm water management requirements um so right now that property you know I would think somebody who's going to buy a home like this is
probably going to want a pool or something else or a back patio and and that kind of stuff um is there some way to also make sure that because you're just going to sell this
house and turn it over as built um is there some way that in documentation or whatever there can be a stipulation that hey you want to do this you you want to buy this home realize that you're this close to a major development and next
thing you add to this house is going to put it over the top and make it a major development well I read in the paperwork that they hadn't decided what they're going to do and ultimately that may not be material for the board to consider in the context
of whether or not they're going to grant variance relief but but just so you know I mean what regardless they leave here with an approval just to build a home irrespective of whatever the impervious cover limits may be because this is conceptual it'll go to the township engineering department and when they see
okay you're over an acre and you've got 10,000 plus square feet of impervious cover they'll make the determination that's major stormwater management design criteria have to be applied to and I and I appreciate that i guess what I'm trying to do is protect a future buyer and maybe that's not that's not
our is maybe not our rule but you know where does the person who may be buying this from you know that so I mean whenever uh I'll just say we're going to comply with all state regulation when it
comes to storm water management so um when we submit a plot plan eventually for a home it's going to go through the engineering department or if it's uh another homeowner that wants to put a pool in 10 years down the road 20 years down the road they have to follow the protocols that are established in the in
the township and the state and they'll have to comply with that and there are certain disclosures when you sell the property that will Can I make a suggestion on that that one of my comments it's uh number 12 regarding completing the township standard lot coverage
disclosure form that every new home has to the buyer has to sign that and the main part which may not apply here is is that how close they are to the coverage limit and even with this concept plan they're nowhere near the coverage limit we could just amend that form in this
case to add a line that says how close they are to the major development and they got x square feet and and that'll put them on notice just like they'd be on notice for lot coverage and also be on notice for uh how close they are to a major development and they'll be signing
that and I think that solves the problem so it's a lot coverage and major development disclosure form yes sir right we can work on that language which we'll we'll definitely comply with it's not a problem at all right and and Dave what what is specific to this property that
you think that should be required because there are other properties out there we don't require it the fact that they're under but close you think should be something we should disclose because we don't know well with the the numbers the the square footage and once once
they hit 10,000 square feet of impervious it's amazing but that's true for anybody right that's that's true for anybody but but really it would only apply to newer constructed homes because nobody else additions and things like that aren't gonna Okay um yeah but I
would just lay out the numbers in a chart for the preacher buyer to sign i mean there's two ways this will get caught if Mr fox becomes the engineer when they finally decide to build a home he's going to know what the thresholds are and he's going to say "Oh by the way you've crossed those thresholds this is
going to be part of your It's not going to be sprung on them it's going to be part of a development plan which is include a very big house and oh if you have to put some storm water in these people probably not going to care but it'll it'll be caught first by the design professional and then reviewed in
house so it's not likely that it'll be sprung on a homeowner who's buying a house not knowing what storm they may or may not have to construct there okay um so I was gonna if I maybe I can put uh an end to the setback discussion
so I just consult with Mr rocker and we would ask for just a little more wiggle room of 10 ft which would allow us a little bit more malleability with the driveway configuration so instead of 125 135 and um you know I just my goal here
is to protect my client to make sure that he has the same development rights as every other resident in Bernard's and that's why if the ordinance doesn't prescribe a maximum setback well as his advocate that's why I'm saying well the board shouldn't just prescribe that too but um being that the concerns have been
raised um and and we're willing to work with the board and Mr schlly we we just would ask for that extra 10 ft okay so you're willing to stipulate to a maximum um setback of 135 voluntarily front yard front yard setback yes from Cold Snack
yes i suspect the board appreciates that and certainly the record reflects uh that you zealously zealously advocated every
Yeah thank you and then um so just to to wrap this application up because we did have um a variance that we requested and I identified it as a C1 variance i was going to ask Mr fox some questions regarding Well first can the board assume that uh the applicant stipulates
to all the other conditions set forth in Mr and Mr quinn's memos to the extent they don't require any testimony yes the um the the only thing which I believe we we've I believe saying that we changed the 125 to 135 correct and then as far
as the the buffering concerns yeah I think Mr slice point number five I'm not sure we covered yeah so um so I think that we're we're willing to comply with your your tree well we have to comply with your tree replacement ordinance not willing to so
obviously we think that um anybody that's going to build a a home here is going to want their their property buffered um they're going to want privacy from their neighbors as well so um I think our concern was do we have to plant a tree we obviously have to comply
with your ordinance but do we have to plant a tree in the exact same location if one was going to come down if the uh property owner wanted to put in evergreen trees because it offers buffering in the winter would that be permitted because technically we wouldn't be we would be removing um
existing vegetation so those are our concerns and Mr fox if I'm saying that accurately um those are our concerns with with those comments can we get clarification as to what the conditions would would be i guess we're talking are we talking
five six or a combo because there's some recommended preservation in item six of this memo it was it was with respect to to both of them actually can we h it out and get clarification maybe a clear
step condition or two well with number five which talks about preserving the existing roadside vegetation along Meeker Road that you're proposing to do that we Yes it's just Well it's it's the existing because a
homeowner might come in and say this obviously if there's diseased trees or dead trees existing level is that what's intended by that i'm sorry to interrupt you well yeah existing existing level level not I mean I know a lot of the vegetation out there is not
your classic right that's what I'm trying to say correctly uh and there's probably some dens out there but as far as going through and and clearing it um maybe there's some selective clearing and perhaps uh some plantings of native
species that would typically be found along a roadside hedro type of environment that's fine we can we we want to work with you obviously we want to achieve the spirit of what you're writing there we just want to create a beautiful product so I think we have
clarification on that and six is there anything needs to be modified that the back end of six if you will yeah the applicant um is subject to the town tree replacement ordinance um I was just pointing out the it was obvious to me that the the larger trees are in that
sort of like row along along on the adjacent uh neighbors property line um and I don't know if the applicant um how far those trees are off the property line whether the applicant can preserve those trees um I don't know if
the applicants looked into that enough to know um but if um it of course I'm suggesting save them if you can if you can't I I'd suggest replacing them um at least one for one with a a two and a
half inch caliber shade tree a native hardwood tree um on the property uh because our our tree replacement ordinance um there's certain exemptions for a certain number of trees you may be able
to say remove four of those trees and not even have to replace them uh that's the way our ordinance is these days uh because it now our ordinance mimics DP's regulations um so what I'm suggesting is regardless of what your replacement
requirement is if any of those uh shade trees the more mature ones in that row to the east to the west rather are coming down that they be replaced with a native hardwood tree minimum two and a half inch caliber
good yes yeah we're good with that thank you and then Mr quinn's memo also is Mr is that all the rest of yours I think are a lot of factual i just want to make sure we didn't um miss any others that were not yeah I think from seven on are
pretty standard and if the applicant agrees with that I I don't need to discuss okay and Paul nothing in Mr clint's memo right you were you were good with everything in there yes i had a T next to number six Tom i don't know if that's the testimony is that Oh well no i I
it's obvious that that swale was precluded from filling correct that is correct the reason you know unfortunately I was not involved with this project during that phase of it i think when we look at the plan it definitely strikes me as an odd location
um but I think the flexibility to have the house be a bit further back and away from that wetland is really an uh to the advantage of making sure there's less likelihood of somebody uh having an adverse impact on that wetland so I
appreciate the fact that we have a little bit of flexibility on the the setback and certainly you know with respect to the trees along the side uh to the extent that we can keep those there that's to our benefit um you'll
see that the driveway and the adjacent property is literally within inches of the property line so it would certainly be the advantage to try to preserve those if we can but if they can't then we'll certainly be replanting new trees
yeah can you can you speak a little louder into the mic unlike me yourself sure it's the introvert and the engineer so along the property line along the property line the existing trees do serve as a good buffer
particularly given that the adjacent uh property's driveway is within inches of the property line so to the extent that we can preserve those we would but if they have to be uh taken down then they would be replaced uh with the 2 and 12
inch diameter hardwoods as recommended by Mr sly is agreeing with the proper recommendation screener so I think that covers yes if I can if I can just ask a
question sure um where you now have showing the placement of the house yes um do those wetlands still need to be filled in because that's a different position than what was on your application for the wetlands
yes all that area still needs to be disturbed to achieve the proper grading away from the building and I believe there were no comments from the environmental uh commission that's correct
and there are pictures of of the lot within your application yes who took those pictures um Mr rocker took those pictures okay and I I assume this is how it looks now
basically two days ago okay oh no those are pictures that were submitted the application okay so that would have been taken I think is the date listed on on there no no okay um I can find out the answer
yeah I can you can borrow okay you have So they would have been taken in early February I believe and does the lot essentially look the same without the snow I guess yes does the board have any additional
questions for the engineer are you done with the engineer um well I I don't know what you prefer Madam Chair because I was going to ask some planning questions of the engineer he's not a planner so it's it's coming from the perspective so his engineering testimony isn't done but it's if I may not it's certainly
appropriate for engineers particularly with respect to C1's to speak to what their opinions are as what may or may not be a hardship achievable etc yeah you can continue um thank you so so um as part of the positive criteria I was wondering if you could just take a
moment to describe any specific physical characterist characteristics of this lot that make it unique compared to others in the R1 zone well I would suggest that the uh the location of the wetlands in front make that unique uh the small wetland swale
that we're required to preserve there uh the fact that the existing improvable lot area is much smaller than what's required those would be the two that come to mind thank you and we've talked about this a bit this evening but to your knowledge when this lot was created
was it in compliance with the zoning at that time yes it was and it and it became a nonconformity through your understanding through uh a zoning change essentially that's correct thank you and in your professional opinion does the lot's undersized nature pose practical
difficulties in developing it under the current zoning not at all we have clearly shown that a suitable home of comparable size to the neighborhood can be built on the home within fully conforming to the zoning and and do you agree with Mr ized comment in his review
letter regarding the other three adjoining properties that the subject property cannot be brought into conformity by purchasing additional property yes we did look at the adjoining properties and we came to the same conclusion as Mr sly so ultimately
would you would you say that the the hardship here that's that's caused by the physical attributes of this specific lot the attributes that you just spoke about um is is a condition that affects perhaps this neighborhood this specific property or do you think it impacts the
entire zone it's specific to this area right correct it's specific to this area really as a result of the resoning okay great and and as far as the as the negative criteria um you've testified to and I represented that the single family
dwelling will fully conform to all of the applicable zoning regulations including setbacks building height lot coverage and it'll be constructed within the permitted building envelope with the sole exception that the lot area is undersized considering this and the fact
that the several surrounding lots in the cold subdivision are also undersized in your professional opinion would the granting of this variance result in any substantial detriment to the public code no it would not um do you believe that the proposed development would in any way impair the intent and purpose of the
township's master plan or zoning ordinance given that single family homes are permitted are a permitted use in this district and again I'm just going to this is coming from an engineering perspective correct that is correct
so I did um I am familiar with the master plan i have reviewed it i did give Mr fox a copy of the master plan and um the board can take note of the fact that this is not coming from a planner i'm going to talk about some facts in the master plan and he doesn't
have to give a planning perspective on it he'll speak as well let's strike that question you'll make propers as an argument as an attorney sure um let's let me just get your We have a planner
of the board has a plan yes so let me let me speak to some facts of the master plan that I can ask Mr fox that doesn't invoke a planning license so to speak so um are you have you ever heard of the concept of a grandfather clause yes I have
um and and just for the the board's edification and the public's ed edification uh a grandfather clause allows for the development of an undersized lot without a variance provided that certain conditions are met so generally the lot must have been legally created prior to the zoning
ordinance or a subsequent amendment that made it non-conforming and the owner must not have owned a joining property at that time that could have brought the lot into compliance so the idea of a grandfather clause is that if these conditions are satisfied all of their bulk requirements can be met uh and that
the lot can be treated as a buildable lot without variance relief so this protection would also extend to future owners the reason why I bring this up and the reason why I'm asking you a factual question about the master plan is you saw the master plan did you see in multiple sections under the
residential district that it referenced the recommendation to include grandfather clauses in the Burner Township ordinance for these exa for this exact situation yes I did and you noticed it in multiple locations yes okay so so so again you're not a planner
but based on the fact that the master plan recommends that a grandfather clause be included in Burner Township's ordinance to prevent the necessity of an applicant to have to come before the zoning board for this exact situation would you say that that by by submitting
this application that this is actually uh not only not an impairment of the master plan but actually um is advancing this recommendation in the master plan yes it does and I would also point out this is the second time I've appeared before this board on an application for
a lot that has been zoned under size as a result of recent amendments and one one last statement on this representation again if this if we couldn't provide a fully conforming build building envelope that'd be a
totally different story but but we can so that's all I have for you Mr fox thank you thank you do we have uh questions from the board at this time for Mr fox are there questions from the public for
Mr fox not comments just just to be clear if you have questions based upon his specific testimony this is the time if you have a comment either for or against the application that comes at the end so do you have any questions for Mr fox specifically okay
thank you um oh there's one question titlestein 172 Riverside Drive there's no public on shores up there correct correct i'm sorry what public source okay the septic system is there
if for some reason it was to fail within 10 20 years is there enough room for a second septic system yes there is there is okay that's it thank you thank you any additional questions
okay thank you um John are you okay okay can you come up to the microphone please yeah so there there was um we just went over this this condition which was stipulated to um it was condition number uh give me one second i think it
was either four no it was um which one sorry it was um six about uh preserving the existing vegetation uh no uh between the proposed development and the adjoining colts clen residence to the west and Mr rocker
wanted to just address uh that that condition we agreed to and explain why he has some concerns with that yeah um and I'm totally um fine with the replacement stipulations if we were to need to remove the conif the existing coniferous u trees that exist on the
neighbors uh side um we gladly conform to what Dave suggested as far as the size of the replacements as far as the location of the replacements my concern is that if we wanted to um embellish that buffer with say um
evergreens or Norway spruce or arborites or so forth I want to I I don't want to be um limited to the placement of replacement coniferous trees that might have to go to that side of the property i'd like to put them in another logical
location and reserve the right to plant a different type of buffer on the property line along the property side you know what I mean Dave i mean that's Are you saying as far as you replace them one
absolutely yes 100% yes i think I think it ultimately might be able to I don't want to limit myself to the uh in the ability to achieve a much better buffer for the benefit of the
neighbor and and the you know future owner of the of this of the property my yeah I I think that language is fine actually and it need not have a subject to review and approval of our
planner would that be prudent or not necessary I'm not entirely sure suspected of the buffer that would be provided as far as replacement trees that's typical property that you came
down there depending on what the board I'm not myself right if it's a buffer or if it's a tree replacement replacement okay i understand your point okay thank you
so I I um Are there any questions for Mr fox before he sits down for Mr rocker oh sorry Mr rocker yes is there any questions for Mr rocker questions based upon his testimony you have to come up to the microphone because we can't hear
you hello Mr rocker can you come back up as well hello amy nice to meet you can you come right up to the microphone please hi hi just name and address for the record amy Kotel 18 Colts Glenn we're the neighboring property great and
if you can ask questions yeah to rock based upon I just wanted to make sure I understood so you're what you're saying is you would like to perhaps take out that row of trees and put evergreens mature evergreens i'm not sure that we will take Mr i need you to speak into a
microphone if you don't want to do that one you can do that one but we need your I honestly can't predict if we will need to take any of the trees and I'm certainly a fan of not removing trees whenever possible and those are nice and if we ha if the development plan would
dictate the necessity to perhaps remove and then replace those trees um or one for one or whatever were according to Dave's recommendation that I'd like to choose the best place to replace them and retain the ability to actually um
pursue a better buffer with maybe more of an evergreen variety that's all I don't want to be because they they are they are nice but ostensibly degree of actual they're beautiful to look at but as far as bufferings specifically they only do sort of a marginal job part of
the year so and I just wanted to clarif I agree I just wanted to clarify what he questions for Mr rocker at this time no you'll have an opportunity to comment if you want to at the end it might be very soon yeah so I I don't have any any more
witnesses um reserve summation after public yeah I I'll I'll reserve summation till after uh public comments but uh that that concludes our our presentation are there any questions uh from the board at this time or are we ready for comments
okay are there any comments on this application either for or against that want to be made can I come up to you sure are you together or are you going to make two separate comments we're together it's my husband okay so he's just going to stand
there for emotional support no no no probably not can I one then the other yeah we We have to do them separately if you're going to speak separately no objection oh she's not going to leave me anything okay so just a couple of comments the first I just wanted you talked about
Sorry just one more time name and address for the record mr edstein I see you you'll be coming next too oh no um Oh okay no I'm going to Oh yeah i'm sorry yeah yeah but but name and address first and then I'll swear you in thank you amy Kotel 18 Colts Glenn Lane okay
that's the house to the left on your I think to the right west to the west if you're looking at the house to the right to the west on yes okay um and while he's looking please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm
testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you that's lot 11 right 11 okay um please proceed there was just a comment and about that they couldn't have come into compliance um
they mentioned that none of the lots surrounding lots were um over 3 acres and ours is 3.35 acres we're right next door and the people we bought the house from owned that lot the lot Mr rocker is
owns now in other words you're saying they owned them both yes okay so if you took 2.7 and 3.35 you had six acres and the previous owner could have been in compliance i'm just mentioning that as as
just to correct the record they were two separate lots correct two separate lots but the she said that they couldn't get anything from anybody else to bring it into compliance right no at the time when the when the law changed I understand what you're
saying is not true now what wasn't true then anyway I'm just okay for the record I don't know if if what I'm saying is correct but I'm just trying to correct things that I heard um so that was one um could you speak
into the microphone please sure um so the just bring the mic down excuse me can you just bring the microphone down like Right good okay so the setbacks that you were talking about so I'm not clear about that um I think what you
said we're we are 106 feet set back and he's asking for 135 ft so that's a concern of ours he's asking that as a maximum he's stipulating to that voluntarily as a maximum so there is no
requirement for for a maximum so he's voluntarily um stipulating that it will be no further than 135 sure go ahead i'm sorry can I talk that's Are are you No no are you Are you finished with your com you should finish your comments and then you
can go no I I don't know that you're finished okay so the So we're concerned about the 106 because I think that is what you were talking about that that house if it started it would start like in our middle of our house and it wouldn't line up wouldn't line up
so our preference is that the home line up with one another okay so I don't know how that's accomplished but Okay we understand your point okay um the other thing we're concerned about elevation i'm not sure what our elevation is but
we don't want that house to tower over ours and make ours look you know small in comparison um and the landscaping of the trees yeah um along the driveway when we bought the
house in fact the our driveway was on that property and the previous owner had to cut back our driveway to get it off of that lot um so we are very concerned about the screening down the between them they're right but up against one
another um go ahead are you finished i think I'm finished okay do you want to switch places you reserve if she's finished i'm finished go ahead okay um can you switch places just so we can hear you and if you give us your
name sure and then I'll swear you in and your address secretary um Ira Kotel 18 Colts Glenn Lane uh Bernards okay please raise your right hand mr do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed
right so I wanted to say on the setback part of the issue uh I wanted to express as a concern is the consistency in the neighborhood it was represented by council that there are houses that have much larger setbacks but those are at the end of the culde-sac they're hundreds of
feet I don't know 300 ft off the culde-sac you can't see that house from the street except you know maybe maybe in the winter uh you know when the trees are down and the leaves are down and there's another house which I've never
seen it's so far back um so those houses have you know significant setbacks but they're they're like barely on the street you know uh all the other houses that are you know what you would sort of normally consider to be part of the
neighborhood of Colts Glenn Lane those uh four four houses on one side of the street and our house are all set back equal well the ones across the street are all set back equal with each other I believe um and we think that it would make sense that the house next to us
should be set back equal with ours as well they're not perfectly equal though right the ones across the street if I'm looking Well they're kind of on a they're kind of on an angle somewhere on an angle right so like it's further back than the second one that's how it looks
to me but they were all within a range of each other that I I think is what you're pointing an extra so I'm 106 i measured it that sounds right y um I understand 135 is a max condition
but that's like behind our back that's like equal to or behind the back of our house it's not a particularly deep house you know so I think it's concern for them and kind of concern for us too so I would like to see more consistency i understand that there's an issue with
the swale uh and having some kind of that's probably why there isn't a a driveway in the front it's just a walkway um but our preference is that it be as consistent as possible so I wanted I wanted you know I wanted to say
that um what else i'll just echo what my wife said about the buffering uh and the screening that would be important to us from a private privacy perspective i appreciate the comments of Mr rocker i understand he's expecting to sell the house to someone who is going to want
privacy as well and I kind of like the idea that if those trees have to come down you know you would perhaps move them or replace them elsewhere on the property and do something that's you know a nice privacy screening um so what you said sounds sounds good to me i will
say I can't quite tell from the drawing but I think based on where you're putting the driveway you may have to take out some of those trees so that's uh that's an important factor anything else
yeah and I I just want to echo what she said also on the math again my understanding is that is is different than what council represented there is available property in the neighborhood uh that could have brought them up into
compliance um but that's really I'll be honest it's really that's an FYI i guess I just want to point that out when you say if I may when you say there's available land in the neighborhood are you saying there's available land immediately adjacent to the subject lot
that would not render the lot from which it would be taken to be more to be non-conforming or more nonconforming i believe so we have plenty of available percentage for our existing
coverage you're very close to their property yeah but they're going to take from you you know what the question is is there is there practical for that again I want to I want to drop this okay because I I I
don't want that to be an issue we we look forward to seeing it developed so I I'm not but I but just I felt compelled to say I don't agree that at 2.7 or whatever they couldn't 5.3 yeah i I think he put out in his memo that there
is one lot that they could have taken from but it would have been very impractical because it's just such a a small connection piece is that right Mr sc i mean I have a a map we can throw up there if you want to see it but yes there there are only three lots that are
join your lot which they can't take any land from you because your lot's already non-conforming it's big enough in in gross acreage but the developable part of it you know the part that's not wetlands is under size well they could I'm not sure I understand they they
couldn't take it to develop on it per se but they could take it to get to three acres to take it would mean they have to remove it from your property to theirs yeah and your property is already a non-conforming property because it
doesn't have enough buildable land on it so your property would become more nonarian is that right they would need a variance to do that yeah so you don't want to make one lot conforming while at the same lot even more nonconforming
the size of your property is different from what the buildable area is on your property that's true you have all the wetlands we have woods yeah and they're on the wrong side if they if you all those wetlands are on the other side of your house then the applicant theoretically
could buy some of those wetlands and make it a lot bigger but obviously that's not the case okay i accept that and again it's not an objection that we're voicing it just sounded off to me mathematically got it okay all right i think that's it thank you very much
thank you thank you for your comments i appreciate your comment tonight sure are there additional comments on this application okay do you want a sum summation yeah just very quickly so um just to clarify I apologize if I was
unclear i if I didn't say this I did mean that there was no opportunity to create to purchase or expand our lot without creating a nonconformity on another lot so if I didn't say that clearly I apologize um the the um the
the man and woman who just spoke um I I was happy to hear that they're looking forward to the property being developed and I promise you that there there's no one that if I if only I could be so lucky to to live next to a lot
that's going to be built and developed by by John um so I did appreciate that comment i I certainly don't mean to be hostile by pointing this out um but when when I look at the at the the map for
example there's obviously buffering on on our property but there there's not a whole lot of buffering and perhaps it's just because there isn't a lot of room on on your lot for example so you know the I think the board should be cognizant of the fact that they're
asking the applicant Mr rocker who's going to do it because he's going to deliver a wonderful product to provide buffering for the neighbor that just spoke even though the neighbor that just spoke isn't doing anything on their property to create this privacy they're
relying on the other lot and and that's just uh that's just how it's been and I understand that but anyway I I I thank the the board and the board's professionals for for allowing me to present the application um for their their very probing questions and I hope
that we've we've demonstrated that that we meet the criteria necessary to justify the relief that we're seeking so thank you for for hearing us out okay can I say something in response hang on okay i just have a question so
is Mr rocker going to build this house and develop his or selling the lot and someone else is going to develop it we confused so we we we don't I don't think it's it's it's certainly not I'm an answer to the question but I it's not pertinent to the relief we're requesting
but I think the reason why we don't know the answer is because the now that the the lot will be marketable meaning we'll have to go in get the conservation easement amended when we actually started this process we we didn't even necessarily want to go before the board wanted to go to the township and say "Hey can you amend the conservation
easement as your ordinance prescribes and it's kind of a chicken or the egg scenario well the lot's not really developable anyway so go before the board get your variance relief and then you can remove the or amend the conservation easement." To answer your question I don't know or we don't know if somebody's going to purchase the lot
and and then ask G ask Mr rocker to construct it and and he'll be the GC and the builder on the project or vice versa he might build something and it won't be custom he'll build something and and someone will will will purchase it so we just don't know exactly what's going to
happen but I would I I'm not stipulating for this but I venture that Mr rocker will be involved in some manner with the development of this property because I can't imagine somebody would want to buy this and not have Mr rocker build it and I guess my question to the board attorney Can you transfer the variance
when you sell them it's not the variance relief runs with the land it does whether you sell it or not forever it is forever how many times you sell it or who you sell it to or whatever similarly to the non-conforming elements
to the lots in this neighborhood when they when they when someone in this neighborhood sells it to another person the non-conformity since so many lots are undersized they don't then have to go get variance relief because their their pre-existing non-conforming use runs with the land similar to a variance so my question going back to
that sort of saying before too is so you sell this plot of land to somebody else you've made some concessions here tonight forever so okay okay so the setback and the idea about doing the trees or or
creating the buffer um the idea of adding in about the not notice of uh the um major development uh those will all be stipulated and those will be passed on to any new buyer correct and
they'll be held to those okay okay thank you very much um we've closed public comment so unfortunately no more raising hands um okay um Mr
warner do you want to um maybe sum up for us the stipulations that we heard sure very quickly the uh the relief being sought is one variance both variance minimum lot area 3 acres required 2.7 existing and proposed since
it's being developed then that lot area deviation uh is required to be granted relief uh there is also the elimination of one existing deviation the minimum improvable lot
area is being uh rendered conforming from a nonconforming state um so one variance minimum lot area and all the conditions that were stick to set forth in Mr schlly and Mr clint's memo as
modified in particular the 125 ft maximum front yard setback suggestion uh stipulated to at 135 ft maximum front yard setback um the driveway access and
the building materials for side and rear were clarified driveway access lane um and uh with me um the um Duke
And we had just further clarification with respect to items five and six in Mr schise's memo i'm not going to try to regurgitate it exactly right now but we did get it and it will be in the memorializing resolution and it will be
uh you'll have an opportunity to review it before adopting it um but they are agreeing with the uh the vegetation uh preser prevailing vegetation being preserved and the tree
protection removal replacement plan um as clarified i think that's it did I leave any out the house will face ah I'm sorry that's I couldn't read that will face wow it's bad when I can't even read my
own handwriting i thought it was a dupe of another one thank you uh yes the house will face Colt's neck colts neck will be the primary guard and that's all I have so three out of
four thank you still in full okay so does anyone want to kick us off with any comments um or deliberations on this application or a motion i'll I'd be happy to start us off here
um so so I think here um it's actually relatively simple um you have a 2.7 acre lot we're not talking about something that's so significantly undersized that we're trying to squeeze something in i think you've taken a situation that was
in a bad condition and you're making it better i think what you have proposed is a lovely idea i trust that once you submit your plans to our engineering department and planners um you're going to you know you're going to be held to
the standards that our township requires anyway so for me I see it as a hardship the property was reszoned um but again I mean there was a much larger hardship with the wetlands that you're that you're now mitigating and you're able to
build a home and you're able to move it closer to Colts to Colts Glenn than you were uh prior to changing the wetlands um you're also uh proposing storm water management which I think is going to be
critical here as well um and I think that in any regard that also is a benefit i see no detriment i see a property where there's plenty of room for buffering uh for trees for
vegetation um and um I don't think that if you had taken property from anywhere else surrounding you it would have made any difference as to where you can position uh the the house so um I think As long as everything is staying
relatively consistent with the neighborhood and not being so far um out of the character of the neighborhood then then you know there's no reason not to approve this um I do see it under C1 hardship uh but I also see that there's
absolutely no detriment here i think it's actually um an improvement and I don't think that it impairs the the intent of the master plan either in fact um again I think you've improved a situation you've had a we've had a a
developed area with one piece of property that couldn't otherwise be developed and now can so now I think it's making a more cohesive unit and actually improves the master plan so I would be in favor of the project thank you Miss Fman other um comments
i I would agree um and I think the setback the front yard setback is kind of because of that wetlands area in the front yard unless you want water in your basement for all the time um I really think you have to get a distance away
from that but I don't see any detriment i when I drove by the property today I was going to walk it and I had visions of ticks so I just I do I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood too develop that property and I think what you're showing is a
nice development comments um I agree i guess um you know it's clearly not it became non-conforming to to no fault uh you know that it was time and uh and changes where it became
non-conforming so I agree with the C1 um hardship i appreciate that um you're going to develop uh the land i appreciate that obviously you're going to develop it in the way that would hopefully would be the nicest uh you know property uh or or home that will um
fit in with the with the neighborhood um you know you you take you know you you're before us because it's not a buildable lot so you know our concern you know I'm very sensitive to putting stipulations on you that we wouldn't put on the rest of the neighborhood so I am sensitive um to that having said that we
have a responsibility because it is being developed so far after the fact and the rules have changed so we want to make sure it's conforming in the neighborhood and it you know it's not going to stand out from anyway so my only question with respect to the board and I'd ask Mr sly to to weigh in your suggestion was 125 ft which is already
20 feet back from the existing setback i know you stipulated to 135 and I appreciate that that's a voluntary stipulation um that you did is is one is that 10 extra feet material because you already went back 20 from that do you feel like
that extra 10 feet is material such that the board could should consider some other number uh other than 135 that we could ask about i think maybe in the buffering requirement that the Min was alluding to this earlier when he first
started talking about setback that in determining the adequacy of of the buffer uh take into consideration how far back the uh the dwelling is and how in line or not in line the yards are and
perhaps the further back the house goes the um provide a little buffering to protect the uh the character the yard yeah is so how do we word that such that it's not
overly complicated because obviously they're stipulating to no more than 135 is it do we have to arrange it such that we would ask them to consider additional buffering if it's or are we going to make it if I may subject to the review and approval of someone and if so then
the intent is given to them and we have the gatekeepers to to judge right but that would be in determining the adequacy of the buffering to consider how far back the the house is and how imposing it may
be on neighbors open okay we can work on that language yeah we we can work on that language and and I think it's in their best interest anyway i'm sure we probably don't even need to write that in they're going to be sensitive to that but and it's review
and approval of who again and uh is I take it that the board is not imposing that but the applicant is stipulating to that sure thank you good with that I think the extra 10 feet is is okay um and the only obviously I was
very comfortable with the fact that a suitable home could be built on this undersized area okay so um motion anybody want to just crank that out so I would make a motion um to deem the
application complete um and to um approve the application and to direct our board attorney to um draft a resolution memorializing um the board's decision and all of the stipulations
uh there too to grant the application to grant this leaf salt based upon the C1 variance we do C2 also or I think we just heard C1 i didn't put any we didn't put
provide any testimony for a C2 we just provided C1 testimony there there could certainly be arguments made that there are I don't think the board is not going to grant the alternative basis i think
one one did it with one and not the other okay is there a second i'll second okay thank you Miss Kefir miss Bon yes miss Parkar yes m yes chairwoman yes
thank you thank you thank you good luck thanks okay um before the clock strikes 10 yes before the clock strikes 10 um next on the agenda is the completeness and
public hearing of Sedakowski ZB25002 and and uh I did review the app uh the notice Madam Chair the content was sufficient to timely serve certified mail March 19 published 9 March 27th
both at least 10 days prior to this evening April 9th mr board does have jurisdiction here this application i'll swear everybody in when appropriate which might even be now so if everybody will raise their right hand uh do all of
you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you all back to you Madam Chair great excellent hi um you want to tell us who you are and and a little bit uh about what you're asking
us for sure uh my name is Alex Selcowski i live at 8 Cottage Street in Bernards Township uh I live there with my wife Meredith and our five uh five-month old son Mason uh we bought the house 5 and a half years ago and our plan is to expand it to accommodate our growing family uh
while maintaining the classic look and charm of the home and the aesthetics of the neighborhood uh we'd like to add two bedrooms a bathroom and an office on the second floor as well as widen the driveway uh we've enjoyed our time in Basking Ridge uh thus far and look forward to raising our children and
family here for many years to come uh at this time I'm going to turn it over to our architect Dan Entin of Mendum Design to walk you through the technical description of the project and the variances we're asking for and I'm sorry your name daniel Edson CIN
mr sl that's the old one right up on the screen and you're an architect i am yes and are you licensed in the state of New Jersey i am i've been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2007 license remains a good
standing it does and have you testified for land use boards and if so have you been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture by them yes I've I've presented in front of this board multiple times and all of the adjacent municipalities there we go thank you we'll accept you you're all the more
experienced than you were when this board accepted you the last time correct this is true all right so I guess the board is accepted terrific thank you okay uh property is uh in question is 8
Cottage Street uh the uh the home was constructed in 1929 uh property is located in the R six zone uh and it is a uh existing lot is a significantly undersized lot for the zone uh the required uh area for the zone is
32,670 square ft uh and the existing lot as it stands is 8,127 square ft so about a quarter of what's required for the zone um which will be apparent as we look at it with the size and location of setbacks and areas uh the the plan that I'm
presenting here there is one change on this plan and I apologize but um you can move the mic closer use that one i know that might hamper how you're holding the uh the exhibit whatever just so we make sure everybody can hear and hear well
including the thousands and thousands of people who are watching never know you never know what the deal millions could be millions uh so the uh the plans that are here uh that I'm presenting there is one change to the plan uh that was requested ed in
the engineering review letter uh to modify the uh the signature line to read township engineer as opport as opposed to board engineer uh and so that change has been made but all other aspects of uh of the plan are consistent and well
just marked that A1 anyway uh the changed just to be technical um and uh but what was the last revised date uh the the the revised date of this sheet is 4825 and other than that one change is it
exactly the same though including the coloration on the looks that is correct it's exactly the same and while we're referencing the engineers report I apologize we're getting uh the are you stipulating to all the conditions set forth Mr clint's report
yes uh and while we're hot maybe we can address as well you got that uh yes i have it right here um in regards to the comments
um some of them are just comments of what is there they're not uh stipulating to change or uh anything different uh number one uh being the proposed addition located entirely within the footprint of the existing dwelling uh and the roof peak of the addition approximately uh 5' 10 in taller than
the roof peak of the existing dwelling uh that is all consistent uh as what's on the plan nothing has changed uh the item number two the applicant's existing lot coverage was approved in 1994 in conjunction with the board of adjustments approval of the now
existing uh rear edition and deck the proposed driveway expansion which is intended to enable one car to pass another car on the driveway increases the existing coverage by 0.90% or 73 square ft from one two and three are factually accurate
uh items one two and three comments one two and three in Mr schlly's memo are factually accurate correct yes they are and then number four I guess the shen is not increasing the impervious coverage because there was a dog there was a previous coverage there already correct
and it was built on that setback correct that is correct is it on is the shed does the shed on a foundation or it's sitting on the slab which was the dog run it's a concrete slab concrete
slab right so I guess it theoretically could be relocated but the concrete slab will still be there and wherever it's relocated to might have even further imperous coverage correct that in law school they they uh experience counts
i'm not wasn't much we learned in law school uh engineering permit must be obtained prior to you understand the engineering permit be yes necessary all right the uh can I just before you leave my report there's only two things in my report that I just
wanted you to focus on sure one the engineering permit you might have to get you may have to get some more survey work to show the engineering department what you're doing change curve details you'll you'll work that through the couch of engineering
department help you you'll probably need some survey the other thing is since you're over impervious cover just be really careful your as condition doesn't result in additional impervious cover overages because you'll be coming back here explain why you're over what you
got approved for it happens a lot which is why I caution you that's it just inconsistent with the plan okay you You look a little puzzled do you understand what I'm saying no I'm used to being in this forum so I'm No no well you're requesting a variance cover
the lot with more impervious cover than would permit stick to the number don't go over it right often times contractors come in and say "Hey look I've got extra block here." Sure yeah put it in i won't charge you for it you'll come back to explain why that happened happens more often than it should find another block
on the property to get rid of be cautious yes that's called Mr quinn's cautionary okay um the pictures in the application did you take those uh I took the photos okay and um with the exception of the
shed it's separate okay i got this yes those were separate when were these pictures taken approximately six months ago okay and this is essentially what the house still looks like today exactly like this i saw the shed that was set that was
separate that was a late addition for that variance for the shed that is correct yeah it was that was noted as part of the uh the review process and have you um ever how long have you been at this property
november of 2019 five and a half months approximately okay five and a half years right and um have during that time have you heard any concerns from neighbors around the location of the shed no okay
and the shed I think we said this it's already co it's already included in the improprious coverage that that slab Yes is included okay okay and and previously approved yes previously approved 28.51
gotcha okay is there any are there any trees behind the shed any room for you know some sort of a buffer behind the shed nothing on my property no there's a fence there i see the
looks like there are trees on the other side of the fence though yes not that you need to I guess but the uh I take it if you if you did relocate the shed not only would it increase your
coverage but if you brought it sent back from the rear property line you'd be impacting significant impact your useful backyard correct correct do you just use it for storage but
what's in there yes i was told to say very little trying very hard okay you can answer our question like what do you store in there garden tools lawn furniture okay there's no electricity in there there there is a generator that is
stored there's a generator like a portable generator that's stored no one lives in there sleeps in there takes a shower in there check every once in a while in the winter just to be sure Miss Poptart they have four so you're really everything is you're
just raising the house there's no real addition in the rear there there is no increase to the footprint of the house there is no soil disturbance from that area the So it's two separate elements the the element of the addition
is a second story edition wholly within the footprint of the existing house yeah there is an existing second story or or what's called half story uh which which contains a bedroom space up in the top there is a pre-existing stair up to
that second story within the house um it is usable as a single bedroom but it has some low uh angled ceiling heights and some other things uh and the proposed addition is to expand the roof upward and then apply a gable dormer at the front a shed dormer on the rear
consistent with and taking cues from other homes within the neighborhood that have more second floor space uh and then that is creating space for two bedrooms an office and a bathroom uh at that upper level to bring it more in line with with other homes you're not disturbing the front facade of the house
other than this piece of roof behind you is just kind of a higher That is correct we are maintaining all the front roof lines and porch as part of the work the house has a very nice more historic character to it and the idea is to to kind of continue that and and play that up uh as opposed to trying to remove
anything from it and the additional coverage is coming only from the driveway that is correct yes what are we doing with the driveway widening the mouth and first few feet of the driveway to allow when a car is parked there right now you everybody has
to back out of the driveway to let somebody who is further up or in the garage out of the driveway this would allow a car at the end and then somebody in the garage to pull out around and then get to the street without having to back out the other car they've got 13 ft now so they're putting five feet on so
they get 18 feet that's just about enough just about enough to They're going back about 18 feet from the right of way so they can get the car tucked in there so you're widely drunk with a hot yeah they don't they don't permit parking on the street there do they do you know
it's like they're I mean they're they do I don't know if they've permitted I mean I've parked on a street narrow real they they do Yes okay yeah as I was me measuring the house and at various points there there have been
cars parked along the street there which is encumbersome at times so opening the driveway to allow us to operate freely without having to play musical cars is beneficial
okay and if I may so as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong as well professionals but for the six variances are setbacks front yard sideyard north and south and combined sideyard and with respect to all four of
those setbacks there is a vertical uh U ex exacerbation of the setback deviation in that we're going up within the uh existing setbacks but none of them none of them
are increasing or the the the setback or it's just a going going further into the setbacks it's in fact the existing setbacks around the perimeter of the house are not increasing it's just that what's going up is within that those
existing footprints so so it's lesser than what already exists it's just vertical yes so everything is pulled in from the perimeter so they are all less than the the pre-existing setbacks the only quote unquote new variances I guess being sought even though those were
technically new variances would be rear setback for the shed um that had wasn't I guess previously approved uh and the uh black coverage has gone up the uh just shy of 1% this is
a sort of restating it a different way but but accurately nonetheless I hope yes if the second story was added to the house without touching the drive would they come here yes because it's still a
lot so small exact exactly way smaller so all the setbacks are tiny right if this were a conforming size property we we wouldn't even be close to asking for a variance for any of these or coverage
um I think Mr is covered I think yes and Mr quinn yeah there again I the two things that I I mentioned to them are really the things I wanted to take away from here that was the uh make sure you stay
within cover and you're gonna have to show more than you have here for the township widen the driveway yes and did you get a copy of the environmental uh commission letter yes I did okay did
you have any issues with some of the comments that were made within that memo uh I believe my only comment I had made to the board secretary was that the link provided uh didn't link to a usable web page so when I tried to view the
information I I couldn't for the native trees I guess and shrubs oh okay so so you you were able to read their memo but you weren't able to hit their link to look at what the native shrubs are sure right we can correct that for them Miss Kefir um we can point them in the right
direction such that they get the information sorry I cannot as of now um I've not gotten any guidance from either the um EC or we've tried multiple times on different sites and whatever but so far
we don't have a reliable list no it does the link doesn't work anymore we we can follow up separately um to make sure you're able to access that information we know people on the environmental commission so we'll be
able to get you that information okay but would you be willing to look at that and consider those native trees from uh an improper coverage standpoint i think they would be helpful um have you spoken to Well I guess wrong
person to ask i was gonna ask about he's the right person to ask go ahead you can ask have you spoken to any of your neighbors about this project i have did they have any objections or comments not that I'm aware of okay um also from the
environmental commission letter uh they asked that you're aware for the potential for inground tanks lead paint asbestous were you comfortable with that comment yes just to be aware okay as comfortable as I can be yeah okay
and I assume no trees are being removed for this pro um project given that it's within the building envelope correct yes okay same footprint I think okay and during demolition uh they're going to ask you for to
consider recycling repurposing or gifting any demoed material that's not being used it's a standard comment okay and then when did you say those shed pictures were taken approximately
february okay also February and that landscaping that we view on the pictures is essentially the same as it is now yes in one of the pictures the house that's right next door yes um is that a two-story house it is
yeah that that home follows a kind of a consistent pattern in terms of the use of the attic space a shed dormer on the rear um some small gable dormers on the front um and that that characteristic is repeated on multiple homes throughout the neighborhood you don't see a lot of
two-story homes where it's a full two-story um most of them are set up to appear as like a one and a half story um and so we're taking our cues from that in terms of how we're creating the addition so from an architectural perspective it
would be rendering the dwelling more conforming with those in the neighborhood yes it would be be creating more consistency with the other home now there are other I said more conform well more well more conforming more consistent I guess yeah with the characteristics of of the other homes
throughout the neighborhood yes any other questions for the applicant or their architect are there questions from the public i think that was a no i can't really see but I'm thinking that's a no um are there any comments on this
application either for or against no okay anything else for us or you want to turn it over to the board next time uh just in closing uh that um you know looking at the the the bulk sea variance um for you know the hardship being the
significantly undersized lot um at at approximately a quarter of what's required for this R six zone um really creates all of the the variance uh conditions and everything else that we're um we're seeking approval for and looking at the proposed work in relation
to the existing home and the neighborhood uh we feel that uh you know there's multiple benefits uh towards updating the house and and creating this and making it more consistent with the neighborhood uh and that there is no detriment uh to any of the work that's proposed okay and do we ask uh I assume
the materials that you're going to use for the for the addition are going to be consistent with the existing house somewhat uniform that is correct they would be consistent with the existing house with the exception most likely being uh that the existing trim work because of the age of the house is
actual wood trim um which at at this point in time we can't use regular wood trim because it will rot so quickly on the outside of the house uh so most likely the trim would be a painted cellular PVC or an Azac type trim so it looks like the same wood trim uh but it
will last as opposed to consistent and in character it'll all be visually consistent and in character thank you okay thank you very much um anyone from the board want to um kick us off with any comments uh or discussion
points or motions on this application oh Mr warner do you want to sum up if we had any stipulations mr iz memo has the relief front yard two sideyards combined side yards uh the rear yard set back for the shed and the maximum lock coverage
and the magnitudes thereof uh you see one undo hardship argument uh and uh the conditions are those that were stipulated to as set forth in Mr schl Mr memo uh and adherence with some of the
recommendations in the environmental commission memo and the substantially similar uh in architectural style color and materials with the uh substantially similar with
the uh notation uh that they would be uh visually consistent and in character but there would be deviations in material particularly with respect to the trip and I would just not say color because I have I I don't know what color we'll say
we'll say substantially similar uh architectural architecture and material yes those caviats thank you Mr thank you Mer um I mean I think it's a
it's a lovely addition it doesn't really change the front facade of the house dramatically at all it tries to save what's there and I think that's really nice especially in a an older home historic home in the town um I see it as
a C1 ownership variance um I think the benefits outweigh the detriments of the project i don't see any public good and um I think it's going to look it's going to be a very nice looking home and it retains the character of the original home um as
such I would make a motion to deem this application complete and I'd like to request that the board attorney draft a resolution to approve the variance request including all stipulated uh stipulations stated stipulations and
conditions outlined um in the board planner and engineers reports and grant the relief saw as a C1 variance um thank you Miss Par i I would just add that um I would throw C2 in there as well it's definitely C1 but I do think the
widening of the driveway um you know is considered I think a little bit safer especially if you're going to have multiple cars um going on there your coverage is a high number as as a percentage we appreciate that your lot is small um so it's very easy to get
those numbers jumping very very quickly um so uh to Mr quinn's point be mindful of um of how you're using that uh square footage um I do also um appreciate that
a lot of the front yard sideyard combined yard sides are actually improving um from where we are uh now but in in the end I think the driveway widening is probably a good thing overall and a better thing for your overall property i I I think your house
is is lovely and it looks well landscaped with respect to the shed I do note that it's been there for we don't know how long but no one um has made any uh vocal concerns to you and we haven't heard any um here uh tonight and in fact
if we asked you to move the shed it you know it wouldn't help from an approprious coverage standpoint it wouldn't help from like a visual impact of your land standpoint so uh I'm comfortable giving uh the variance for the shed as well is that a second it was
an amendment I guess i'll second miss Bman yes miss Poptart yes miss Trap yes chairwoman Engineers yes good luck with your project thank you thank you
you wouldn't have heard that third piece okay all right um so comments from members none any comments from staff are we planning to cancel the April 17th
meeting yes we are planning to cancel the April 17th meeting thank you Miss Kefir so let's go ahead and cancel that mr warner nice to have you join us tonight you don't write you don't call it's nice to see you actually I do yes you do and
he does call now that you mention Motion to adjurnn motion to adjurnn all in favor i