All good. Hey, good evening. Good evening everyone. We're going to call tonight's uh meeting of the township of Bernard's zoning board of adjustment. Uh the first item on the agenda is the 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 under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting laws, notice this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of burnt 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 Bridgewater, New Jersey. And it was also filed with the township clerk on January 9th of this year and was mailed electronically to all those who had
requested individual notice. The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township zoning board of adjustment. There will be no new cases heard after 10 o'clock tonight and there will be no testimony heard after 10:30. Can you do a roll call for us? Chair
engineer here. Dr. Agolf here. Miss Herrera here. Miss Dichi here. Mr. Krabs here. Miss Bowman here. Miss Per here. Miss Silver
here. Miss Ch here. Mr. So here, Mr. Quinn here. Mr. SL here. And for the record, Miss Lang is present. Awesome. More than that. Everybody's here. Everybody's here.
Are we missing a microphone? I think. No, we're missing one. Okay. So, we'll share. We'll share. Just make sure either one of you are asking a question. Oh, wait. We have it. Give us one second. We'll shift them all down.
Okay. Excellent. Um, next on the agenda is the approval of minutes which is from the July 9th regular session meeting. They were circulated in advance of tonight. Were there any comments or edits or a motion to pass uh those as drafted?
We have a couple I have a couple of edits. Okay, go ahead. Fman second. Oh, thank you. Um on page three under the com under uh Rosa the last
paragraph um applicants should be referred to as applicant in two places. Um, and on page four under the Stokes and it's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. The ninth paragraph should actually be
applicants plural and that's it. Thank you, Miss Bowman. I move we approve the minutes as amended. I'll second. Thank you. Do you have that? Merr. and trap are not eligible to vote on
amendments. Um all in favor I thank you. Uh next is the approval of resolutions. First one is 6A which is drunken ZB25007. Um I think maybe only some of us can um is that right?
Yes. Mr. Mr. Krauss and silver are not eligible. Okay. So there's only four. Can you just The four there's um five resolutions. Yes. No, I'm sorry. The four who are eligible to vote on D and
only Mr. Krauss and Miss Silver are not eligible to vote on this one. Can no voters vote on that resolution? Okay. So, also I think Miss Bowman and Miss Padichi. No, I was here for the vote. Everyone who voted to deny the application.
That's right. That's right. I am. Thank you for your chief. Okay. Chuck and Miller 25007 and eligible voters are again. So, Mr. Cass and Miss Silver are not eligible. Sorry, Mr. said if they vote against.
Were there any comments or edits on um on that resolution? Did everyone see V3 version three dated August 4th? That was the most recent few. Yes, I did. Yes, I think we all saw that one. And thank
thank you for the edits on that. So, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Thank you. So, that's Miss Par and Miss Bowman. Again, the only people who are eligible to vote are people who are present and who voted
no with the motion to deny the application. Dr. E. Miss Herrera. Yes. Missi, yes. Miss, yes. Miss Par.
Yes. Yes. General engineers. Yes. Next is Kuchi Kucci ZB25003. That was also circulated in advance and I think only a subset of us are eligible to vote on that one.
Also, Mad, there's a few changes that need to get made. Um, first off, the easier ones. Miss Bman brought some uh typos to my attention. Page seven, item 20, line three, remove the word of after purchased. Page nine, third sentence from the top of the page, remove the
word into after court. Then remove the space between lane and semicolon in line four. Uh page nine, item 31, remove the word quote impervious after proposed. And then on page 15, item C, second line, the word screen should be screened. So
Mr. Sioski, can I vote on that? Although I voted to deny it. No. You voted I voted noation. So you cannot be. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
Um so those are the first changes and I think Dave had something about condition 5A. You needed to read uh the applicant's engineering plans shall include all proposed grading and storm water management improvements shown on exhibit A5.
Oh. Yes. And that's it. I guess the for whatever reason there was some kind of revision to the draft and it it read in the copy that everybody else has submitted engineering plans have been revised to reflect all proposed changes etc etc. Doesn't really make sense as a condition
if they already been revised. So the two two types of changes that need the application number in a heading it says 253. Okay. Hopefully that's
the Anybody else have any comments or corrections? Okay. So, um, if there's no other comments, do we have a motion to approve as amended? I'll make a motion to approve as amended. Thank you, M. Pop.
I'll second. Miss Ferrer, Mr. Kra, and Miss Trap are not eligible to vote on this resolution. Dr. Aber. Yes. Miss Bman, I'm not eligible. I voted no. And Miss Padichi is also not
eligible. Thank you, Miss Popar. Yes. Miss Silver. Yes. Engineers. Yes. Thank you. So, the next resolution is Rosa
ZB009. That was also circulated in advance. there's any edits or comments or a motion to approve as drafted. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve as drafted. And I will suffer,
Mr. Krauss, and Miss Trap are not eligible to vote on resolution. Dr. Agal, yes. Miss Bman, yes. Miss Dichi, yes. Miss Popar, yes. Silver. Yes.
Chair of Engineers. Yes. Thank you. Next one was Stokes ZB 2510. Any comments or edits on this resolution or a motion to approve as drafted? So moved.
Thank you, Miss Bichi. I'll second it. Thank you, Miss Per. Same as the others, Miss Herrera, Mr. Craz, yes. Missichi, yes. Miss Bman,
yes. Miss Papar, yes. Miss Silver, yes. Chair, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, and the last resolution is ZB010 Z Linski. any uh edits or comments on that
resolution or a motion to approve as drafted. I'll make a motion to approve as drafted. Thank you, Miss Bman. I second. Thank you, Mr. P. Mer, Mr. Kra, and Merigible. Dr. Agal, yes.
Madichi, yes. Miss Bman, yes. Miss Pear, yes. Miss Silver, yes. engineers. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Um so next on our agenda uh is the Chowry case. Uh and I believe Mr. Soi we are carrying That's correct madam chair chairman apologies. So if anyone is here to hear the chowry case EV25014
we are not hearing that one tonight. Um, we're going to carry that one without further notice to September 3rd, 2025. Yep. And I'll make the formal announcement. I did just for the record, I did review their notice. They did do everything properly for this evening. So, the board has the jurisdiction and hear the case tonight and obviously
carry it as well. Uh, okay. So, the application of Muhammad Ali Shadri concerning property located at block 1307 lot 6, 177 West Oak Street. um under application number CB25-014 that's going to be carried to the board
September 3rd 2025 meeting with no further notice being required either by publication or by certified mail or personal service. Uh this announcement counts as your notice. So we'll see 7:30 p.m. here at the municipal for that case in September. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um next
on the agenda is POPTAR ZB25015. Assume we are losing a member here. Okay. So next I was willing to let Miller go first seeing that they have an expert here. Okay, that's fine. Miller, would you like to go first or would you like to go second?
All right. So we're not hearing Pocktar right now. We're going to hear Miller, which is ZB250. You have watched. Okay. So, we're going to hear Miller ZB25013.
Madam Chair, just real quick, I'll point out for the record, I did review the applicants notice. This hearing I find seem to be sufficient both in terms of content and it timeliness of service was sent by certified mailers of property for the 200 ft on July 18th. Also published in the burns of less on
July 17th 2025 more than 10 days in advance of tonight series jurisdiction hearing the case. Okay everybody first. Yes. Okay. So how many folks do you guys have testify? Well, he's the homeowner and to the
extent that you ask questions that you can't answer, I'm here to help. I'm Jeff Hustler with CLC Landscape Design. I'm the contractor, the permit manager that helped put the application together. So, just the two of you and then Okay. So, I'll need the two of you to raise
the right hands for me. Stand up. Okay. Do all four of you swear from the testimony you're about to provide. The truth, the whole truth, the truth. I do. Thanks so much. And gentlemen, if you could please identify yourselves name and address or business address, please. And can you bring that microphone a
little closer to you if it if it you have enough room to do that and speak directly into the microphone? It would be helpful. Thank you. My name is Harold Miller, 11 Summit Drive, Basking Ridge. I'm the homeowner.
As stated before, my name is Jeff Hustler. Last name spelled H O T L E R. I'm with CLC Landscape Design. We are at 58 Ringwood Avenue in Ringwood, New Jersey. Um, Mr. Miller, do you want to tell us
why you're here tonight? Um, take us. Mr. Hustler, are you a certified landscape architect? I am not. Okay. No, I'm sorry. Um, Mr. Millie, do you want to tell us uh why you're here and
to take us through your project a little bit so we can understand it better. Sure. Um, I'm here seeking a variance for imperous coverage on the property at 11 Summit Drive. Are we're seeking a variance um to go
from the 20% maximum allowable coverage to 23.2%. Um, we are looking to install an 18x 36 foot pool
with a small pavilion in our backyard. Um, the project is over the permitted block coverage by 874 square ft. We're just looking to create a safe and functional
uh space in the backyard for our kids. My wife and I bought this house in 2016. We've lived in Basking Ridge for about nine years. We've got three kids, 11, nine, and four years old, and we're
looking to put an inground pool uh in our backyard. And um for v reasons that we'll go through try to go through relatively quickly for you here. We're seeking uh
this variance to go to 23.2% um coverage. We're looking to beautify the backyard um create an environment for the kids
and we've given some significant consideration to minimize the overage of the coverage. Um I can go through those
reasons for you. Um the initial design that we had created um was in excess of the 23.2%. We've done a number of things to try to
minimize that. We have minimized the PA surround around around the pool to the extent that we could. Um the typical surround of a pool is a
three-foot walking space or a three foot plus one foot of coping or a 4ft surround. We minimized that to a twoft surround. Um, we did that for a reason. We're looking to install an auto cover
on the pool for safety reasons, which didn't allow us to reduce that pool coping any further than the 24 in surround. Um, as required by code, the pool is
located in a position on the property that is the flattest portion of the property. That sets the pool back towards um the back portion of the property
in an attempt to um drop from the existing we are replacing an an existing wooden deck. We are looking to replace that with a tiered decking that is an open deck structure.
to minimize the impervious coverage. Um, due to the elevation change from the house and the distance that the pool is from the house, we wanted to include a small pavilion. The pavilion is a 14 by
14 foot pavilion. So, for reference, it's not significantly than a popup tent that you would see at a tailgate as an example that might be 10t by 10t or 12t by 12t. Um we try to
minimize the size of that pavilion again related to coverage issue. Uh we intend to install privacy screening um
plantings of Norway spruces, skips, evergreen shrubs for privacy to the neighbor's property. Um we are we have a planned storm water management system shown on our plan. That system is
designed to capture the entire increase in imperous coverage. Um, the storm water will be captured via French drain system surrounding the pool and and patio. The roof leaders of the pavilion
will be tied into that system. We expect there will be no negative impact to neighbors as a result. We believe that the plan and the design has several
areas of posit pos impact to the property and no no detriment. I do want to address the environmental commission's letter. So, a couple points that they brought up a 33%
void ratio. We have no problem complying with that. The overflow for the coldtech chambers, we have no issue. The roof leaders on the pavilion are connected to the drainage system.
The plan is to remove two trees from the property, a small dogwood and a hickory tree, which will be replaced as required.
Is that where the pool is going to go? That's where the trees are being. We actually looked at reducing the size of the pool itself because that is basically the 880 square ft uh of coverage.
The reason we would like to not do that is because that 18 by 36T pool is the minimum size for an 8 foot depth. And so for the kids to be diving We really felt that a minimum depth of
8t was necessary which limits the the size of the pool. So we have given significant consideration to try to stay within that 20% coverage area. We think what we're looking for in an additional
3.2% is reasonable. Mr. Miller, have you talked to your neighbors uh or told them about your proposal. Um, we have done I think everything
required by the township in terms of what I'm asking is many times neighbors have issues with when you're when someone's trying to expand their space.
Have you talked with them at all about what you're planning on doing? Okay. And no one approached you. No one approached you or anything. They never obviously notified, but they have they didn't knock in your door say
and all the lighting will it be downward with shield so that it does not infect affect the neighbors. So the landscape lighting will be low voltage lighting. Okay. There will be mostly down lighting.
Okay. There will be or there is intended to be a handful of up lighting for tree highlight. Most of the landscape lighting are what we call path lights. They have a little cone on the top of upward lights.
The upward lights are to highlight a tree like a specimen tree or something like that. They're not meant to shine into the sky. They're meant to focus on the tree. Thank you. Mr. Mil, did you take the pictures that are submitted with your application?
Uh, I did not. Do you know who did? I believe our contract. Okay. And um do you know when he took them? Actually, she was. It was It was Emily. Um and it was probably
six months ago. Six or eight months ago. Are you familiar with these pictures that are in your application? Did does the property essentially look the same now? Yes, it does. No changes. Mr. Quinn, we we've um touched on the
water um systems. Do you agree with the comments um from the environmental commission and what he's agreeing to about 33%? Absolutely. I miss that. Normally I um this one.
They're they'll end up collecting sufficient runoff from all of the excess pretty comfortable with that. As always though, you guys will have to do some infiltration tests here. I don't know what the soils were like there.
If uh the soils don't prove to be sufficiently permeable, you may have to use like a bottom out system overflow back to bugs in the back. Okay.
Mr. Miller, you talked about the screening. Um can you go into a little bit more depth? I know Mr. Sly on his memo um the point screening especially behind
the pavilion to your neighbor um what you're planning in there and and what your view of the screening is. I can describe some of that. So what's currently in our contract now is four Norway spruce is between six and
seven foot seven Norway spruce is between seven and 8 foot about five skips the idea is what's privacy to Mr. Miller is screening to the neighbors. So that you know benefits most both sides you know they want the
privacy on their side and it also provides the screen. So there's a whole row of trees that are going to go in there and the Norway stru one where you get the view in at the bottom as the tree gets bigger. Which side of the property is this
screening going on? I'm trying to look at this. Most of it's on the left side you on the engineering plan. You can see there's already some woods on the right side that kind of shields the neighbor on the right. So, this is the supplement on the left.
There will be some on the right. This is the side of Yes. You're saying right and left from the back of the house. Looking to the back into the back to the back. So if you're looking from the back porch out, you're going to be
on the the left side, which we can't see in these pictures, so we can't see the shading really. Is that what you're saying? And the right side is very heavily screened. The left side has virtually none, but the neighbor has a very large vegetable garden plot. Looks like very
close to the property line. That's true. And I'm thinking they're not going to like having the screening there shading their vegetable. I as a gardener would not like that. So I'm just Have you spoken to them about this? Is that what you intend to do?
I I haven't spoken to them, so it's not like worst case. Okay. Right. So which Okay. So the property back of the to the north. So that's the west.
Do you actually have a landscape plan you're looking at? Uh no, he handed me the pictures. I was just going to explain this. You can see all the woods on the right because you're looking to the back. Um and on the left where you really don't have any that's where most of the screening is going to
go on this side. Right. So that just beware there's an easement in there, right? A 20 foot utility ement. So you got to be at least 10 feet off your side. Just point of clarification. So just trying to understand directionally. You said most of the trees are going to go
on the right side. Right side property left side left side. So that's looking to the backyard. That would be southwest that property line. So make sure direction. So if looking at the pictures that are
up on the screens, you're you're putting it in between your house which is 24 and 23. That's correct. talking about. Correct. Okay. My question is yes, it looks like there's some quite a bit of wooding or barrier between 25 and 24, but what
about 26 because their backyard butts up against yours as well? There there's even more natural wooding between our property 24 and 26. There's a significant amount of natural
screening there. Mr. Quinn. Yes. Um you were talking about the soils and I know in our um town there's a lot of clay so sometimes the infiltration isn't so great. Um and you were saying they might have to
go with a different system like if this system were to not Are there other alternatives? Because when I look at the plan, I see that the grading is all going towards 26. So all of the water and you know are the trees and the forestry sort of behind the house enough
to catch any of that runoff if the system doesn't the system if there's not sufficient permeability and frankly burners surprises me because some areas very permeable and a lot of areas that are not in this case. Since
they have sufficient grade, what I've done in the past, what I've recommended you to do is if your impound can't discharge through the ground, they have enough grade to have a bottom a pipe with a bottom discharge, small hole,
feed it out the back so that I've done this with a cap and a oneinch hole at the bottom so that the thing is guaranteed to evacuate in the case. So it acts like a detention basin as opposed to an infiltration basin. In some lots you can't get infiltration. So
in le of that we require some sort of attention. So it slows the water down. Correct. And I think Mr. Quinn and Mr. Sly I think both of you had mentioned around the calculations of the kitchen area whether they were accounted for
correctly on the plans. Did you see those comments on both Mr. Qu and Mr. Sly's memo? Yeah. So, having dealt with this particular engineer on numerous things, it would be in his uncovered patio or whatever he as
part of the outdoor kitchen is under the pavilion, accounted for by the pavilion. It's just the piece that sticks out on the corner there that maybe that's included in the patio, but in this case because it's on the patio,
he would count it separately if it was offset off the patio. So, you'll agree to have a plan revised to clarify that. We can clarify that. Yes. Just so you know, whatever your hard stop is, it's your variance territory. Just we're trying to make sure we define that later.
Correct. And then the obviously the 33% that the leaders will go in. That was all our intent in the plan, but we can certainly specify that that's where the leaders Yeah. No, that makes sense. Um, the other question I had was you talk about the roster calls it rear steps to the
driveway, but is that that little bumpout you guys have in the back like you're adding a tiny little bit of asphalt in the back corner of the driveway? Well, I think what to connect to the steps it looks like. Yes. So, that's that area. Yeah.
Okay. Again, with the idea is it seems picky, but the idea is that since you're you have you're at a variance, you just want to make sure we capture it all and at the end of the day, if you have to do an ASB bill, you're not shuffling back here to say, "Oh, we need additional relief."
The existing steps in that location are the ones that you're discounting 28 square feet from the coverage because you're removing them. That's one of my comments. We're removing it. I think it's actually There is some uh landing at the bottom
of those steps. So I think the engineer just conservatively took the whole spot there. Technically part of it's an open deck and part of it has Yeah. The whole thing's an open deck because the deck when you when you don't count an open
deck for coverage, you don't count the footings under them either. Yeah. So that it sounds like that 28 square feet should not be um deducted. You couldn't clarify that in revised plan. Okay.
Is the proposed sund deck. It's also decking, right? You have a upper, a lower, and then you have what says proposed sund deck. That's all that's all open. It's not pavers or anything like that. That's all deck. Okay. That's correct. In an ideal world, it would probably be pavers connected. But again, trying to
accommodate and be reasonable with our ask. That was one of the ways of minimizing the impervious coverage, but still allowing them to have a sund deck near the pool for lounge chairs. Got it. Okay. Thank you. The green soft area also is just deck, not hardcape, right? The green area
behind the fireplace. That's also Mr. slides. Did we um cover everything in your memo? Albe it out of order. Um maybe I'm just going very quickly. What's the height? What is the height?
I'm looking at my memo which is dated August 1st, 2025 and I think other than the things that have already been discussed. The rest of my comments are are general comments. Well, I don't know if the applicants looked at that memo, but
the standards of soil erosion and sediment control, the perk test. I forget what else was in there, but tree replacement. Uh, yeah, we would follow soil from the pool excavation that's going to be carded off site or you'll have a grading plan for that. Yeah. And well, the the site plan that
we've submitted does have some grading in the back of it because it's not completely flat. So, to the extent that we can use some of that on site, we would, but we're not we would stick with this plan and anything else. Okay. So, and the environmental commission's uh best management
practices for storm water discharge uh you'll comply with. Yes. So, that that I mean that covers everything in my memo out of order. Um so, thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Clint, are there any
open um points or concerns? No, just to just to reiterate that you guys are going to have to submit an SED plan. So just make sure that this just make sure it's noted on the drawing so that counters could follow up. Make sure you digress. Yeah. Don't want to spend the money
until we Oh, no. I understand. I understand completely. Just um No, other than that, I think unless you have any issues with anything I've written down here. I don't have any additional time. No, I thought everything was reasonable questioned.
Okay. I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Quinn. Um Mr. Miller, you mentioned the env commission. You saw that um memo and I think you said you comply with everything in it, but um you double check that. Yes.
Yes. Just to be clear, 100% clear, you're going to comply with everything Mr. Clint and Mr. Correct. Are there um additional questions from the board at this time? Are there uh any questions for any of the testimony that we heard from the
public? Is there anybody who wants to make a comment on this application from the public for or against? Um do you have anything else for us or do you want to turn it over to the board at this time? We'll turn it over to the board.
Okay. Does anyone want to make any um comments or deliberations or make a motion on the clarify the removal of the driveway stops at 28 square ft is a negative is that positive or nothing now or is that still a negative
it they're going to clarify that it's looking to me like it's it shouldn't be reduced but there apparently there may be more patio or concrete under it that is counted regardless of the deck being there if it was just a normal deck construction, you wouldn't get credit
for removing an open deck. Um, so that's 28 square feet if what I'm hearing from the advocate is resolve it when they provide their detailed plans if it's not going to be discounted. They're going to have to lose 28 square feet. Oh, they just have to figure it out. Figure it out.
They'll have to figure it out. We approve what we approve. Maybe we help the Soviet can just summarize what the stipulations were and what we are being requested. Actually question on that point. I heard Mr. Miller at the beginning state that he
was requesting a variance for 23.2%. But I did see Mr. I think you noticed it says 238% but yes the square footage is the same. You want to go by the square footage but we just round
6369. So 23 That's what we're voting on. So your request, so you can, it's your application. You can um make the request that you want, but it matters. Well, it's probably more appropriate
that we talk about it in terms of square footage as opposed to percentage, right? No, actually percentage because the ordinance is is in percentages. The ratio 23.2, you might get half stepping stone.
So you're amending Sounds ridiculous. We have to So you're amending that the request to be 23.2% largely in line with the plans that we've received. On our engineering plans that number
okay with that clear the one variance they're seeing is lock ratio of 23.2% or 20% is the max permitted. Um as far as stipulations go stated complying with everything Mr. dated August 1st Mr. August the
environmental commission memo dated July 28th only caveat being that I hear no discussion on this point to the contrary but my understanding was that it would be installed upward lights for the trees so there was a condition I think Mr.
lights would be directed downward or shielded. Um, so I guess that would just be with the exception. Does that make sense? Everything every other light other than the ones going on the trees. Okay. And I think that's it. Something
else somebody Thank you. So is there um comments or motion on this application? One comment is is that most of the lot coverage is really extra overages based
on the area of the pool. They weren't putting the pool in and they did all the other improvements. Actually, the pool is a little bit more than the over. So, I don't feel that uncomfortable because of that.
You want me to make a motion? Make a motion. Um, I would see this as I guess it's a C2 because of the law coverage over um and I would make a motion to approve
the application with the a couple of amendments that have beened and direct attorney to draft resolution to the resolution. Yes. with all conditions
with all with all specified conditions. Yes. And demon complete. Excellent. Second. Yes. Thank you. So, Mr. Krauss, Dr.
M. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes, it's yours. Yes. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Good luck with the project.
Thank you. And thank you for the considerations for keeping the impervious coverage down. Feeling really special. I never went over 20,000. Okay. So, just for the record, I think
Miss has recused herself from this application for obvious reasons. Okay. So, next on the agenda is the uh PTAR uh application. I see
we have we have you here. Great. Real quick, Madam Chair, I just point out I did team seem to be sufficient both the terms of it content time of service and publication sent to owners of property
uh by certified mail on June 25th 2025 and also published in the bird news on July 3rd 2025 both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing so the board has jurisdiction here to set the case with that I can swear in two you guys have anyone else testify
you have anyone else testify no you two as raise your hands all if you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide the truth the whole truth please give us your name and address
we want to thank the zoning board of adjust for time to review our application. Um, we requesting relief of requirements from Burners Township. Uh, the release would allow us to put
renovate our existing barn with an addition of the barn as wellmers and by doing so we're going to be essentially being able to
garage rather than the street to properties. The other thing really here is the renovation is going to allow us to restore and reuse an existing building for our barn
that will essentially qualify eligible wife discuss. So, the reason we want to do the addition at the front of the barn, um, many years I've thought about trying to just open the front of the barn up and park inside, but the way the building is
built, when you walk in, the first 10 ft is a slab on ground and then you've got a walk out basement in the back with an old wood frame floor um that is basically supported on old tree trunks. Um, and I'm just not not comfortable
with parking cars on that floor. It would mean taking out a low bearing wall and doing quite a bit of work inside. You know, I just more I thought about it, the less comfortable I was with it. So, we came up with the idea to add 16 ft in the front of the barn, which would
give us a 26t garage by the width of the barn, which is 38. No, 28, sorry. So we could get a two-car garage in there and and not be parking on the on the original floor. Um
we toyed with the idea of doing a full twotory edition front of the barn, but um came to the concl because the barn is over the 20 foot height by quite a bit. um came to the conclusion that just a one story addition in the front with a
lower roof and then and then the upper facade of the barn visible um would be a better solution and it would not require an additional variance for that. Our other problem is the barn is very close to the property line. Um the house was built according to circ 1870
and is that how old the barn is as well? I don't know. and the historic society didn't know either, but they had photos of gentlemen in World War I uniforms standing in front of it. So, I figured I figured probably is before 1900. Um, yeah. So, and I don't know what it
was used for. It's a very nice structure. Um, the the outside of the barn, the siding that you see, it's not siding. It's one inch thick vertical boards and you've just got these 4x4 posts and horizontals like every four feet that
that support that. So we can't even remove the cladding to to do anything with it. You know that has and I wanted I like the way it looks. The homeowner for us apparently a woodworker a German woodworker. He
sanded that whole thing down. And um the um pictures that are with the application, who took those? Uh I did and I tried to date them all. Yeah, I see that location for all of them. Thank you. We appreciate that. Yeah. So if you start
setting a good example, I've been here enough. Yeah. So, when you're looking at the at the barn from the street, you honestly can't see it unless you're walking by. You know, I actually was at the property. It's
actually very hard to see unless you're looking for it. And then when you see it, you could see it from either the church parking lot or you get a little closer. Yeah. But yeah, like our neighbor directly across the street can see it. But they're they're almost the only one. And then behind us, if they look up the
hill, they can see the back fac. Um, one of the things I wanted I want to do is also I don't think this requires a bearing according to Dave, but is add a shed dormer on the side. Add what? A shed dorma. Dormer, you know, basically you've got the roof.
So, I want to just extend the upper slope out and get a window and get some light upstairs because there's very little natural light up there right now. So we can have a window that faces the yard, our yard that really nobody else would see. Um on the church side, we're
not doing anything with windows because um being so close to the property line um we have an issue with there's a co issue with fire blow through buildings and what we would have to do.
We're kind of not doing anything on that side except possibly a couple of skylights on that side of the roof. Okay. And nothing with the dormer that you mentioned changes the maximum height of the building. It's all not because it's it's below the Okay. And that height uh Mr. Sly is
grandfathered. The height is grandfathered and the height is not being actually the height is going down the calculated height because of the way the um I tried to explain in my review memo the way the ordinance calculates height. You start
at the highest roof peak and then whatever that elevation is, you measure to the average grade all around the building. So if you're you're coming up with an average grade, that's one number. To the roof peak, that's a second number. So in this case, the roof peak number is not changing. But the
barn, there's a slope from the front to the rear. Slope down to the barn. So we get more. Putting an addition at the high end raises your average ground level elevation. So that number is going to be bigger and closer to the roof number.
Therefore, that number is going to be smaller. The difference between them will be smaller. So, so the um the ordinance provides that you can add onto a non-conforming structure is you're not if you're not as long as you're not making it any more non-conforming. In
this case, you're not making the height anymore conforming actually making it less more conforming. More conforming or for that matter the setback because the property is somewhat wedge shaped. It's it's narrow slightly narrower at the front than at the rear or no at the
rear than at the front. So the property line goes away from the barn more as you go to the front of it. So what we're showing is a 4.7 foot side setback may actually give a little less. So, they're not the setback is is not getting any
closer to the property line. It's moving slightly away. However, any addition to a non-conforming structure must meet the current setback requirements. So, that um that's why that's why uh the setback variance is required. It doesn't
meet 10 foot setback requirement. Okay. So, we've been in the house for 31 years this month and we love to get a garage to park inside on the way. So, and just so that I understand the garage is long enough to fit a car, but because you have original wood flooring,
you're not comfortable parking on that back side. It's old beams and it's, you know, it's okay. It's damp down there. And I I don't know. I just don't feel good about parking. And can you talk um can you talk about
how it will look the the addition that you're going to do in the front of the barn? How it will look? Well, if you look at the um drawings of So what we will have on the front are two two overhead doors. We we raised the
height of the um roof above the interior door slightly um by ft by so that we could get enough room for normal size garage doors. Um, we're trying we're going to try to mimic the look of a barn door with garage doors. Um, and then we
have a a triangular overhang with both historical brackets along the front on either side of the doors. We're going and then so there's a shed dormer coming off the front here which does actually does show Dave on the
floor plan. It's on the second floor and on the side we'll have a small entry again with the same shed roof and bracket with open steps so as not to increase the coverage. Um we also are showing um
this look at the right side elevation. We have three boxes with panels. Those um kind of match what's on the front porch of the house. So we're going to do that and we'll put a railing in between. That's the top the roof of that will be
a deck that we can go out on walk out on. So we're going to try and tie the period in that way. I want to do the same kind of siding that's currently on the barn which is vertical which you know they vary across the whole
perimeter of the barn. I I think I'm wondering if the front part with the slab I grade was at some point added on. It's it almost seems that way. The siding seems to change a little and there's there's there's various types of siding in various spots because there there was a window that used to face the
church apparently and you can see that was boarded in with a narrower like kind of siding but you don't see once you walk up to it and that open deck that is between the barn and the house. No, it's on the roof of the garage on
that that that 16T extension. Okay. And that's meant for Well, I want to use the upstairs of the barn as an art studio. My daughters and I both all like to paint and draw on things and it would be nice to be able to go out there and sit outside
paint or just sit outside. Does anybody live at the church or is it uh services on the part of the church that's next door to us is the original chapel that was built in 1865 and there was an addition to the back of that right It was
finished right before we moved in in 195. Um, and that has a kitchen. It's got a commercial kitchen in it. And at one point, I think people were they were housing homeless people there before.
This is before co um they had people who would come and stay come in. Yeah. A lot of the churches in that town. Um, but not any longer. No, they don't. The is really used for community room which is on the other
side of the chapel in faces south. Um and apparently I knew the contractor who did that addition. He told me that they had to come back and get berries to turn it into a commercial kitchen. This will block that for us a little bit because when they are having an event
and there's platter dishes, not that it's bother the biggest thing is the church's driveway exit driveways on that side. Um, so you asking about trees. There will be probably two small Bradford
pairs removed that I planted 31 years ago when we when we moved in and I looked across. I hadn't even focused on this. I was pregnant with my oldest daughter. I looked across and there was the church's driveway and this little strip of land and I'm like, "Oh my god,
my kids are going to be going over there." So, I I wanted to like plant a dense hedge basically to prevent that from happening. But Bradford are now considered invasive species and these never well in that spot anyway. I
think what I'm planning on doing there is like a narrower either a tailor juniper or a blue arrow juniper is what I'm thinking which is a very narrow country between the new structure and the line
trees I can say I'm not removing the trees but you put the you dig put the foundations of the barn They never were that healthy to begin with. In terms of the um garage, are you going
to try to match the exterior to the bar or to Yes. So, it would look very I want it to blend. So, it looks like it's blend beautifully. So, it's going to be more towards even color and everything. Yes. Everything. Okay.
Yeah. The dark green color I like. I've actually had people leave notes asking me what the color is so they could paint their shed or barn or whatever that color. And the property will um this is a question will remain a single family
use. We're not planning to use the barn as a living. The only thing I want to put in there in terms of of water is a sink at the ground level and a small cabin that we can use from the pool. Um the sink is really for me because I like to
And I have an area that I can keep all my stuff out of our house. Clean up the mess in the house and put it out there and create a little garden space. Actually, I have a question. Yes.
This shot you have of May 2024, view from the rear of the barn screening to the rear. Hang on one second, Mr. P. Just get there. Yes. May 2020. The one with the Did you photoshop that rainbow over there? Did you wait for that rainbow to show up?
I had to put that. No, we get rainbows like this regularly. That was amazing. Is over the great swamp and it faces Dise and if you get a rain late late in the day, we get these rainbows. It's perfectly complete rainbow. Yeah. I didn't It's a double rainbow.
Yeah, technically. Yeah. Yeah. But no, we get these all the time. But I think it's because we're we're kind of looking down on the great swamp and it's east and that's just the sun hits it from the west.
Now, as for the the lot coverage request, um I had a conversation with Mr. Schlly about several things and I think we're we'd like to ask for rather than one even though I don't
think we're going to go over the one. Um there's a question as to whether the um segmental block retaining walls on the property should or should not be considered block. The only difference between those is the material between that and a stone that
stone wall. They're exact and they're designed to drain through and under. None of them are that tall. I think we have two very limited areas where they go they go up to maybe five or six feet but most of them are three feet or under and they all have garden beds at the top
of them. There's garden throughout the entire yard. Um so so is your point on whether it counts for coverage? Yes. And and have an answer for when we finished the addition and the pool we had to
submit a reservey to the town. We had to submit an initial survey when we were building which showed all these walls and a reservey which again showed all the walls and we made the decision that the walls were not locked because of the way they were constructed. There's no concrete footing.
Can I see the walls in any of these photos? Yes, you can. Is it the April? This is this is a what if and I don't know the rainbow I think one of them on this one, right?
You can see Okay. If you look on the picture below, yeah, if you look on the picture below the picture, you can see Yeah. piece of one there, April 24. And then um across here, there's a
terrace wallard. Okay. So, as of right now, you did not include those in your current coverage and we were approved by the town without including that. Okay. This picture shows it as well. Yes.
So, and Mr. Slott, do you agree with the Yeah, the um the retaining walls and sometimes walkway, stepping stone, things like that. It's sometimes depends on a specific situation and specific construction and
the walls without foundation typically have been counted whether it's natural manufactured blocks. It's not that's just the way the ordinance is interpreted.
It's not covered at all. Okay. The and correct the uh they just had some work done on the property and did a survey after that work to show that they were competing at that time did not count the walls.
One of the engineers actually visited the property and I I just happened to walk outside when he was walking around my backyard and I asked him who he was. Um and so I walked the yard with him and and showed him everything and you know he was very happy with it. Got the hose out sprayed on the wall.
Well, actually constructing those walls I I believe has helped my neighbors down below us because the property used to be a kind of a rolling slope down the hill. um and and water just would flow down to the properties below us on South South
Maple Avenue. Um the walls actually were almost were designed to kind of level areas to stop the water flow and it see it actually seems that it worked and I did speak to um the woman in the house in one of the houses behind us the white house
directly behind us number I don't know um and I asked her did she have issues with water in her and they they moved in during CO kind of what like after we finished this project and she told me no that they had no issues at all. So did you I've heard nothing from any
other neighbors. No other concerns. No talked to Danny Yori. He was another one of our neighbors. So I'm sorry but I am missing the point on why we're talking about the retaining laws. There's a question on law coverage. If
they do get considered law coverage this this time around. Okay. Who who would do that this time around currently? Well, this board would make Oh, if we wanted to consider them coverage even though we have heard that there's no coverage. It would be okay.
I think it's part of any application question we had. Thank you. So, it's before the board if we uh wanted to consider these retaining planted planted retaining walls coverage No engineers and the town has said
they're not. I spent a couple of hours on the phone with my engineer and um he told me the block walls in total are worth 1.2% of block 1.23% of block coverage. Um so that added to what we were asking for as an overage
but he also showed so many stepping stones that were way beyond what I think I need. I I so we kind of backed off on that. Um so in the end we kind of came up that we would be at 20.59%
but 20.49 or 20.59 59 is what we came up with by reducing some of the stepping stones and um including all of the retain walls. Um currently how does that differ from Mr. Sly's um
calculations? Okay he had 20.49 9. Yeah. Yeah. That 20.49 shown on the plan now by Okay. There were several things. One was including the retaining walls, reducing
stepping stones and also narrowing the driveway slightly. We want to put a Belgian block curve in on both sides. Right now we have old railroad ties and gravel driveway. Um so to build it's the driveway is 15 ft wide and we really don't think we need that total width. So
my thought was to build the Belgian block curbs in front of the retaining walls, then pull the railroad ties out and fill fill in up to the curbs and create some more garden. Right. So that's what's there now, the railroad ties. Yeah. So we would we would lose some lot
coverage by doing that. But to quantify it right now is very difficult. Yeah. We were going to do this when we did the house addition and then we talked about the barn and said, you know, we're gonna everything's going to get destroyed by trucks. So, we shouldn't really do this until
after the form's done. So, the plan say 20.49, but your request is 20.59. Well, 20.59 is kind of what we came up with, but I'd like to request like 21 and a half and then we can always back. I'd rather
come in less than take a chance on being over. And it's so amorphous that it's a hard one to a lot of Can I also ask like how big is your pool? Uh it's 20 by 40, but it's it's a it's a straight sided oval, so it's got curved
ends. So that's that but it's catching Yeah, it's catching water. Yeah, it is. And we have no um decking around it. We have a we have a wood deck, a flush wood deck on one side, but but that's already included in the impervious coverage. And we always kind
of into consideration the idea of the surface water. So the pool is on here. 774, right? Which is the pool is like 700 probably 2% 2%.
So that's what that is the request for law coverage is we'd like to just square pad by the pool so that we have a place to put toys right now in the barn. I think that's Can I ask what's in the barn?
What's in the barn right now? What are you using it for? It's like a big storage shed. Um, so you're not using it. You're just storing things in it. Yeah, it's pretty much there's not a there's not a wood woodworking area or a previous guy had one
you're not using and there's there is a water line to the barn and there's electricity in the barn because woodworking out there but there's no heat and no air conditioning. We have some exercise equipment out there that
but your intent is to have let's see two a twotory building building basically that you can use all the time for like a gardening room upstairs and a workout area besides the garage area which can store two cars.
Okay. And and just for my curiosity, in town we allow someone to put a bathroom in a garage or is it just up to us to say, "Yeah, we can do that." I just doesn't well. Okay.
I've been in other places where of course it's never called that, but people use it as that. And I just worry about future use of any building being used as a living facility when it has things in it that could be you could live in. That's all. So, just you know, yeah, we physically it would have to
have a kitchen in it, right? It doesn't mean you can live in it just because it doesn't No, what I'm saying is I live in one of those units where they pull the stove out when the inspectors came around. So, our definition requires sleeping, cooking, and sanitary.
I don't mean anyone's planning. I'm using I'm saying a new owner once you sell it could think, "Oh, wow. probably a great living facility here. It's two stories. It has a nice bathroom and I can just throw a fridge and a microwave in there and rent it out. So, our neighbors two doors out. It can always happen everywhere.
They have like a stuff inside them and you know Does it have heat? No, it does not right now. It doesn't have heat. Okay. No, it does not right now. But it will it will have heat or we're going to put heating? They're putting heat in. I'm going to put like a split system in there
probably be able to use it a little bit. But are you just the garage? Tiny powder room on the first floor and a sink on the first floor. And I don't even think I'm going to put any any water lines up to the second floor. I think it's all going to be limited to the first floor.
And then um Mr. Quinn, I had a question on your five. I wasn't sure that I followed your point number five. Yeah. Oh yeah. Um the way the way it works right now, the driveway slopes down towards the house, right?
But they they have no curved area kind of runs off to a gravel area in the backyard. What they're doing is they're curving the driveway and leaving a little two foot wide open. Yeah. Okay. So, and I've seen this happen before. I've done this before. Get all that run off in the driveway. Now, it's funneled
through a little two foot wide. Right where that runs off the driveway the lawn it can just scout. So well we have lawn and garden don't we? Yeah I mean you can do in a number of way you saw the area or push some gra I mean you it is it is yeah you respond to it it's just meant
to advise you respond to it as the situation arrives. I spoke to my site engine well first of all the graway is gravel it's not it's not paved and we we had talked about paving it because it's a pain in the neck in the winter with stump glass but we gravel now that seems to pack pretty
tightly and not give us too much trouble that way. I have never had a puddle or run off into the barn or into into the house, which the house basement's lower. The driveway curls around. I've never had a drop of water in the house from that driveway with the six
inches of rain we had two weeks ago. Do you like a pra or angular stuff? It's it's angular. It's small. I don't know. The last landscape we brought it in seems to be working really well. I think we're going to keep the gravel just for that reason because I don't want water running into the bottom of
the house. You know, five is just meant to be the advisory. Okay. Let the homeowner know that this might be something you have to look at. Thank you. I will also caution, this just a side note, um because I also have gravel
driveway and I was told by the former owners, do not pave over because you've got a number of trees and if you try to pave it over, you could be killing the root systems of those trees. So, just a I know you have some beautiful trees
lining your driveway there. So, I like Okay. Um, Mr. Quint, I mean Mr. Sly actually. So, back to the law coverage thing. I was going to request 2% and we'll try we'll
try to stay well under that, but I just don't want to back 22 2%. 2%. Yes. 22. So 22% total
and is that including if the walls or no this is that's including if the walls are included including if the walls are included right if they're not and if they're not included and the 1% that we had requested before was fine. So 21%. Yes. Decision that the retaining walls don't
count. 21. 21 because I think we'll be under that. Okay. Okay. I think I think we'll be close to 20. Okay. I just don't want to. So I Okay. So I I think would we write that
application? Go ahead, Mr. I just wanted to jump in there. This is going to come up again. the retaining wall question. And I I think just to look at it a little closer, and I don't want to get too detailed into how they're constructed, but I think
even if it doesn't have a footing, a wall like this, I'm pretty sure at least in the the true detail of it, the design of it, it's going to have a compacted base. No, that's not true. Not true. I don't know. I'm not the engineer. But
no, the way these things are built are like a foundation of a house. You dig sand soil and you put it on that. And on our yard, you go down 8 in to a foot and they say to go down 8 in. You're on red clay. We had to we had to chip red mud
stone or shale out of ground. Okay. I I guess my point was not to play engineer but to it's compacted all to um consider moving forward uh that that this could be some direction to the zoning officer and the engineering
department more so the zoning officer in in in lot coverage calculations uh some direction as to do we count them or do we not um maybe we only have to have this conversation tonight and not again. Um,
and so I I would say if you're just piling stones, whatever kind of stones they may be on the ground, we wouldn't count that. That's been pretty straightforward and consistent. Um, when it comes to constructing a retaining wall, certainly
if the retaining wall has a footing, we would count the surface occupied by the wall, right? Um and if that's the way um the board's comfortable with that um then I can we can use that moving forward um as
our practice in interpreting uh the impervious surface uh and coverage calculations. Okay. I would say both walls are what are termed gravity retaining walls and the reason they don't have a footing is because it's the mass the weight of the
wall that resists the the to push them sideways and push them over. So, in simple terms, you dug a foot down, you and then you just pile rock on top of each other. You dug a foot down, you put a little bed of gravel just to allow water to
drain and and then you stack these walls. They don't stack vertically. They they have a slight backwards angle to them, which makes them stronger. And then and then the voids also get filled with like a clean brush stone so that water enters them, flows through, and
Because water pressure is what knocks a retaining wall. And a foundation would be concrete. You pour like a concrete. That's what you do in a dwelling. But most retaining walls don't have a concrete foundation. If they start to get 25, 30 feet tall. I've designed
walls that will have concrete foundation. But typically they don't. Stuff like this doesn't. So, it's either you just excavate all the organics to make sure nothing compresses and you could put it on sound non-organic material
or you put in gravel in and make a leveling bed. So, but to the description that Mr. Schlly was giving, if it's if it's if it has a foundation, we would consider it we potentially consider it impervious
impervious. But if it doesn't have If it's more open with the gravel and the and the stone on top of stone with gravel in between for the flowing then it's not. Have we been consistent about that though like with our previous rulings? I'm just curious because if
this is the first time we're like ruling on it then well we've been the zoning office has been pretty consistent um with it. Okay. But I can't promise 100% consistent. We never had this real discussion. There's there's a difference between a pile of
rocks, a constructed rock wall, right? It's not a solid mass. It's a lot of little pieces. So, water goes through it down into the ground. Unlike segmental retaining walls or big concrete blocks, right? They displace the area that the water is going to run through. So, in my mind, I
find them to be impervious surface. And most towns I've worked in consider them impervious. If it's just a a stone, a builtup stone wall from rocks, most towns will not consider that impervious because there's ability for water to run through the
rocks down into the ground, which doesn't happen with a segment wall. These walls are designed to drain because if you allow water to collect behind them, it will push the wall. I understand. The whole point it's the only difference is it's a man-made material versus
what we're talking about stone which costs a small fortune. We're talking about evacuating water from behind the wall, right? That's what the drains are doing. The drains don't do, and to be fair, if you if you if you're digging a wall, you're digging for a wall, a trench for the wall, you're usually making sure that's
compacted so the wall doesn't settle. In my mind, that soil is not pvious anymore. It's not allowing water to go through. What Beth is talking about, they do that with walls. They put drainage stone behind it so you reduce the static pressure behind it. that water gets directed to the front of the
wall, not down into the soil. It's done. So again, this is in my mind, from my experience, those segmental walls, their area is impervious. And anything that's just a stone built up stone with individual
stones, that's not purpose. And that's just something that's been consistent in most towns I've worked in. Is that consistent, Mr. Sly, with what you were saying? It's consistent with with the definition of impervious surface. Yes. Uh in that you're speaking
only about the flat surface, not how it anything under it. The water is going to run off that as opposed to a pile of rocks. Um, which and it's also it's also easy or easier even uh to um make that
determination uh for the zoning officer without looking into how it's constructed but just what it is. If it if it's, you know, geometric shapes going to create pretty much a flat
surface as if you were putting um say uh pavers down or field stone down. Uh some uh slabs of rock uh in a continuous uh connected you're going to create a flat surface where water's going to run off.
That's consistent with the impervious surface definition. So that'll be in front of the board on whether we consider it impervious or not. These blocks are 12 in wide, 16 in long, 8 in high. They're not big. They're they're the same size as a stone,
but we would count the stone. Like if it was a stepping stone, if it was just on the grass, we would count that stone wall. You would not Why not? I don't know. That's why I'm not I think we have counted. That's why I'm That's why I'm saying like we need to be consistent because I'm pretty sure in
prior rulings that we've counted stones that were just like on the ground for like a fire pit or things like that. So that's that's why I'm just making sure. So it could be in front of the board. All right. So for the two last application fire,
Mr. Slide, do we um did we cover all the points in your memo now? Are you comfortable? Some are factual. Um, we touched on number five. Um, addressing
the the natural registry of historic places and it sounds like the Poptars are well aware of that and are trying um, I think to keep the historic. It sounds like you're doing a lot of work to keep Absolutely. Yes, it sounds. Yeah. I will I want to about this. Um,
this barn is the size of a a medium to small house. Yes, it's large. It's big. And we inherited this barn and it's it's a lot of lot coverage that we wouldn't have if we had a normal small detached garage or an attached garage. But I've also watched in our in our
neighborhood historic homes being knocked down. Um, there there was one I Yeah, one up the street from us. And I looked I looked at it for the Mrs. Hammond's house. The original part of that house was built in the 1700s. There
was an 1800 edition. Um, and I looked at the reports. He sold it. He put new siding on it. He fixed it up to make sure no one would knock it down. And the first thing I came home from work one day and there was a a wrecking ball there and the house was down. It was just down. The house across the street
from us, understood, was a small house and a historic house. And granted, it was not in great shape, but It was it was demolished and any one of the reasons I want to do this with this barn is I don't want someone knocking it down in the future. And if
we don't do this, that's what's going to happen. We you know, we may be on the national historic register, but there is no historic formal district in town. There are no historic rules. There's no protection. And I know the people years ago who own
historic homes fought having that that board because they didn't want to be told what to do with their homes, which which I fully understand. But I guarantee you after seeing what's happened on my street, if we sell this house 5, 10 years from now, um, and
there's no garage, it's going to get knocked down. That that that will be knocked down. So what I I feel what we're doing is preserving it by doing this. Thank you, Mr. S. Uh just moving right
through my memo comment six about the trees you talk about are coming down to replace to restore that buffer between your property and the church property. Yeah. The uh number seven is just to label the
roof overhangs on the floor plan. I think they're show number eight about the use only. Number nine, sewage authority approval for the sanitary sewer hook up.
And number 10, the limited area of disturbance has to be quantified to determine whether it's going to be something subject to approval by the engineering department or the soil conservation district. Probably more likely involve the
engineering department. We need to know your engineer. Well, we had to go before we had to get people from the soil conservation district for the addition and pool project. You may not this time, but you might you might trigger the review by the
engineering department and I don't I don't think your plan show any work within the right of way, but the county right away the summer county would be would be authority over any of that. And I just wanted to point out one error in my memo. Um, it's at the beginning
where I'm describing the proposal in in number three where it says construct the 29 square foot roof over the existing uncovered exterior stairs. And those stairs are not existing that the stairs are proposed as part of uh the project.
U so it's a stairs and roof. It doesn't change coverage or anything else or or compliance. It's just a a correction. And that covers everything in my me. Mr. Quinn, anything outstanding in your No, I had eight comments. The first
three or comments just uh we talked about uh four just I don't know if you knew what I meant, but just have along the curb line. You got your swale coming away. Just have them on that north curve line so you can see it's not coming back towards the house. He'll know what to do. Yes,
we talked about five with the two foot curb cut. Um, labeling the the roof overhangs has been talked about. That's my number six. Number seven has to do with the fact that the the bathrooms will be subject to township sewer authority. And number eight was about
the threshold for uh limited disturbance. Um, basically the same comment as Mr. Schl. I have I have nothing further. So the disturbance is 2500 for for the township. It's 2500 square feet. Then you need a grading plan and
then you need soil conservation measures show up. I don't see how you should you got staging area. It's depends. And um
Miss Pra, did you also get a copy of the environmental commission? I did memo. And um by my count I there are 39 trees on this property currently living that I planted over the last 30 years. So
I have no problem with I didn't know where you were going with that. I'm like there's 39 living trees that doesn't count the ones that died or whatever. So I think that you guys comply with three.
Yes. Okay. Well, we're going to discuss whether we we understand your application is either 21 without it or 22 with it. Is that correct? We're going to discuss it. Um, any additional questions for the
doctors from the board? Just one question. Is there any additional lighting, exterior lighting that's going to be on there that's not on right now? Like maybe over the probably over like maybe over the garage doors downward, but it won't affect neighbors. I guess
it would only be neighbors versus the churches next door. Yeah. On our side. It looks like there's there's always been lights on the looks like there's existing flood lights on the garage that you probably remove.
Okay. Thank you. And there's no change to the fence. I think there's a fence right in between you and the church. Your fence. Any other questions for this time? Are there any questions from the public uh
on the testimony we just heard? Yes. Come on. This is a question, right, for the Poptarts. Yes. Okay. Hi. I was wondering why you Yeah. My name is John Booth. Uh I live at 33
Bullion Road. I'm a trustee on the uh historical society. We operate, we work out of the Brick Academy on West Oak Street. Thank you. Um just to cut right to the point uh my concern our well
is it a question? Well is this a question again? It'll be a question. Our interest is the impact that projects have on the historic viewscape that the public consumes. Question. My question is
um because this is on the front of the barn and it's 30 ft from the 1850 St. Mark's Chapel, you have um testified that you have
issued the appropriate amount of restraint in um the mass of this edition. Um because a 16 by 25 foot flat roofed
edition with a an app, you know, an overhang appendage has no precedent uh historically um you know in the neighborhood or just in terms of good practice in terms of uh
altering an historic barn. Um, so there there my question is if the addition was 12 feet and I understand the reasons you've mentioned about the portion of the existing barn that will share the garage space being
but if the addition was 12 and it was set in say instead of 25 ft wide if it was set in a foot each side you'd have a uh smaller mass. You would still have a functional twocar garage. You you you you've exercised all those
uh possible right now to work with and you're saying you only have a 22 foot deep. The garage proposed is 25 by 25 approximately. It's 24. So that that's what I would call a large twocar garage.
Okay. Um a 25. So sorry. What's what's the question? Could it be any My question is um can it be any smaller? And also why why the flat roof with a railing? Um
you know what what would be historically appropriate would be a shed addition. Um so this it's going to be a question sir. You you have a question. Did you did you consider a shed a shed roofed a more benign, less active
uh solution for the front of this garage? A more neutral appearance. Did you consider a shed roof for the for the addition? There are double doors. Mr. Popcar, sorry. Can I ask you to speak right into the microphone? That's okay. If you if you seen the front of the
barn, there are double doors that open outward, right? and a window on either side. To get the garage door to work, we have to lift this roof up substantially. To do a shed roof, it would be lifting it even higher and it would it would
block them block those double doors are going to be replaced with um new doors. But right, it looks like the doors are 10 ft wide uh on the drawing. I don't remember honestly. Um
I did talk about this with my architect but um we didn't feel we have the room to do something like that as it is. We have we have to lift this up to be able to as it is. We had to lift this up significantly.
We aren't giving the impression of a shed roof with this with this over and that that was kind of the intent. Sorry, ma. Lift what up? you would have to lift the whole front roof up higher to get a to get a reasonable shed roof
and you'd be hiding all these features. Plus, you'd be into the gam roof. I don't think it would really work. If you set the um to bring it inward, I I think we're pretty tight. If the structure were set in a foot on each side, you'd have more height on the
gamble to tie in a roof line. Also, since this since the addition is challenged from a sideyard setback standpoint, um are you here representing the church or the
I'm here representing myself and also the historical society. I'm not affiliated with the church at all. I'm just asking. Yeah, let's just keep it to questions. You can make a comment at the end and you can really say anything you want to for against the application, but for right now, let's just
if you have specific questions, okay? And I don't mean to be combative. I'm just raising these questions. A 16x 25 flat roofed um addition completely flat. It will have a pitch. It'll have it'll drain water. It'll
it'll drain water. So, um my other question was who maintains you? It looks like there's a buffer of U's along the north side of the barn on that 4 and 1/2 ft. Um the barn now is about 30 feet in
dimension I think. Is that about right? 30 by 25 something like that. There will now with this project there'll be a 46 foot long straight wall adjacent to St. Marks 4 and 1/2 ft away.
Who maintains that U those U plantings? Does do you maintain that or does the church? I do. So you have to go on to you have to go on to the St. Mark's driveway to to maintain those around the side of the bar. There are there are shrubs there now,
right? You maintain those. But you have to go onto their you have to go onto their property. They do it or we do it. Yeah. Okay. We kind of share responsibility for that media, but we do most of it. We have a very good relationships. Okay. Um
I guess uh that's all my questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there addition additional questions on this application from the public? Okay. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any comments on this
application for or against? Sir, do you swear about the truth? I do. Todd Hillstein, 172 Riverside Drive. Um, first of all, I knocked on the wood for you when you mentioned about the
water coming down the driveway. It's true. You shouldn't be saying that sort of stuff. Oh, I know. It's been 31 years. Um, I think the question about a shed roof or not a shed roof, I think the roof line will not be seen on the street as
we already heard testimony that the barn is actually lower than the street. So, I don't think it's going to be a big problem. Um, I think it's a nice project. I'm jealous that they have a barn. I don't have a barn. I have a onecar garage and
I have a a shed. So, I'm a little jealous about that. Um I I think it it'll do well. It'll it may eventually save that barn from being knocked down in the future. There's no guarantees, you know, people move into these houses
and, you know, all of a sudden they want to knock down the whole house but or barn. But hopefully that will, you know, slow people down a little bit. Concerning about the wall, this
retaining wall. Now, I always thought that when you start digging down, you're digging down because of the frost line. And I think in 1870 they were mixing cement at barns for It doesn't go down that deep.
Okay. Right. So I but but it's still a foundation you know whoever if it's just rock stuff I think that can worm you opening up tonight I think there's a discussion that should be done later on I think just look at what they presented
they're ask for a little bit more to cover just in case somewhere down the road someone comes back and they'll they'll have that extra percent but I mean um I think it's a can of opening up about what the foundation really is. And
but I support this and I I'm just jealous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your honesty. Thank you. Are there additional comments on this application? Come on back up. Thank you. Um
hang on one sec. I do. Uh name address one more time please. Uh John Booth 33 Billion Road Basking Rich. All right. My comments I uh just briefly uh first of all I meant to uh commend you uh the
the applicant on um what they've done with this property. It's a beautiful home. Um I know you love the property and it's a real uh attribute to the center of town and I'm sorry I didn't uh lead with that before.
Um, and uh I also appreciate that you're well the circumstances that uh require this improvement and also that you'll be restoring the barn. Uh my my uh caution to the board is that I just am
not convinced that uh there's been any restraint um or balance given to this accomplishing this two-car garage. um the you know because you have a large
non-conforming accessory structure um doesn't necessarily mean you can intensify the use and the mass of that building. I'm I question whether a 16x
25 ft flat roofed uh space is really needed. Uh if it's for the use of an artist or two people to go out onto a little roof deck, that could be done with an 8 by12 uh cutout
within a shed roof um addition, which would be much more historically uh consistent with this this type building. The last point I would make is that I've been before this board with applications in the R six and R seven
zone on small lots where uh we struggle to get a 21 22 23% coverage because we have a quarter acre property in a halfacre zone. This property is an acre almost an acre. So
this is the opposite circumstance. it's built out uh to get a 20 21 20 whatever the board is going to uh consider. Uh this is the opposite scenario where you have a large lot um and it's
you know it's maxed on the on the coverage. This is a personal matter for me because I've come I come to the board looking for these coverage variances on tiny lots and uh where where we can't make the uh make it work and we and we and uh but anyway so those are my
comments. Um and uh that's my word to the board. Thank you. Thank you Mr. The barn is not increasing the lock coverage itself. Miss Parist right up there. I'm sorry.
That's okay. The addition that we are putting on the barn is not increasing the lock coverage. That is going over an existing gravel driveway. Um so it's already lock coverage. So that part of the project is not doing this. It is other aspects that
are increasing coverage. And I don't think we're going to increase it anywhere near as much as we are asking. I have no issue with um like the walls that are on the property holding water or not draining or water sitting anywhere. Um I have extensive plantings.
If you want to come and see rain gardens, you can come walk the backyard. None of my neighbors have problems. Um none of our neighbors have told us they have problems ever with water coming off of our property. And I make every effort
to keep it clean and not have problems. So pretty much everything we're asking to do is at the upper part of the property. It's not even impacting anybody. Okay. Barn addition is not impacting. Okay. Are there any questions? All
right. I have to open it up again to the public. Um does the public have any questions based upon the additional testimony of Miss PTAR? No. Okay. No comments. No com. No additional comments. purely limited to what you use.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um any additional questions from the board? Anything else um for us? Mr. Mr. Par, you want to turn it over to the board at this time? Thank you. All right. U Mr. Sovi, do you want to um summarize uh our stipulations
and requests? Sure. So, let me start with the conditions because they're easy. I think it's just everything Mr. August 1st Mr. dated August 4th. Then everything with environmental commission memo dated July
28th. I think I'm getting cover. Um as far as variances, we'll do an easier ones. Uh the driveway setback to the north property line four is the minimum required. We know there's an
existing setbackation 3T there. So it's just additional space but not going beyond what's there already. It's 4.7. It's 4.7. No, it's not. No, that's No, that's it. That's I was about to get
He didn't do that. I got you. Now, the accessory structure driver is required. Again, not as bad as the existing condition. Now, the law cover, this is where things get interesting. So, I think there's a
question before the board wants to consider it whether or not retaining laws in this particular case constitute previous coverage the board could make a determination on that tonight if it finds that they're not in coverage and I think you guys are
requesting 21% we were requesting 212 if the walls are the other possibility would be that the board could consider a 22% block coverage ratio variance but include some
kind of condition that 1.2 1.23% of that over is attributable solely to those extent coverage. So that way it kind of sets a threshold.77.
Yeah. So it would really be like 20.77% would be what we do outside of the walls. Does that make sense? understand. Do you agree with those numbers that it's 208% if we don't count the walls?
I could. Yes, I believe I do. You said 1.23%. Actually, I reduced those things a little bit, but 20.8 would be safe. Yes. 20.8. We could work. It's up to the board if they want to ask the question.
Yeah. Okay. And do you have anything else? You want us to start there? One thing we did the color and the light of the Thank you, Mr. Cross. Do you want to continue? No, that was it. That was the last. So maybe I think it would be helpful um
from a process standpoint if we could just weigh in first on whether the board believes that the retaining wall should be counted for impervious coverage or not. Or better yet, another threshold question. Does the board even want to consider asking the question? I would like to I'd like to I'd like to
I'd like to I I personally think they should be counted as impervious covers. Does anyone think they shouldn't be covered? Counted. Good. Okay. We're counting.
Everybody uh so everyone believes that the retaining wall should be counted as improper coverage. Soy um therefore we're going to look at uh a request. Yes. So it would be 22% with the understanding and stipulation
condition that 1 2 3% of that would be the retaining walls meaning that it couldn't be used elsewhere if the walls are covered. We are currently at 21.05%. The number we came up
if what if the walls are considered coverage currently we are starting out at 21.05%. And what's your request? 22. So asking for 22% is the request.
Yes. Yes. Okay. 22% is the request including um the fact that the retaining walls now count as imperous coverage. Yes. And just noting that 20% is the maximum
for Okay. Does um anyone want to kick off uh deliberations or make any comments here? I'd like to make some comments. Thank you. Um so I I think that it's not unreasonable at all um for uh property
owner to want to have a garage. Um, I love the idea of transforming the barn. I would not want to see a higher roof. I think the idea of having a lower roof and having the barn uh visible behind it. If you were to create a higher roof,
I think that you would just extend the walls from the side. And I think the massing would just be way too much. Um, I think that even considering the walls when we impervious coverage. We always want to make sure that the water isn't
um going anywhere that it's not supposed to go. And we even give consideration many many times for the size of the pool surface. So I I I don't look at this application as anything that's
unreasonable or extraordinary or causing any difficulty in in any way. Um, so for me, I I'm in favor of it. I think it's a lovely addition. I think you've gone to um great pains to make sure that the
water on your property is being managed. Um the the 2% 1% doesn't concern me at all in this instance, especially because the garage addition is already on impervious surface. So for me, I I I
just I don't I don't see any detriment in any way. I think you're in the long term probably going to save an historic structure. Um which I am very much in favor of. Um and I would
I would be in favor of the project. Okay. Thank you. I'd also like to add a couple of comments. Um you know, I think it's it's always tricky when we have these historic buildings in Basking Ridge. We have historic homes and uh everybody wants to preserve them. We all want to preserve them, but at the same
time, we have to balance preservation with usage and updating and keeping it safe and usable. Um, and I do think the applicants have been very, very mindful of a lot of things that we care about in this town, which includes historic
buildings and trying to save them and water management and impervious coverage and trees. And I do think the applicants and I them for being very focused on those numbers and those calculations which um you know you knew better than
most of us here at that point. So I actually I think the property is beautiful. I I have been to the property. I think it's it's it's beautiful and and I agree the the barn is like a little bit of a hidden treasure because you you can't really see it until you know it's there and
then you go looking for it and you're like look at this, you know, great thing. So I have the utmost confidence in the applicants to um be able to balance that preservation with with usage in the right way. So I'm also comfortable with that.
I'll also add um I also very appreciative of you holding on to that historic aspect of the building um because I think unfortunately this township does not do enough to protect the historic
aspects we have because if you don't have to come from in front of a board like this as you see you have homes that just get knocked down and there's nothing to stop it. Um and unfortunately even torical society has no power to stop the the the
loss of of homes. I I've been through those conversations with people. Um I also do appreciate um that from the front perspective, the front view um that you're actually with that flat roof. So I'm going to be a little bit
different with you, John. Um, you are actually saving the frontal face of the original look of it because you are still having the two upper windows and what would have been the hoft doors
aspect. That vision is still there and and you can still see that from down below. I think if you were to put a a pitched roof of sorts, you would lose that vision of that. So I I do like the fact that you are retaining that look
and feel of that. So that's that's just my comment. Thank you. Any additional comments or we can move to a motion on this application. Okay. Miss Bowman. Yeah. Um so I would uh move to deem the
application complete. Um and I would ask our uh board attorney to um draft a resolution memorializing our the board's decision this evening um and with all of the stipulations um that we've made as
well uh that the applicants have made I would see this as C2 and C1 I think um you think C1 as well just historic year old building you setbacks of the
the for this back because okay so under C1 um hardship and C2 um I I I don't see that this is uh detrimental in any way and I think it actually is an improvement for the property I do so
under C1 and C2 just be clear the decision is to approve to approve the application I should probably say that part that's the important part uh yes is there a second I'll Thank you Mishi.
Dr. Yes. Miss Herrera. Yes. Miss Dichi. Yes. Mr. Krabs. Yes. Miss Bowman. Yes. Miss Silver. Yes. Engineer.
Yes. Good luck with your project. Thank you very discussion. Yes. Miss Par, are you joining us for the conclusion of the meeting? Okay. So, we'll give you a second to Thank you everybody.
Thank you. Um, okay. Next, uh, so we should let the record show that Miss Pocktar has rejoined us. Uh, back up here. Um, next on the agenda is the 2024 zoning board of adjustment annual report and recommendations which was also circulated um in advance of this
meeting. Uh, Mr. Slide, do you have any comments that you want to add? Um, you read through it. Thanks for breaking that all down. Yeah. Uh, I'll just hit the highlights. Most exciting parts. Yeah. Uh, the total applications decided was
22. That was down. It felt like more. I will say I saw those numbers. It felt like the biggest application that was heard during that year. The resolution wasn't adopted until this year. So, and that consumed a lot of time.
That's got compromise, too. uh 18 of those applications were bulk variance only applications, single family applications, which is generally what we focus on because we don't see enough of the non-residential stuff to really have a sample size of trends and
things like that. Um 2024 only two two pool location variances. That was way down from a high point of I think 15 we heard right after CO. Um 10 lot coverage variances. Um
not necessarily the highest ever, but percentage wise that was out of 18. Uh 10 out of 18 uh were involved lock coverage variance. um which more than it was more than the prior year 2023 there was only six uh
not as many as in 2022 there was 12. Uh average over the last eight years it's been around nine and we so we had 10 in 2024. Um and uh
see as as to the coverage applications which is the main thing the board's been focusing on since it obviously at this point has been prevalent uh more so than any other type of variance. Uh 61% involved undersized lots. No surprise
that that's a majority. Uh 71% required more than one variance. So only 29% of the applications if they were allowed more coverage, they would have been here anyway for something else. Um that's hard to know though because like
they may have been coming for for the first and then said, "Well, if we're going there anyway." That's true. There's always that um Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um and uh the uh oh and one note on that of the um
36% of the of the law coverage cases the board required um and this is going back of the last eight years or last five years rather uh 36% of those cases which were approved the board required
stormwater management above and beyond the ordinance required. Uh and if you look at only the last two years, well 2023 and 24, uh 79% 11 out of 14, the board required
storm water management above and beyond. So that's telling in that you know the coverage cases that are approved, the applicants are um required to uh better address that issue, better mitigate it than um in prior years. Uh and that's
all I uh okay had on that. And the conclusion was no official recommendations. The the way I drafted the the draft recommendation was that similar to very similar to the last two, three, four, maybe even four years at this point
where the board decided not to make a recommendation, but just to point out that we're tracking these lock coverage cases. Um and um you know we'll revisit it and revisit lock coverage in particular. It seems this year we're off
to a well eight months in now we we've seen a good share um of lock coverage. So, so yeah, that that's um that's probably what I would recommend and that's you know the word can so I guess my only comment would be um
and and Miss Padichi you might have a view on this but does does it make any sense to um address the pool water like I know our town looks at not every town looks at that the same very few towns
right so it does it make should we put another sentence in there. I'm not sure whether we should or not, but I do think out of the lot coverage, if I read the numbers correctly, and I may not have, that of the lot coverage um impervious coverage areas, over half of them had a
swimming pool aspect to it along with other things, but had a swimming pool actually. So, it does it make sense to to ask them to take a look again and if the rule is going to stay unchanged, that's fine, but you know, does it make sense to
look at it in any other way than the way our town does. I don't know if that other people agree with that. No, it's it's the way I've seen it. I mean, it's still impervious cover, right? Because it's not it's not permitting infiltration of water. So,
most towns, all towns I've worked, but we're making them do the impervious the storm water management anyway as evidenced by the numbers. So, is it worth making that point that saying, "Hey, we're looking at this." So, in a way, we're discounting it on one side, but we're making them do the
storm water management. Could the town have a rule like that? Town could certainly have a rule. It doesn't we The town could say a pool water surface only counts for half. Yes, they could. That would be a good thing. It's not a storm water concern, but it's
still green for zoning purposes, not for storm water, but for zoning. Give them credit for that. Exactly. which I think is we always have as part of our discussion anyway as we're looking at the whole case. It does it acts as a holding basin for the water. It's like you're not get like
you get these heavy storms. You're not it's not all it's not all but if there's a rule if there's other towns different ways to look at it town look at it in any other way. It's just a question. Can we also ask them to make a recommendation to not have that rule
about the the property line in the back? I think the property line because we end up I think the property line is a go because we just but there's so many situations where it's a curve street or things like that. So we end up just
approving them and then they would but we address a lot of screening like we I think spend a lot of time on looking on what the view is going to be from different neighbors and they were all different. So, I would be, you know, I I agree that, you know, when it comes on a cold sack and what are you going to
do, but I do think we spend a lot of time on screening issues that are very specific to the application. So, I'd still like but they could amend the ordinance to say if you're on a street that is not a straight line or it's curved or it's a cold sack or it's a circular
then how do you screen that the screen that the rule doesn't isn't applicable. But I think the rule should apply. I actually think the rule should apply. You just have to location. I'm talking about the pool location because we we get those and then we just
end up reproving them because we're like this is a hardship. You can't achieve that. But we address screening, right? You have to hard someone you have to hardline the screening comes in. You'd have to have the zoning officer say, "Okay, where's your screening?" Yeah.
I don't know. Like I like seeing pool a little further away from the house or closer or something to to try to like make it less of a problem and they wouldn't do that. If you hear these
could be addressed through a different screen 2010. Yeah, it was a long time ago but the committee considered it and they decided to they'd rather see all the cases get through the review of of the zoning board. I mean it I'm still in that camp
and that that or there was an ordinance drafted that that addressed curb streets culde-sacs and there was also a a blanket provision that any in any case where the pool uh I think the number was 200 feet where any case where the pool was 200 feet away from the particular
adjoining lot line because we've seen not so many pools are that far away but that would at least but it didn't go uh The committee's decision 15 years ago was they wanted to see for the same reasons um Mr.
is is saying to added screening whatever it could be an oddball case. It is an eyeball case already anal ordinance but um to have it here and they didn't feel there was so many cases that you were inconven inconvenience in so many members of the public that and it's for
a pool. it's not, you know, a necessity and that that the inconvenience of the people who want the pools. Uh it's worth it to have the extra look see by the by the board to address any concerns that just might be there.
And I think postco we probably have most of the culde-sacs have pools already. Yeah. Everybody everybody got a Everybody got one. Okay. So I like the concept of saying water is What do you think, Mr. Schlide? Do you
think we could Is it worth making a recommendation? I think I mean that's pretty standard that the board gives at the very least some consideration to the fact that it's water, right? Uh I can I can can we draft that that language into it so that you know
the board is currently question would it encourage people to come with larger pools? I I don't know, but that it'll still be up to the board on what the you know, if all of a sudden the ordinance is a thousand square feet. We've seen a couple of those. Um so most
people probably or at least over 600 and they have to if it's a thousand, you're saying if it's over 1,000 square feet, they need a devariance because it's not a permitted use,000 and that's where we make them uh agree that they won't sell like pool passes.
We do that. Okay. So Mr. Can you um I will drop that and then do you want to put this on the agenda again? Yes. For uh next uh Yeah, whenever it's ready. I have another question. Okay, let's go. Would we be able to address that F or no
floor area? That's a good idea. We have all sorts of recommendations. I'm always puzzled by that one when it applies and that's very confusing. you know, whether it's a twostory or one story. I actually
but so many there's not going to be any new homes built under that ordinance. It's only going to be additions, right? And all of the houses are already built and to um you're you're basic you're going to be I I think it's it's
complicated. Uh and we don't see enough to maybe we'll table. I don't know. That's a really difficult but it's a good idea because you're talking about red creating a new definition of floor area and that affects a lot and our our floor area definition is already
it's very specific. It it doesn't uh it doesn't jive well with the different zoning requirements in different zones. Um I mean we could make it specific to cluster zones but I just maybe we'll table that one. You okay
table that one? We don't see a lot of this. It would be a complicated ordinance and they have no idea this right most kind of All right. Can I ask one other could be Well,
yeah. Uh I don't know. I I I don't think our the amount of applications we see for it would warrant a zoning amendment. Okay. But to keep an eye on it fair enough for it next time. Yeah, Miss I was just going to say that and this
was obviously specific to my particular property, but I think it's come up previously, which is that that rule about when you have a pre-existing setback problem and then you're adding on to it, but you're adding upwards like
an add a level. that that particularly bothered me in my circumstance because I felt like you're not actually increasing the problem of the setback is not getting any bigger. You're not moving closer to the street in any way. You're going in the air in the sky
and so you're creating volume. I I just felt like that was a bit of a weird one, especially because the reading of that ordinance says if you're not adding to the nonconforming, you're okay. But then it's interpreted
that just going upwards is adding to the non conformity. The first part of the but it's not actually increasing the setback is is what I'm my point would be. It's not increasing the setback. You're not you're not increasing the nonconformity per se. But the second
part of that ordinance is that you must comply with all current setback. Right. No, I get it. I understand how you interpret it. I'm just saying that one is a peculiar one from a resident perspective because you're not moving the house closer or farther away planning, but it's a common planning
technique though. I see that. Yeah. If you have a one-story house that's too close to I don't want to raise like a weird me I just never heard of that before and that one struck me. Think about it like this. If you're required to be 10 ft from the property
line, you're already five. You have a whole another story, another two stories. Is that not a deviation. Not really because it's not increasing the setback. The neighbor would argue the neighbor would argue because the mass is larger. Yeah. Okay. I get it. I get it.
I'll I'll drop it. Okay. It's a very common. I think we know suggested that you be on this. Um, anything else with the annual report
or are we good? I I'm just curious what what is like neighboring towns that are sort of similar to us like Bernardsville or you know even a little further south. What is their lot coverage like? Are we similar to them or are we much more
restrict? You mean in terms of percentage for areas? We're very low here. Yeah. My brother lives in Pac Lake. He's got 40%. Yeah. And if if we went up by 2% on all of them, we'd have very few applications.
I think we'd have just as many. I think we'd have just as many. People are always trying for 30. Yeah. They they It's usually just some percentage for We threshold. I actually think if we could address the pool water and comply
have something that formalizes our giving some consideration to the pool water, I think it would help a lot. I think so. Yeah. Without changing, you know, our view. Yeah. No, I get it. And we don't have to say that anyway. Uh any other comments from members? I
think we're going to Miss Layman um cancel our next August special meeting. There's actually not one on this. Oh, even better. We don't even need to cancel it. Okay, great. Any comments from staff? I I will also add just on the um pending applications, we are not hearing seven applications
next September. We're going to those will be divvied out as they become complete and you'll assign them. Correct. Two of them. Okay. So, we'll always time that correctly. Don't be scared.
Um any other comments from staff? Motion to adjourn. Motion to exc.