WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=5lBox2BpYNY

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: 5lBox2BpYNY):
- 00:00:10: Meeting Commencement: Open Public Meetings Act Announcement
- 00:01:41: Quasi-Judicial Proceeding Decorum and Roll Call Begins
- 00:03:44: New Business: Bills Approval and Public Hearing Preparation
- 00:05:05: Abas Terrell Public Hearing: Applicant Notice Confirmation
- 00:06:52: Alicia Oaks Presents Lot Line Adjustment Application Details
- 00:10:54: Board Questions Regarding Conservation Plans and Deed Restrictions
- 00:12:55: Discussion about Variances Needed for Lot Line Adjustment
- 00:15:51: Easement Clarification and Driveway Encroachment Issues Discussed
- 00:18:14: Professional Interpretation of Setbacks and Lot Boundaries
- 00:20:39: Driveway Access and Potential Easement from Anderson Hill Rd.
- 00:23:58: Investigating the 9-Foot Right-of-Way and Driveway Alignment
- 00:26:05: Clarifying Lot Numbers and Driveway Encroachment on Neighboring Properties
- 00:28:22: Sewer Easement Location and Abandoning Non-Conforming Driveway Section
- 00:30:16: Driveway Width Requirements and Definition of Rear Yard
- 00:33:15: Determining Lot Frontage and Driveway Access Options
- 00:36:35: Exploring Easements and Flag Lots for Driveway Access Legality
- 00:39:29: Frontage on Right-of-Way, Shared Private Drive and Easement Options
- 00:41:43: Easement as Best Option to Maintain Driveway Access
- 00:44:06: Setbacks and Variances for New Lot Configuration
- 00:46:06: Variance Needs and Calculations for Non-Conforming Conditions
- 00:47:42: Reviewing Professional Notes and List of Variances Needed
- 00:50:16: Front Setback Line and Impervious Coverage Ratio Review
- 00:52:17: Driveway Distance Variances, Abandoning Encroachment on other Lots
- 00:55:02: More on Driveway, Sewer Easement and Property Lines Issues
- 00:57:33: Right of Way Documentation Problem and Adverse Possession Timeline
- 01:00:04: Right of Way Deed: Barber and Pretzman Records
- 01:03:08: New Easement and Deed Adjustments for Current Lot Lines
- 01:06:07: Getting Driveway Easements from Adjoining Properties Discussed
- 01:08:31: Adverse Possession and Driveway Use History
- 01:11:02: Burden of Proof and Formalizing Driveway Access Discussion
- 01:13:13: New Set Backs and Sideyard and Backyard Relief
- 01:15:57: Revisiting Variances: Sideyard and Rearyard
- 01:17:28: Summarizing Variances and Discussing Conditions of Approval
- 01:19:37: Conditions for Adjoining Lines and Driveway Setback Clarification
- 01:22:15: Exploration of Deed Restriction on Property
- 01:24:46: Restricting Deed and Limiting Their Renumeration Values
- 01:27:28: Steep Slopes, Wetlands and Building Envelopes
- 01:29:33: Easement Down to Anderson Hill and Deed Restrictions
- 01:32:17: Rob Wilson - Envirnomental Committee Option for Consersation of Land
- 01:34:17: Building Permits, The Right Route and Future Zone Board Appearances
- 01:36:35: Exploring Conservation Avenues and 2302 Sub-Divisions
- 01:39:02: Discussion on Positional Clauses and Board Memorializations
- 01:41:19: Conditions, Time Frame and Exploring Renumeration Options
- 01:43:50: Public Comments, Viewscape Deed Restrictions and Finances
- 01:46:15: Final Quick Set Back and Approving The Front Yard
- 01:49:24: Board Discussion: Accessory Structure Compliance Review
- 01:52:47: 12-231D Building Codes and Regulations
- 01:55:04: Accesory Building Regulations With No Dimensions
- 01:58:22: Motion to Approve Application with Conditions
- 02:00:12: Roll Call and Meeting Adjournment


Part: 1

1
00:00:10.880 --> 00:00:27.920
We are on the record. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. >> You're welcome. >> In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, please note the following. All Burners Bureau Planning Board meetings will be held in person at the meeting hall on the second floor of the Burnsville Municipal Building at 166

2
00:00:27.920 --> 00:00:45.040
Mine Brook Road. Effective February 12th on the 26, planning board meetings will begin at 7 PM. Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube where there's no opportunity for public comment. Members of the public willing wishing to offer comments or ask questions will be

3
00:00:45.040 --> 00:01:00.879
required to attend meetings in person. YouTube live stream access for all meetings is at YouTube at Burningsville Burough Students. This link will also be available on the agenda for each meeting which is posted on the burough website

4
00:01:00.879 --> 00:01:18.080
Bernardville Burough Bernardsville.gov and on the Burough Hall public bulletin board at least 48 hours prior to meetings. Notice of these changes has also been emailed to the Bernardsville News and the Courier News posted on the bureau website and filed with a municipal clerk all on January 22nd,

5
00:01:18.080 --> 00:01:35.079
2026. It's the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11 p.m. at any regular or special meeting of the board unless the motion is passed by the members then present to extend to a later specified cutoff time and same shall be announced at the opening of each meeting.

6
00:01:41.759 --> 00:01:58.000
Any hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times.

7
00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:17.280
>> Roll call. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Would you like to make the announcement board member join us see all the way to the left? I did administer the oath of Boston before we

8
00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:38.480
started the meeting. So he's a dy board member figured we'd save a couple minutes by doing that instead of having recircially member of the board president. class for a long time. I think all life

9
00:02:38.480 --> 00:03:03.760
>> I remember when she asked was Golden Boy and I said yes. >> It's up to you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So roll. >> Miss G >> present. >> Mr. Gillio >> here.

10
00:03:03.760 --> 00:03:21.080
>> Mr. Brian >> here. >> Mr. Malia >> here. >> Mr. Morrison >> here. >> Mr. Sato is absent. Mr. Trainer is absent and Mr. is also absent.

11
00:03:22.239 --> 00:03:44.080
You have a qu Mr. Chairman. Okay. No meeting minutes. That's good. No communications. That's good. Is anyone here for something other than what's on the agenda? Get a second shot. No. Okay.

12
00:03:44.080 --> 00:04:03.680
New business. Uh we have the bills. >> Denise, she saw the email I sent you, right? Yes, I got to um the bill you were talking about or bills is not >> It's okay.

13
00:04:03.680 --> 00:04:19.799
>> Everything everything's okay. >> Yeah, everything just >> wanted to be sure. >> Okay. >> Take a motion for the bills. >> Motion to approve bills totaling $11,556.25.

14
00:04:20.799 --> 00:04:37.360
>> Second. Roll call. >> Miss G. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gillio. >> I believe I have. >> Thank you. Mr. Graham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Morrison. >> Yes.

15
00:04:37.360 --> 00:05:05.680
>> The motion carries. >> No new business. No resolutions. So, we're right up to the main event, the public hearing of um Abas Terrell. Mr. Sher, while they're getting up here,

16
00:05:05.680 --> 00:05:22.400
I'll just make a quick statement for the record. As far as goes, the applicants to provide adequate notice for the city's uh hearing a property is doing their property one accepting. I'll get to in a second. On May 8th, 2026, it was also published in

17
00:05:22.400 --> 00:05:44.080
Burns with news on the 7th 2026 both advanced hearing. So, the board almost has full jurisdiction here in the southeast. I do want to just swear under it'll make sense. Mr. T, I'm assuming you swear the best.

18
00:05:44.080 --> 00:05:59.360
I do. Thanks, sir. As I understand, you are the owner of block 44, lot 22. >> That's 17 L. >> That's correct. Yes. Okay. Excellent. And uh on the 200 foot list that you got for the two subject properties that are

19
00:05:59.360 --> 00:06:17.199
subject to hearing today, uh that lot did it here, but you didn't send notice to that address. Correct. The $17 app, >> right? Download that. >> Excellent. Okay. So, you're waving your right to receive notice of this hearing. >> I do. >> Okay. Excellent. Just want to make public record safe. Thank you very much.

20
00:06:17.199 --> 00:06:32.000
With that, Mr. Chairman, notice is good. The board can proceed to >> Okay. >> Where would you like us? Right here. You want us closer? >> Uh, >> there's a spot to stand. I don't have a podium for

21
00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:52.479
the screen. Um, >> if you move it, it should pick you up. >> Oh, it'll pick me up locally. Oh, there you >> some sort. >> I know. AI. AI. Hi, everyone. My name is

22
00:06:52.479 --> 00:07:09.599
Alicia Oaks. I will be serving as the I guess de facto attorney for applicant, who is also my father, who coincidentally is also my next door neighbor. So, I'm here on lots of fronts, but I'm here primarily as his attorney today just to present this application, which is seeking a lot line

23
00:07:09.599 --> 00:07:26.479
adjustment between block 44, lots 23.01 and 23.02, which would in summary result in approximately 7,295 square ft being reallocated from lot

24
00:07:26.479 --> 00:07:44.800
one, I'm sorry, from lot two to lot one. So, for the purposes of just keeping it simple, I'm going to try to refer to 23.02 as lot 2, 23.01 as lot one. Lot one is the improved lot. So, that

25
00:07:44.800 --> 00:08:01.759
contains the house, um, a waterfall structure, anything that's really built is in 23.01, lot one. 23.02 is just basically woods, a stream, wetlands. Our best guess from looking at

26
00:08:01.759 --> 00:08:17.520
the way that the property lines were drawn, who knows how many years ago, is that they probably tried to make 2301 as small square footage wise as possible um under the applicable zoning, probably

27
00:08:17.520 --> 00:08:32.719
for tax reasons. That would be my best guess. I wasn't privy to that, but I'm assuming. However, at this point, the applicant is seeking to push that improved lot line forward onto the unimproved lot to allow the primary

28
00:08:32.719 --> 00:08:48.959
reason is to be allow the existing front entrance deck to be replaced. So, as it stands right now, the front entrance is from a second story deck. your entry is on your second story and the deck was on

29
00:08:48.959 --> 00:09:04.240
I don't even want to say footings supports that have completely rotted out and in order to replace those and put proper footings and pull the permits to do so you would not be in compliance of front setback even though the dwelling itself is more than sufficiently set

30
00:09:04.240 --> 00:09:19.920
back from the road but because 2301 is a separate lot it doesn't currently meet those setback requirements by pushing the lot line forward a little bit into 23.02, it would meet those setback requirements. I do want to emphasize

31
00:09:19.920 --> 00:09:34.480
that applicant is not looking to expand the footp footprint of the built property, the built home in any way. Basically, it's mostly about replacement of that deck, which we can't do without a variance unless we push that lot line

32
00:09:34.480 --> 00:09:49.600
forward a little bit. There was some confusion um about lot line adjustment versus consolidation because at one point in the application we did mention consolidation and I would

33
00:09:49.600 --> 00:10:06.240
just like to say that when we were first looking at this, we were thinking about consolidating the two lots into one and just that would basically solve the problem uh just by doing that. But really, our objective here is to preserve that front

34
00:10:06.240 --> 00:10:22.240
lot, lot two, as some sort of open space, conservation area for years to come because right now in this neighborhood, that's almost all that we have left of open space, wooded

35
00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:37.200
treed property, and we want to try to conserve that. So, we didn't want to combine the lots and then potentially years and years and years down the line make that something that's sort of developable. We wanted to keep it the house is on its lot which is within the

36
00:10:37.200 --> 00:10:54.399
constraints of the R3 zoning district and the front is just an open space wooded lot that we'd like to keep that way. >> Am I missing anything? >> We're happy to take any questions about the plants which I'll defer to him. I'm

37
00:10:54.399 --> 00:11:09.519
just going to ask a question. When you say you want to conserve that, are you taking active steps to have it? So, we thought about putting a deed restriction in so that it would not be built upon. But then when I looked at the letter

38
00:11:09.519 --> 00:11:25.360
from where is that letter? Where is that report from? Mr. Bolio. >> Mr. Bolio. It did mention that the building envelope on that second lot

39
00:11:25.360 --> 00:11:41.200
would be so that you couldn't basically put a structure up on there. >> She did not say that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Question. What >> What would that building later? >> Yeah. Are you taking something that you could build potential something now and

40
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:57.920
then after subdivision is added so that now you would not have a building envelope but you still have a residential stand. >> Right. I I think without being able to

41
00:11:57.920 --> 00:12:16.720
speak to the plans themselves that the envelope on that lot would be reduced to an extent that it would not be buildable without a variance. But we're also open to just putting a deed restriction on it because that is the objective in the long run is to keep it as open.

42
00:12:16.720 --> 00:12:33.680
>> Yeah, I think if you're open to put a de restriction on, I think that may be the way to go. just from otherwise put a board in a tough position if you put back for a variance. >> Yes. and you technically have a building block even though you know building an

43
00:12:33.680 --> 00:12:48.560
envelope you know it's you know does that put the board in a difficult position of denying the variance and then you still have a technically a a an existing

44
00:12:48.560 --> 00:13:06.000
lot that is not buildable where where that board's saying you don't have a buildable lot where there's >> it's a hardship that's created in other for >> right right which does make sense >> is this does this application seek any

45
00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:22.160
variances >> yes >> but which are that just itemize the variances that aren't being sought for this lot line >> so for the adjustment itself we wouldn't be seeking any variances >> okay so it's >> varian the only variances that would

46
00:13:22.160 --> 00:13:38.079
ever come into play would be the existing layout of the house the way it was from from the beginning actually >> if we wanted to do something >> misses the setback of the rear yard but it's already there >> but the application itself

47
00:13:38.079 --> 00:13:53.040
>> no does not seek any variances >> triggers any variances >> didn't your note didn't your notes say something about that so there's a minimum they've identified on their plans what the variances are for the

48
00:13:53.040 --> 00:14:10.240
existing and the proposed and dated 326 um and it's just next to the rear yard setback for existing

49
00:14:10.240 --> 00:14:27.040
is what you're referring to. Um and it a lot um there's a variance required for both the rear yard and the sideyard setback for proposed 2301

50
00:14:27.040 --> 00:14:46.240
A. >> So the sideyard setback which is currently which would be as proposed is 35 and 3/4. The >> requirement is what? The required beer yard is 50 ft and

51
00:14:46.240 --> 00:15:01.279
they're proposing 35 and the required minimum sideyard is 15 ft and they have four. >> Okay. >> But that's ex right there.

52
00:15:01.279 --> 00:15:16.399
And so the only one that's changing is that um >> the rear setback is changing >> and it's better >> and it's better but >> but it's still >> see by virtue of shifting the law lines

53
00:15:16.399 --> 00:15:33.600
you're essentially creating new lots. So you know there are pre-existing non-conforming conditions as of now you take the interpretation that by creating a two now creating two new lots you're essentially creating a new lot that has two non-conforming condition

54
00:15:33.600 --> 00:15:51.040
they're pre-existing but creating central and that's one interpretation I've seen other where product required addition >> right they're all pre-existing non-conformities And basically without

55
00:15:51.040 --> 00:16:09.120
knocking down the existing structure, there's no way to make the structure conform as is with lot lines because you're on an adjacent property not owned by the applicant. >> Okay. Now you have an easement to allow the wood deck. >> That's right.

56
00:16:09.120 --> 00:16:27.120
>> Spa and heater and studies. I don't see that easement. I see it written. I don't see the I don't see it on the map. I don't see where >> you know like a right >> where it's where I saw a person I went

57
00:16:27.120 --> 00:16:44.800
to and then it said then there's an arrow to it. There's a note. >> Oh, here it is. So, sort of on your plans it'll say deck thought and viewer approachment included in easement reported in. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know it's there, but

58
00:16:44.800 --> 00:17:05.039
it's not drawn on the map. >> It shows it over the property line. >> So, you think it's just the easement is just >> literally the square footage of camp or just the wood structure. >> Yes, it's just that bit of encroachment.

59
00:17:05.039 --> 00:17:25.760
I do have the easement itself. I think it was uploaded. >> Okay. So, the easement itself has been uploaded. It's reported in the county as well and it has ement is intended the portion of grand tours lot which are

60
00:17:25.760 --> 00:17:41.760
currently being encroached on by said deck spa and spa heater as shown in the January 16th survey. So it really is just that little chunk that hangs over by about five feet onto the adjacent property that has the easement which is

61
00:17:41.760 --> 00:17:58.000
which is on the opposite side of this lot line adjustment. I should specify. >> No, no, I I know. I'm just like wondering if it was a larger easement then in theory you would have like if they had given you 10 feet along

62
00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:14.000
their property line, right? >> You would have 10 more feet. >> Right. That's why I'm asking. >> This was this was another one done long before we were in the picture. >> I'm just that would have made things much easier. I agree. >> So is this interpreting is the

63
00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:31.360
interpretation or professionals that the rear and side setbacks are the corner the the most constrained corner of the the house. that that corner is acting as both the side

64
00:18:31.360 --> 00:18:49.919
setback point and the rear setback points. >> The corner of the house that's closest to the property line is that acting as the boundary of the side for the side and for the rear of the house. It's just

65
00:18:49.919 --> 00:19:14.799
the signs the uh the new lot that they're proposing here. That's where 35 top right. >> I see that. >> Yeah. >> You're saying they're saying that's the rear section. So I suppose 52.75

66
00:19:14.799 --> 00:19:35.760
>> because of debt that they want to replace doesn't have >> I don't agree I'm just so what no so there's the house there's one corner of the house that is both the rear corner and the side corner

67
00:19:35.760 --> 00:19:53.600
and the setbacks have to comply with both side and I'm not judging on it. I'm just saying that's that that's the point where the setbacks are the side and the rear setbacks. That one corner is where you measure the

68
00:19:53.600 --> 00:20:21.360
rear and the side setbacks from. Is the confined by you determine what rear setback is? Yes, it does define where the setback is. While I'm looking up, um, I did have a

69
00:20:21.360 --> 00:20:38.440
question about the driveway distance within the adjacent as I but I've noted that out in my table

70
00:20:39.919 --> 00:20:57.200
um because it looks in plants as though it's encroaching from the adjacent And so it doesn't appear to comply with that >> gradually number of conditions but

71
00:20:57.200 --> 00:21:20.159
areas access they did address >> it's not a shared drive with the driveway off Anderson Hill Road, right? That's what we're talking about. When

72
00:21:20.159 --> 00:21:35.520
they're done as built, it's it's encroaching on the property >> lot of >> the other lot, right? >> So, >> is it shared? >> No, it's not. So, that driveway comes

73
00:21:35.520 --> 00:21:53.280
onto applicants lot 23.02 too. And right now there's not a reported easement allowing that access, but it's just never been an issue because it's always been the same order. It's never come before board before. But that's another one that I'm happy to just prepare an easement from Mr. Terry to Mr. Terry

74
00:21:53.280 --> 00:22:08.799
>> granting >> that >> granting that easement so that lot 23.01 always has use of that driveway. But there is access as well technically through Elmer Avenue because if you follow the driveway line that does end

75
00:22:08.799 --> 00:22:27.120
on Elma, but I'm also, you know, just for sake of simplicity, it is the same order. It's simple enough to do an easement just from 2302 to 2301 to recognize that driveway. But I think the point she was making that it's um lot nine block 33

76
00:22:27.120 --> 00:22:48.080
that it appears the driveway encroaches. Am I correct? >> Yeah, Alison. Yeah. >> If you look at that, it looks like you have a pre-existing encroachment because if the lot line is straight, that is accurate, right? What you're

77
00:22:48.080 --> 00:23:07.520
saying is that the rightmost property on this map is lot 9, block 43, >> correct? Is that accurate? >> I'm sorry. Yeah, shows that two and a half story in

78
00:23:07.520 --> 00:23:25.440
the south um has block 43 and it appears to me that the rideway associated with the one business

79
00:23:25.440 --> 00:23:42.320
enclosed on that lot. So, the question mark that we had at closing was the surveyor found a 9- foot ride ofway uh recorded in the deed book that stretches down that covers that portion of the driveway. Okay. >> That they could never sort of determine

80
00:23:42.320 --> 00:23:58.559
who it belongs to. It doesn't seem to belong to lot 43. They can't necessarily tie it to ours. It's one of those things that have been there forever. And he kind of said to me, Jess, you know, these small towns, these things have

81
00:23:58.559 --> 00:24:13.360
sort of been here forever. Nobody's questioned it. And then when we go and question it and figure out who owns what, I don't know who owns this 9 ft strip here. And he did mark that on these plans. So that is a bit of a question mark. Now,

82
00:24:13.360 --> 00:24:29.840
it is doable to abandon that portion of the driveway and keep it just within the constraints of 23.02. You have enough room more. We have more than enough room. It's just kind of it's always been there. So, it just was remained there. >> It hasn't always been there. It's an

83
00:24:29.840 --> 00:24:47.039
asphalt driveway. So, >> but regardless, the problem is it is asphalt, right? It's not stone. >> That's correct. It's ashvalt. >> Doesn't it also go into lot 43? >> I think we're talking about lot 9, block

84
00:24:47.039 --> 00:25:04.320
43, but >> that's what we were just talking about. >> So, but it's two different. Well, it's it's going into the Elmer Avenue lot. Okay. Basically, but you're saying it goes into another. >> So,

85
00:25:04.320 --> 00:25:20.919
this is the lot. That's the problem. >> Oh, that's that's >> You think this a separate lot? >> No, that's lot nine block. >> No, this is what's on it. That's this house. This >> Okay, got it. This is so

86
00:25:25.200 --> 00:25:44.640
I think it is two isn't >> isn't this >> is another lot nine block 43 and then this is lot block lot >> lot eight block >> so it is another one >> yeah two one two

87
00:25:44.640 --> 00:26:05.679
and Right. >> So, where does it split >> with there's a wood fence >> near the wood along the wood fence? >> You don't see the lot line. You only see the wood fence that I'm assuming splits the lots. >> Do we have the tax map there? Do you

88
00:26:05.679 --> 00:26:30.559
have it? Can you answer the question about lot eight and nine? So >> I think do you think that's a typo? >> Do you think that that's a typo for the enclosure? Should it should because it

89
00:26:30.559 --> 00:27:00.799
should it's doesn't look like it would be a big enough, you know, odd shape. >> Oh, you're missing the whole >> It goes down all bigger lot. >> This is lot eight and lot nine. So,

90
00:27:00.799 --> 00:27:17.120
there is a lot eight, a lot eight and a lot nine. >> Yeah. both of which this driveway infringes on. >> And somewhere there's a rightway document somewhere in deeds that just says you said it's just

91
00:27:17.120 --> 00:27:33.200
>> 9 foot right away. >> Granted, just a definition. >> This this I don't know. This I have not seen. It wasn't in the title search. I I can't >> Oh, how did it come up then if it wasn't in search? It's a It's a 9 foot wide.

92
00:27:33.200 --> 00:27:49.279
>> 9 foot wide redway at the very bottom. It's a strip of no man's land in between lot >> Oh, that >> uh I'm sorry. Lot >> Oh, that one. >> Yeah. >> No. >> Well, the driveway would be on

93
00:27:49.279 --> 00:28:06.480
>> There's There's two separate things. We have an We have a red one. >> There's one right. Okay. >> So that gray strip that it drives >> the 20 foot strip. >> Yeah. >> That was

94
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:22.399
an ement >> the storm sewer easement given to the burough so that they could put a storm sewer impact. I want to say 2012 and it runs underneath but they have the easement to access and clean out and do repairs as needed. So that's what that 20 foot uh ement is

95
00:28:22.399 --> 00:28:43.360
>> grade stuff. Correct. fee, >> right? >> Your property line. Okay. It's existing with the existing property line and it's appears that the driveway encroaches on

96
00:28:43.360 --> 00:29:03.840
43 lot 9 and 43 lot 8 and the rightway and Elmer Avenue will be mentioned. >> None of this came up when you closed. It did. >> It did. The rightway the night right away. Never mind. Okay. Right.

97
00:29:05.039 --> 00:29:22.000
The encroachment basically limits on lot eight, lot eight in that rideway, that 9 ft space. The majority of the well, half of the driveway as it is laid today lies within 23.02, I don't care

98
00:29:22.000 --> 00:29:38.600
if I can make this some less. Um, believe this was representation of the council that you want to abandon a driveway that isn't on 23.01. Is that clear? >> That's fine. Well, not on 23.02.

99
00:29:39.360 --> 00:29:55.880
23.02 is the undeveloped lot, right, >> that the driveway runs through to hit Anderson Road. >> You want to keep it on 23.2. >> We want to keep it on 23.02. right there. >> Remove it from 8 to 9. >> Exactly. >> That's fine. That can be abandoned.

100
00:30:00.159 --> 00:30:16.000
>> So, the enlarged lot basically would, what you're suggesting is the lot with the house on it would have its driveway as it's currently it currently reaches Elmer Avenue and the driveway would exit onto the Elmer Avenue right away. Well,

101
00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:32.399
the I proposed to keep the driveway as it is and just cut the curve a little bit sharper so that you stay within the the bounds of lot 23.02. So, widen them. >> It absolutely can be wide enough. Absolutely.

102
00:30:32.399 --> 00:30:49.039
>> So, you'd have to widen it. >> I don't know that you have to widen it. I think as it exists now, it's wide enough that you could just let the right side that seems to be encroaching into that rightway, let that go and you would still have more than enough space as it

103
00:30:49.039 --> 00:31:06.120
is without putting any um driveway depth to access the lot on top because otherwise 2301 is landlocked without access in theory. >> Are there any requirements for how wide the driveway has to be?

104
00:31:06.640 --> 00:31:23.480
Yeah, that burl does have >> a minimum. Well, let's see. >> For a single dwelling, it's going to be very liberal in terms of the driveway width for a private or shared drive. For a shared drive, there will be a code

105
00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:42.880
>> just so you're going to have a hard time, >> right? We don't want >> Do you want me to read the definitions while I have those and then I can look up to the bio? >> Go ahead. Sure. Do whatever you think is most efficient.

106
00:31:42.880 --> 00:32:00.240
>> Okay. So, um, the definition of a rear yard mean a space unoccupied except by an accessory use or building as clear specifically permitted extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the nearest line of

107
00:32:00.240 --> 00:32:18.640
any building other than an accessory building, including porches, foot, but including steps, bay, windows featured. definition line. >> No, it only has a set. >> So the one corner at the top of that

108
00:32:18.640 --> 00:32:41.519
that one corner determines is basically what determines your rear set. >> And and it's the side also. But the setback definition line definition shall mean a line

109
00:32:41.519 --> 00:33:00.880
parallel to the property line established by applying the minimum yard restriction set forth in this chapter. And when you've got an irregularly shaped lot like that and it fronts on Elmer,

110
00:33:00.880 --> 00:33:15.919
>> but I'm sorry, not to interrupt you. It doesn't front on Elmer. It fronts on Anderson Hill. Your front door is above on the plants where it says cleanout. That's the front door. >> Well, I understand where your front door is, but you don't have any lot from Anderson for that lot.

111
00:33:15.919 --> 00:33:31.679
>> But that is the lot frontage. This would be the Elmer Avenue is the side frontage and where the deck is, that is your rear yard. So if you were to draw a parallel line, you would be going from >> Yeah, I'm looking at the lot lines on

112
00:33:31.679 --> 00:33:49.440
the end right now. There's no portion of that >> because it's locked by 23.02. I'm saying to New Jersey, you have to have frontage upon a road and your frontage is on Elmer. It's not on

113
00:33:49.440 --> 00:34:12.159
Anderson Hill for that. >> What's that? Like if you a flag I mean blacks generally don't have access. >> Yes. >> But their access is from Anderson Hill. Right. >> Right. >> The boundaries in the wild.

114
00:34:12.159 --> 00:34:29.119
You would have to define I think you're all right. You today it is Elmer to have it be Anderson. You would have to have a the property would have to have a flag that went down to Anderson. You'd have to define that as part of the the lot

115
00:34:29.119 --> 00:34:46.480
line adjustment which is not what's on the table here. So, I think you're correct that the frontage is Elmer. >> Okay. >> And that's what I was presuming. I was presuming the front face of the house was Elmer

116
00:34:46.480 --> 00:35:02.640
where the driveway is essentially. The two sideyards are one's got the deck with the the other one is the thing to be repaired or removed whatever. And then the rear is everything, you know.

117
00:35:02.640 --> 00:35:28.240
up and to the left of it does probably >> now the rear yard. >> Drive in the driveway. >> Yeah. >> Presume there's a door there. >> Yeah. >> Walk in that door. That's front of your

118
00:35:28.240 --> 00:35:43.920
house. To the right is the side of the house. To the left is the side of the house. If you walk through the house, you get to the back yard. That's the backyard. >> Is it measured from the do you measure

119
00:35:43.920 --> 00:36:01.680
that in the existing building? >> Does it what? >> It's currently non building that they need a rear yard. >> Yeah, absolutely. Rear end side. It's just it's just that it's unfortunately it's

120
00:36:01.680 --> 00:36:18.960
>> that one corner determines the current rear setback and the current side setback. Both of which they need variance for. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So the way that it's drawn now, just correct me if I'm wrong. The side facing

121
00:36:18.960 --> 00:36:35.200
Elmer Avenue is the frontage. >> Correct. >> So then this driveway has to have access from Elmer Avenue. which it doesn't currently. It could, but as it is right now, >> well, that's where your frontage is, but

122
00:36:35.200 --> 00:36:51.119
you've got an e Well, apparently Well, you own the >> It's not an easement, so technically you have no access. >> We have no access >> to Anderson Hill, correct? >> We have no access to >> What's stopping you from having access to

123
00:36:51.119 --> 00:37:05.920
>> the town when it paved the roads has the road ending. It's Belgium blocked. So there's not access unless you drive over the Belgian block and gravel to the lot. The driveway the frontage has always been Anderson Hill Road just wasn't

124
00:37:05.920 --> 00:37:23.040
memorialized by easement or by deeding. >> So it was added some science basically. Yeah. You needed either a flag or you needed an an easement that would allow the driveway to exist

125
00:37:23.040 --> 00:37:40.160
over the lot closest to Anderson Hill. >> So they can do that because they own >> they could do a lot of things. Yeah. Because they own the property. Do you know if they have a driveway drainage ement? >> Oh yes. The drainage came after the

126
00:37:40.160 --> 00:37:55.680
driveway. It's underneath. there's a manhold cover on top for access and the idea that you can never build a structure on top of it so that the town can continuously access it clean it and inspect it that's just a drainage instance >> no for sure I'm positive with that

127
00:37:55.680 --> 00:38:10.800
>> so that would then mean that both of those lots which shared that driveway because Elmer is closed up that could have hypothetically been the driveway for the upper lot anderson Hill could have been

128
00:38:10.800 --> 00:38:26.320
the driveway for the lower If we're making it flag pole, then it's a shared drive. >> I think that's what you have to I think that's what you have to do. You have to make a flag here

129
00:38:26.320 --> 00:38:50.560
>> down 23 >> down to Anderson with whatever the right dimensions are. There's a minimum, right, for flag width. Like what's she say? So show her skills that there is a minimum width for the for the flag because you need a minimum

130
00:38:50.560 --> 00:39:08.000
frontage on the road >> to be to be a legal frontage. Yeah. So width. Okay. I >> mean we have more than enough to work with down there. Yeah. >> And and the reality with flags is it just has to be there. It doesn't have to

131
00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:29.599
be used, you know, like but I mean if you have you ever before where they I mean they technically hel the town just block >> right. >> Well, they technically don't have access

132
00:39:29.599 --> 00:39:47.680
to Anderson Hill technically. They have a driveway that's not compliant. You know, that's like >> So, they don't technically need to turn this into a flag. They need as an ement. >> I think I know what you're saying and I

133
00:39:47.680 --> 00:40:03.920
think it's accurate that they have frontage on a right away for a street, >> right? >> But the reality is they need access. They don't have it on. And so in order to have access they have to have an agreement. It either has to be a shared

134
00:40:03.920 --> 00:40:19.520
public you know shared private drive defined because you can do that too. You can take the front property and you can say okay it's a shared drive between the two and recommend that or you can flag it so that it belongs to because you're

135
00:40:19.520 --> 00:40:36.720
doing a you know a lot adjustment. you can flag it so that it belongs to >> that and it's not a shared drive >> right >> now I don't you have frontage so you don't actually and you haven't developed the front lot you know so it doesn't

136
00:40:36.720 --> 00:40:52.960
actually even need a driveway I don't think it's just it's just >> you so you have a choice you can if you were planning to develop it which you're not but if you were you would say well I'll put in a shared private drive.

137
00:40:52.960 --> 00:41:08.960
So then I would have uh easy access to do that. Other than other than that, whoever developed it would have to have a cut somewhere, you know, on the front of that property to put a house there. So

138
00:41:08.960 --> 00:41:24.720
I I think technically you're not in violation of having frontage, just this what Allison said. But if you want to use that legally, you're going to need you're going to need an easement. You

139
00:41:24.720 --> 00:41:43.920
don't have you you have a choice. You could flag it and use it. You could use an easement and and use it. You could make it a shared private drive, >> which at this point sort of doesn't make

140
00:41:43.920 --> 00:41:58.560
sense only because the driveway has been existing and in use 77 Anderson Hill for at least since 1999, since we put it around. >> Yeah. >> So, we'd like to keep >> we'd like to keep that. We don't want to change it. We don't want to dig anything

141
00:41:58.560 --> 00:42:15.760
up, change anything, add anything. Um, I do think doing this by easement would make the most sense just because property owner to property owner and just formalize the easement allowing access down to Anderson Hill, giving it the frontage that's necessary,

142
00:42:15.760 --> 00:42:31.680
>> right? >> Like I said, it's your call. So, um, I think all of them, any of those three would um, >> sure >> would hold up because as Allison said, you have the frontage. You don't you're not required to have the flag

143
00:42:31.680 --> 00:42:52.720
and and the easement can be anything you know >> in >> uh there is a for a lot there is a if it were a flag not saying it is because you have frontage there's a

144
00:42:52.720 --> 00:43:09.359
minimum frontage in the regulations and if your flag is serving as your frontage which shirt on cuz you have Elmer. You have a minimum width on the road. So, I'm hoping the Elmer Avenue

145
00:43:09.359 --> 00:43:27.920
right away is wide enough to be frontage. So, we have to look at >> it is it's 50. >> I'm pretty sure the flag limit I'm pretty sure the frontage is 25 ft. So there's a minimum that has to be

146
00:43:27.920 --> 00:43:50.800
on your frontage on a road. So it's not called flag. It's it's it's under what's the minimum front yard going. >> 50. >> I don't think a flag it's not going to matter because you're not going to do this, right? You're just

147
00:43:50.800 --> 00:44:06.720
going to look for an easement, right? Basic, you think you're not going to actually create a flag? >> Well, now you've got alarm bells going off in my head because then our setbacks get all wonky. And to replace the death, is that now my sideyard? And am I going

148
00:44:06.720 --> 00:44:24.079
to hit sideyard setback? >> You're you're going to need a variance for sideyard no matter what. So, it's we can we can identify which side you're not close enough, but you'll need a variance for sideard no matter what. um

149
00:44:24.079 --> 00:44:41.280
like that >> right >> I don't see how that would change the same >> well what was the >> so the front deck with the lot line adjustment if Anderson Hill is your

150
00:44:41.280 --> 00:44:56.640
front which was always what we were operating under >> would you would hit your front yard setback without an issue if this becomes your sideyard setback house. >> That is the front part of the house. That's where your front door is. Your front steps.

151
00:44:56.640 --> 00:45:12.160
>> So, the lot is set facing if you're sitting walk out your front door, you're on Anderson Hill Road and the driveway goes to Anderson Hill Road. It's tricky. It's very tricky because of the way the lot lines are and looking at the way the house is actually planted there 60

152
00:45:12.160 --> 00:45:28.079
something years ago. You know, I really wish I could just straight. >> Yeah. It doesn't really matter what the features are on the on the the building in terms of determining whether it's front side or rear >> and corner lots are interesting, too. >> Um,

153
00:45:28.079 --> 00:45:45.200
>> yeah, this is a funky one. >> You know, you could drive in and say, "Oh, I walk around to the other side of the house and that's my front door. That's my front lot." Well, no, it's not. See, I've always interpreted whatever your frontage is, it's a problem. I mean, so like for that I would at least my consider the south

154
00:45:45.200 --> 00:46:06.319
easternly base of the house to be the front that's based there's no property share. >> Yeah. So the problem was really how much variance do they need >> because

155
00:46:06.319 --> 00:46:22.319
they're not going to get out of >> they're going to need variances no matter what. It's a question of making sure they have whatever variance they need and granting whatever variance they need to do what they need what they want to do. That's you know >> so >> it's there's no there's no configuration

156
00:46:22.319 --> 00:46:37.119
where you're not going to need a variance >> and and it's already nonconforming. So is our question now do they do can can we discuss this and vote on this with with an understanding that the

157
00:46:37.119 --> 00:46:52.400
calculation of exactly how much of a variance they're going to need can be done later or do we have to know that now so that when we vote on it or can it be in the resolution? I think I think we can discuss it and say look that top corner basically in my opinion that's

158
00:46:52.400 --> 00:47:07.440
your rear and your side setback constraint and we should discuss that and the point is it's existing at all as you're saying they're not changing it. Um

159
00:47:07.440 --> 00:47:25.200
whatever existed on the other corner the the left corner um they're making better. you know they're improving it. So if a variance is required for that they're making it better and we can discuss that. So they're kind of two

160
00:47:25.200 --> 00:47:42.560
pieces of of compliance and then there's a question of what actually you're pointing like what actually has to be a variance you know like oh well they really were okay compliant with var you know the third variance.

161
00:47:42.560 --> 00:48:00.880
So I think that we can we can come to that was that you said the variances is it's just the sign and there's a whole list professionals of course why don't we run through that

162
00:48:00.880 --> 00:48:20.240
with side so um there was one fight for access that's okay because we have 53 ft of engine All right. >> So, I'll stop >> driveway distance from adjacent lot. I

163
00:48:20.240 --> 00:48:36.079
guess in either circumstance here, the plan is to maintain that provide some kind of formalized driveway across 232 223.01. So, I think that's sort of variance to zero. >> Correct.

164
00:48:36.079 --> 00:48:52.960
>> Right. The bottom shape you guys demonstrated circle more across that uh combined floor area on 23.01 you're committed to 887.4 square ft at a maximum was that

165
00:48:52.960 --> 00:49:10.440
quantified >> which number is that I'm sorry on the letter >> uh which letter are you? So, we both bring it up in different memos. Um but it's referring to the the

166
00:49:10.960 --> 00:49:49.760
for your max area. >> So is that they need a for that for that or is that comply in fact, >> I think I know the floor area of the house is

167
00:49:49.760 --> 00:50:16.160
one of the house shipping conditions. And existing and previous coverage of the house is 2119. >> All right, we'll come back in the house.

168
00:50:16.160 --> 00:50:52.079
>> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. We don't need one. >> Okay. Check that out. >> Okay. Principal front setback line. It's got to be equal to the length long

169
00:50:52.079 --> 00:51:07.920
side of facing the front aquarium. But the setback is no longer what they're requesting is their their setback request is actually from the side and just determined not from the front. >> That's right. >> Well, did they comply with what's the

170
00:51:07.920 --> 00:51:28.000
front setback required? >> Set back. This is from the analysis. At a minimum, the apprent setback line itself needs to be as long as the length of the longest side of the rolling facing the front wall.

171
00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:44.319
>> Okay. >> So then we can plot. >> Yeah. >> That's for the front which is your side >> which is my side. Right. >> So we're that's the front line. Okay. >> Impervious coverage ratio posted by driveway parking area shall exceed 17%

172
00:51:44.319 --> 00:51:59.680
of your impervious coverage check. We could >> I believe so because it reduces once front gets increase. >> Yes. >> Okay. We're good there. >> Yep. >> Okay.

173
00:51:59.680 --> 00:52:17.040
And then lotage we establish 53 on >> there. We don't need that. Okay. So that's it for 231. What is >> the gravel area that's there surrounded by trees? What is that?

174
00:52:18.319 --> 00:52:35.359
garden there, the gravel area. Oh, >> eventually that's where he wants to put a shed at like a garden shed. >> Okay. So, that that you included that in your curvier. >> Yes, it's included. >> We made sure of that. So, the question is, do they need a

175
00:52:35.359 --> 00:52:52.559
variance on the side set that gear? >> No, no, no, wait. Did you determine impervious was fine? >> That was purpose. Yeah. >> Yes, that was definitely included >> and it was okay. No, >> that's right.

176
00:52:52.559 --> 00:53:08.800
>> Okay. So then, >> so that's the variances. So we have three so far. That's for the the two setbacks and then the driveway distance from the adjacent lot 23.2. You guys are going to wait and figure out driveway anyway. So you just make

177
00:53:08.800 --> 00:53:28.240
sure you stay away from >> they're not going to recent. They're going to do they're going to do the basement >> on to 2302 >> and they're not they're going to you said you were going to take it all 89, right? >> We can just abandon it.

178
00:53:28.240 --> 00:53:48.000
>> We can just abandon it. >> Let's not use it. So >> and use what's on 23.02 too with the eet. >> Very narrow surface drive. >> Yeah, that's not going to Well, how wide

179
00:53:48.000 --> 00:54:06.559
is it? >> You know the width of the >> looks like >> 22. >> You know that right away access. >> So the right of way is to the side of

180
00:54:06.559 --> 00:54:22.640
the curb cut. So, as it is right now, there's no access to it except if you look at the plants, do you see how it bellies out and it bellies into the right of way? So, at the bottom, we're fully within the law constraints of 23.02, but as it

181
00:54:22.640 --> 00:54:44.960
goes up, it bellies to the right into the right of way. >> If we didn't belly and we sort of followed the line after this the storm sewer easement, you'd be within a lot less So the physical guard under your ult.

182
00:54:44.960 --> 00:55:02.559
It's not going to change. It's going to remain exactly where it is. >> Exactly. >> So with that it's it's I guess one variance of multiple different angles. >> You know zero feet I'm just talking about 23.0. You're zero feet from 23.0.

183
00:55:02.559 --> 00:55:18.480
>> That's right on that line. Then you're zero feet. Well, negative feet to Elmer to Elmer. >> Okay. Plus, >> so what you're saying is the driveway is currently over the sewer easement. >> Yes. >> The bellies into the sewer easement. And

184
00:55:18.480 --> 00:55:33.760
the sewer easement is on the not your property. It's on the other two lots. >> No, the sewer ement's on our property. The dark gray area. >> Oh, the dark gray is the sewer ement. The sewer easement came in in about 2012,

185
00:55:33.760 --> 00:55:49.040
>> right? So I think the point is the driveway currently is on lot 8 and lot nine. And what are you doing about that? That's all. And you're saying, well, we would just like abandon that. We would not use

186
00:55:49.040 --> 00:56:06.000
the part of the driveway that's on lot eight and lot nine. Is that I that that's what I heard you say. >> We we can absolutely do that. Otherwise, we are taking away access from lot eight and lot nine. Technically, that's been there forever.

187
00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:22.319
>> Drive also. >> No, not with a car. But I mean, technically, it's on their property. Well, but they're they have access off of Anderson Hill taking >> No, no, no. We would not be taking I'm sorry, I misspoke. We would not be taking access from them in any way, shape, or form, but we'd be going onto their property and removing something.

188
00:56:22.319 --> 00:56:42.119
>> That's right. I don't see the word remove. If if we were to remove that portion of the driveway, I don't want to remove that portion of the driveway. I'd rather just leave it there and abandon it and use what's fully within 23.02. >> Would there be enough space?

189
00:56:44.880 --> 00:57:01.839
>> The width is 12, but that includes area in this line. Yeah, it's only >> so I see from looking at this was this wide rightway anticipated driver would be access to

190
00:57:01.839 --> 00:57:17.599
we just don't have any documentation substantiate but it's kind of seems like common sense that's what was intended >> right >> I think we interrupted you when you were explaining right the right away clause we were trying to explain it

191
00:57:17.599 --> 00:57:33.119
>> well I wish I knew the the origin of the rideway to be honest with you because if if you look at the very bottom there is this 9 ft section and it comes into play to the right of the curb cut. So it's actually off of the driveway where the

192
00:57:33.119 --> 00:57:48.559
right ofway starts and then it runs up along the property line to the point where the driveway bellies off onto this right ofway and then the driveway bellies right back into 23.01. So, what I meant to what I meant to say

193
00:57:48.559 --> 00:58:04.240
because I I originally got that this all came up when you closed, but nobody dealt with this. Nobody went to the town. Who who would determine? >> It's surprising and it's not title

194
00:58:04.240 --> 00:58:20.880
search and it's surprising everyone steps back >> and we don't know who the right of way is granted to. >> No, that's the issue. They don't know who the right of way is granted to. So, it hasn't sort of followed with the deed history for anyone. >> So, now it's we're calling it no man's land because it hasn't followed

195
00:58:20.880 --> 00:58:37.760
anybody's deed histories. Lot um lot eight down here has sold subsequently. It's not in their deed. It's not part of their survey above has sold. >> I understand. But are you saying it's not even It's recorded somewhere, right?

196
00:58:37.760 --> 00:58:55.200
The rightway. It's in the county deeds. >> I I believe so. according to this. >> So someone had to register it. >> Deed book 1652. It just never ran with a property as it >> that I understand. >> Right. >> Doesn't run with the property, but someone recorded it, right? If someone

197
00:58:55.200 --> 00:59:11.280
was a person, you know that it and then they're either >> and it doesn't have a date on it. >> No, of course it's got a date. >> Not on us >> in the deed book. It's got a date in >> Right. It's just not on us. >> It's just not what? >> It's not on these plants for me to refer

198
00:59:11.280 --> 00:59:28.720
to. Oh, okay. That one. >> Did you have an assert of Somerset County? >> Not for Not for this. Not for this. >> I don't know. You're You're going to do a lot line separation here. You're going

199
00:59:28.720 --> 00:59:49.200
to record new deeds and you have know about the right way. You need to need to associate it with the new deeds that you're going to file. So, you need to learn a lot more about it. I think you're right that you what

200
00:59:49.200 --> 01:00:04.960
you're saying is you just would like to abandon the belly out that's in the the other property rather than going in and doing demolition right of it. >> Um, it's technically theirs.

201
01:00:04.960 --> 01:00:22.160
Um, I think what you said it recently, they knew it was there when they bought the property. So, it's not like, oh, well, we didn't know that the driveway was there, >> right? What's the what's the booking page for that? >> De book 1652. >> 1652. >> Page 8006.

202
01:00:22.160 --> 01:00:57.440
>> 86. 1650. >> Yep. >> The first party presuming the grand order was Z N O Barber A. Is that right? And the second party is Fred M. Press.

203
01:00:57.440 --> 01:01:16.359
>> Yeah. >> Well, when was this? Does it was reported in uh on September 25th of 1987. >> 87 >> 1987. >> It may

204
01:01:16.559 --> 01:01:39.280
indeed it from what you're seeing it is relevant to this property. Correct. >> But that's on holds part 23.02. So it is 4302 because the lot line is here. This is 2302 here.

205
01:01:39.280 --> 01:01:59.520
>> When was when was the lot subdivided? >> When was the lot subdivided? Uh I did know this at some point. I would say early 1970s, maybe late 1960s. 431. So, it would have been part of the

206
01:01:59.520 --> 01:02:16.319
original lot 23 >> before it became 2301 and 2302, >> but they didn't record the easement until 87. >> The subdivision occurred after >> said the subdivision definitely occurred.

207
01:02:16.319 --> 01:02:34.480
>> Oh, I was then Yeah, they should have recorded it again. >> Was whatever the name was. Um, Pretzman, I'm sorry. Pretzman would have been I don't know if they did the subdivision or if

208
01:02:34.480 --> 01:02:52.480
it was the owners before the President's >> Well, I would suspect if they if they're doing the um easement years later that they weren't the ones who did this, >> right? >> I do agree. >> 19 years.

209
01:02:52.480 --> 01:03:08.960
you're you you're going to need the easement. There were like three choices that the one seems easiest is the easement. You got the rightway as precedent for some kind of an easement, but I and you're going to have to write it all

210
01:03:08.960 --> 01:03:29.359
into the deeds when you when you do this suggested subdivision. So sounds like you should to not lawyer but to to do a new a new easement and have it supersede the right away basically you know draw it in and say this

211
01:03:29.359 --> 01:04:04.240
supersedes it >> booking page one. Jeff 9 foot right of way as for deed book 1652 page 806 John barber Nobody's nobody's questioning the use of

212
01:04:04.240 --> 01:04:25.599
this driveway. It's always this check. >> Often these moves aren't filed properly, right? >> Um they're filed and then you can't look them up, you know, they don't show up in the record. So, um,

213
01:04:25.599 --> 01:04:41.839
it's it's the way those records work. They're like >> ancillary documents and they don't always get >> Yeah. But they'll step away. The title insurance will say if it's not showing up in the search or the county records, we're not liable.

214
01:04:41.839 --> 01:04:57.680
>> It's an exemption >> for whatever. Yeah. >> Yeah. And so therefore, you're not insured. Yep. It just happened to my brother. That's why I know. >> Yep. And some exemptions. >> It's like, oh no, we're not we didn't

215
01:04:57.680 --> 01:05:13.920
insure you for them >> stuff. We can't if if they can't learn it, then they just say, "Look, there's no way for us to learn this, >> right?" And you take title subjects to that exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, they can get their homes, >> right? >> Best to do the other ones. It's

216
01:05:13.920 --> 01:05:30.000
>> so the the good news is you're in control of the properties. You can get your own easements. You can set it all right. You got to do the deeds anyway. So, it's not like it's a lot of >> chatted effort to get the easement into the deed. >> Did Did we get to the through the list

217
01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:46.960
of >> through the list of potential variances? >> I mean, are you guys would you be simulating to getting easements from 89? >> Would you be also getting easements from

218
01:05:46.960 --> 01:06:07.680
the two family? Do they need >> It's not on their It's not within their lot lines. That's my understanding. >> No, no, no. He's saying to continue to use a driveway as is without constructing a wider driveway and abandoning the the non, you know, the

219
01:06:07.680 --> 01:06:24.480
non-conforming section of this driveway. would instead they be willing to seek an easement from lot eight and lot nine that says can I continue to use my driveway >> but they're saying it's a no man's land that nobody owns this on eight isn't that true most of it there's a there's a

220
01:06:24.480 --> 01:06:40.720
tiny section that seems to be on lot nine >> no lot n >> no they don't know the right away they can't associate the rightway path with the right >> the easement was granted to this gentleman Right.

221
01:06:40.720 --> 01:06:57.359
>> And that's our >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So I it may very well be that the it's not drawn on or the when it was

222
01:06:57.359 --> 01:07:13.760
reported it wasn't like the music. >> That's what I'm wondering. >> Yeah. >> If it's just >> I have I have Hold on one. Sir, are you saying that the easement itself was granted by lot 8 and lot 9 to the owners of lot 2302?

223
01:07:13.760 --> 01:07:37.119
>> I'm trying to text officers. >> There would need to be two ements. >> You need a laptop. >> I know. Yeah. 23 floors too. at least back. >> You're going to need an easement at

224
01:07:37.119 --> 01:07:54.799
least on 2302 to allow 2301 to use the space on 2302. >> You're going to need to further research the right away to make complete sense out of it as opposed to ad hoc. It's got

225
01:07:54.799 --> 01:08:10.720
to be accurate. >> Sure. And the suggestion that was made is instead of messing with the driveway, try to e the rightway may cover it, but try to get a formal an easement um from lot eight and nine to let you use the

226
01:08:10.720 --> 01:08:31.839
driveway as opposed to um paving >> that I can I can testify that it's been there since before 1999 because I moved in next door in 1999. And that driveway has always been there. >> What's What's the timeline of adverse

227
01:08:31.839 --> 01:08:51.440
possession? >> We're there. >> It's definitely open and notoriously used for over 25 years. >> It may very well be yours already. >> Yeah, I think myself very long. >> No, you are absolutely right. I wouldn't

228
01:08:51.440 --> 01:09:07.440
want to throw it out there, but that that is true. It's been weird. >> It's been completely in fact when we were first getting surveys done because of course I I live here. This is my across the street neighbor for 20 years.

229
01:09:07.440 --> 01:09:23.199
He said, "Is this on your property line to our across the street neighbor?" And he was like, "I have no idea what you're talking about." No. Like that's the driveway. That's not ours. We've never And I was like, "All right, well, we don't know what this is, who this belongs to." >> You told Obviously, you've told the Dave

230
01:09:23.199 --> 01:09:41.600
for lot nine, right? Right. Lot nine just sold. Uh, no, not sorry. Lot eight just sold recently. >> And they didn't have any they didn't have a problem with they didn't have any. >> No. Yeah. So, it's not showing up. >> It's the same money cuz both of them

231
01:09:41.600 --> 01:09:58.000
are. >> Lot nine hasn't sold since I would estimate when did they move in? 2003. 2002. >> That's still, you know, that's still recent. >> That makes me feel good. Keep saying that. That is recent. It's reason to all of us.

232
01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:14.000
>> It's reason. >> The point is I think it's straightforward. If you want to keep using the library, the the driveway, you're you're going to want to ensure that you have the rights to do it. I think you have the right if if someone were to enforce it and say, "No,

233
01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:29.040
you can't. You're on my property." You get into the issues of I think you know how long it's been in use. But so you you do have the way to remediate it. It's not like there's a cliff there that you couldn't pave to get around it. >> We just don't want Yeah.

234
01:10:29.040 --> 01:10:45.920
>> No, do we can do it, but we don't want to expand any more impervious >> than is there. We like >> Well, it's not on your lot. >> Oh, you you just measured the impervious on your lot. You didn't measure the impervious on their >> No.

235
01:10:45.920 --> 01:11:02.880
into our lot if we don't have to. If we have to, we have to. We're just trying to keep as much green as we can. >> At the end of the day, this is something that's certainly relevant when we're talking about whether or not it's kind of like outside board. We're

236
01:11:02.880 --> 01:11:18.400
here to determine if you have any burden groups. >> Correct. >> So I guess with that the reason proceeding under your own risk is your mind understand

237
01:11:18.400 --> 01:11:33.280
as far as we're concerned with those trucking the driver relief for a living essentially zero setback of driver to those other points here at the very least. Yes. >> Correct. Oh,

238
01:11:33.280 --> 01:11:51.120
>> for lot eight and lot nine. You've got >> You don't have the driveway set back. >> That's right. >> Were those the last two variants? Let me finish >> to go all the way back where we started. >> Okay. The uh So, we went through 231. We

239
01:11:51.120 --> 01:12:07.120
do the variance 23 days. Access corridor need at least 50 ft. We got a ton of frontage. So, I don't know why that is blank. So, I guess no variance for that. the distance of the driveway to 231

240
01:12:07.120 --> 01:12:25.520
because the driveway is contin I guess zero ft and all >> right >> in all measurements there and the blockchain which you demonstrated to comply with so I pretty sure that's it >> no we still have how much of a variance

241
01:12:25.520 --> 01:12:43.120
we need on the sideyard and the backyard Not for 01. >> Okay. >> No, for 01. >> Yeah. >> It's it's just a matter that variance is needed. We need to know whether it's a 4ft or a 15t or a 30 foot. We you know

242
01:12:43.120 --> 01:12:57.440
it's >> we need to know the specifics just to memorialize it properly. >> Well, you consider the floor mentioned consider that property line the house is 42 and that's the sideyard or fire 15. Exactly.

243
01:12:57.440 --> 01:13:13.920
>> Right. And the numbers they originally had for what they called the front lot would be our numbers for the variance on the side. >> That would be our side. Now, if we're considering it like this, >> the application considers

244
01:13:13.920 --> 01:13:29.199
what they see as the front of the house is actually based on this. >> If that's where the board termination is that the fun artist >> No, no, no. What I'm saying is their application is requesting a variance on what they call the front yard, but in

245
01:13:29.199 --> 01:13:47.120
fact now it's sideyard. That was a whole >> No, I'm sorry. That's right. That makes sense. >> So, we just need to amend what the request is because their when they when they submitted their application, >> where their front door is is what they

246
01:13:47.120 --> 01:14:02.560
are cons they identified as this front yard. But we've all agreed that their front yard is where the driveway comes in facing Elmer. >> They didn't ask for a front yard really >> because we were considering front yard

247
01:14:02.560 --> 01:14:18.640
Anderson Hill Road. We're determining tonight that front yard is actually the Elmer Avenue facing side. >> So now they want sideyard. >> So now that >> we need to make sure there's no sideyard relief. >> I don't think we need sideyard relief because the sideyard's only 15 and we're

248
01:14:18.640 --> 01:14:36.080
well beyond that now. >> Yes. Okay, >> I know one sideyard they don't need. They need a sideyard and a backyard, but the other sideyard they don't need a variance. That's >> correct. >> I just want to make sure

249
01:14:36.080 --> 01:14:54.000
>> the names >> the issue front and back the side and side and rear. Okay, but so that's result. It's 4 feet. the northernmost property line considering battery one and two and

250
01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:09.440
35.77 was going to be your new rear yard gun under the terms of the >> No. No, no, no, no. >> That's not fair. >> What? >> Rear and side. >> Exactly.

251
01:15:09.440 --> 01:15:25.679
>> Okay. So, the 4 foot you're >> corner is on the side and the rear wall. >> You're saying that's the rear and side. >> That is correct. Okay. All right. That's where it ends >> because we're drawing a parallel line from that corner, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's from that corner. That's the

252
01:15:25.679 --> 01:15:40.159
closest. >> Is it >> when you look at the re our new rear of the house, that corner is the closest to the property. >> So therefore, that is the >> that's back. >> So then at 35.77

253
01:15:40.159 --> 01:15:57.280
the other line is that side. >> That's a side. So then they're compliant. >> They are. That was her point on that point with >> one mentioned side >> two different yards.

254
01:15:57.280 --> 01:16:13.199
>> Two different sides. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Don't you wish we could just >> This is >> And it's an existing condition. That's the >> Yes, it's all existing. Nothing's getting pushed in that white place at all. >> They're proposing to ship an invisible

255
01:16:13.199 --> 01:16:29.360
line. Now, what was the what what's the sideyard? Just just one. The sideyard is currently No, no, not forget that. What's the the >> the minimum? >> 15. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. So, they were at 14. They were 15

256
01:16:29.360 --> 01:16:50.719
feet nominally >> before, but now they're making it even they're they're making it better. They're relieving that constraint. And that new deck you're going to do is that's a replacement deck or it's going to be the same boundaries. >> Replacement. >> Sorry. >> Replacement.

257
01:16:50.719 --> 01:17:12.040
>> Same same boundaries. Making sure to have six energy. >> 6t. >> So if I'm 6 feet off the part of the house now >> and then you're going to be 12t part of the house. >> Okay. It's out front side. So

258
01:17:13.440 --> 01:17:28.800
>> let's just make sure >> Well, today it's 469 square ft. So it sounds like it's >> so 29.77 from that boundary. >> Is that correct? >> Yes.

259
01:17:28.800 --> 01:17:46.719
>> 735. >> We have 37 >> 35. Okay. I know there's >> still compant you would still be compliant. >> Oh, >> I know that's important cuz right now

260
01:17:46.719 --> 01:18:04.159
you can't get in the house but for the back door or side door. >> This is going to be our running joke. You'll never look at the house again. >> I will never look at him again. That is absolutely right. Okay.

261
01:18:04.159 --> 01:18:19.679
So, I do my best to summarize the relief and we'll keep going the public if other questions. >> Sure. Just so we're on safe behavior minor side by improve the wild line adjustment the side and rear yard set back

262
01:18:19.679 --> 01:18:40.640
pre-existing condition that's going to be technically native areas again 4 15 is required if it's side 50 required I rese on 23.01 0 ft to Elmer 0t 23.02 road.

263
01:18:40.640 --> 01:18:56.880
>> That's right. >> That road slot 3.02 zero the driveway setback is 0. >> Wait, wait, go back. It's 0 feet to Elmer. It's 0 feet to lot 9 and 0 feet to lot 8. You've got both lots, right? >> That was just 301. >> Oh, never mind. Sorry.

264
01:18:56.880 --> 01:19:14.159
>> Yes. So 301, 0.32. Yes, >> sure. It's not zero to any other. And we're not too close to >> uh >> actually >> the lot north of of Elmer Avenue. That that's fine, right? But how close can it be?

265
01:19:14.159 --> 01:19:37.400
>> No, it that's past it. >> Is it within 10 ft? >> Is it within 10 ft of the corner of that lot? See where Elmer Avenue and the >> 10 ft >> property? >> Is it within 10 ft? the director >> where the consult

266
01:19:37.440 --> 01:19:55.920
>> where the lot is that within 10 ft lot. >> Yes. So 5t. >> So yes. So that would be an 301 to lot 22. >> It would be in the same category. >> Okay. >> You're not at zero. You're but you're

267
01:19:55.920 --> 01:20:16.080
not at the 10 in >> just because it gets that close. Is that your one? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It gets for your parents. >> It's just it's not a lot

268
01:20:16.080 --> 01:20:32.239
of Right. Right. So that's four different areas. Okay. So we starting minor cycling approval and wild adjustment rear and sideyard set back of 4T for 150

269
01:20:32.239 --> 01:20:48.320
we required for that northernmost property driveway distance from the adjacent wild line there's 0 ft from 302 0 feet from 22 0 feet to the rightway 0 ft >> lot yes that's 304

270
01:20:48.320 --> 01:21:03.840
>> that's correct because that doesn't touch lot. It's not a lot, >> right? >> Okay. So, screwed over. >> Yeah, >> so it's 232 and lot with respect to

271
01:21:03.840 --> 01:21:19.760
saying a lot both >> that makes sense. >> Okay. And then as far as 2301, right, that you're talking about, >> correct? As far as 2302 is concerned. >> Okay. It's the driveway set back to 23.01 one

272
01:21:19.760 --> 01:21:39.440
eight and n >> and yes that that's correct >> there. >> Okay, so that's the relief. Are you sure you don't want to do anything else? We'll put a blue background here. >> Got one of those. We don't need to. >> Okay,

273
01:21:39.440 --> 01:21:56.000
>> I think that's it. >> Okay, as far as conditions go, you guys will comply with everything in the professional survey reports, but will be outpatient, >> of course. Okay. Um, you offer a deep restriction for 2301. We make it some pursue that into

274
01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:15.520
>> that was a question mark. >> I think that's something we can explore in the future. >> So, we'll scrap that as >> sure driveway access. I mean, ult. unless the board goes differently than all of those that

275
01:22:15.520 --> 01:22:31.360
did this extended otherwise you're going to come back here a few years. >> No thanks. >> Okay. Am I missing any other conditions? Can you guys >> Oh, wait a minute. You dismissed the date restriction which I understand but we're granting the variances. So why

276
01:22:31.360 --> 01:22:53.000
aren't we seeking a restriction on 2301? I'm just wondering. >> Well, they offer the board feels different, you know. We are gonna have to >> I I'd certainly like to see a restriction.

277
01:22:53.520 --> 01:23:09.600
>> It's part of it. Basically, it's a separate. It's basically you're you're aggregating one property and then the next when someone comes in to develop the next piece of property, it's like, oh, now you're dealing with steep slopes everywhere and variances. It's like

278
01:23:09.600 --> 01:23:25.840
steep slits and weapons. There's not much that's going to be able to be built there. >> Yeah. But so >> but street too. It's like no, there's a way to beat it. Okay. So >> our understanding is that the stream as

279
01:23:25.840 --> 01:23:43.199
it comes through the property makes all of that wetlands and it's undevelopable developable as of right. So once the lot line is moved, you're not going to be able to fit an envelope on there. No matter which way we look at it, because of the wetlands,

280
01:23:43.199 --> 01:23:58.159
even if they went for variances on a steep slope, there's no way they're getting >> You can substitute wetlands. You can say, "I'm going to take some wetlands and put some wetlands somewhere else." >> Did you know that? >> With active stream.

281
01:23:58.159 --> 01:24:13.840
>> Yeah. Actually, I owned a property where my sellers >> um you you you take, you know, five feet here and you give 20 feet here. But um it can be done. But my question is are there other you know can they is there

282
01:24:13.840 --> 01:24:30.800
enumeration that they lose? Could they go and shop it? Do we have the right to ask them that >> to do what? >> Well, you can youth can sometimes get compensation for these conservation. They they can certainly look to make it green acres, you know, something to give

283
01:24:30.800 --> 01:24:46.239
it over, you know, formally >> if we require them to put it in the deed now. >> Yes. >> Does that take away their ability to do that? That was sort of my concern because I don't know. If it's already restricted restricted there's no reason

284
01:24:46.239 --> 01:25:01.040
for them to >> depends on you know which stream it is and whether the organization wants to take rights look rights to it and preserve it. So >> I mean the problem >> look at look at what you're saying is

285
01:25:01.040 --> 01:25:15.920
it's like oh well we they restrict it and it limits their their value. Well to a value to who? To someone who wants who wants it. >> No you're just saying through green organization it limits it. They'll say, "Well, we don't really spend our budget on it because it's taxree."

286
01:25:15.920 --> 01:25:32.719
>> It's already restrictive. Yeah. So, that's why I question um you know, do we do we hold off the resolution and give them a

287
01:25:32.719 --> 01:25:52.120
week to to see if there's anybody who's going to act that quickly? Um I I'm just I just don't know that we have whether >> both properties are under right under our jurisdiction right now. Okay.

288
01:25:53.280 --> 01:26:10.880
>> Is there anything out for superition as far as protecting or put time restriction once again? So to be as clear as possible, the objective for all of us is to restrict

289
01:26:10.880 --> 01:26:26.560
232.02 from being developed. I hesitated in going forward with saying let's do a conservation uh deed restriction because I want to fully explore what that would mean for frankly no offense I'm not trying to

290
01:26:26.560 --> 01:26:41.760
kill you off but if this were to be deed as sort of like a testiment gift to the burrow at some point as open space >> I don't know that I want a deed restriction on there because that might get funky I just was it was a question mark for me but that is the objective

291
01:26:41.760 --> 01:26:57.120
I'm testifying to that I'm sure he'd be happy to testify to that. >> I don't mind with you taking more time to research it. You're going to need some time anyway to reformulate it anyway. Um

292
01:26:57.120 --> 01:27:14.000
I it it you probably did it, but it was there a demonstration that um a a circle a lot the lot circle will fit, but a building envelope won't in theory, right?

293
01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:28.800
that question. >> This a question in in conversation with the surveyor. Yeah. >> It was once this lot line is moved a building envelope will fit by virtue of the wetlands >> because of the lot line next to the

294
01:27:28.800 --> 01:27:45.920
house or also because of the lot line adjustment that you're making by the gravel area and the waterfall. >> Well, not just there. The whole thing is >> Yeah. I don't see how it was all steep slopes anyway. >> It's wetlands. wetlands, a stream, heavy vegetation,

295
01:27:45.920 --> 01:28:02.000
there's wetlands at this end. Well, and what's the setbacks now? The wetlands and it's two.5 >> one setback for development. Another one it's uh the stream type and >> I believe with the lot lines

296
01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:18.880
>> with the lot lines there as they are drawn today, you can fit with a variance for steep slope. >> Yeah. a structure on the upper portion of that lot because you would be outside of the wetlands right away. After the proposed lot line revision, should it be

297
01:28:18.880 --> 01:28:35.639
granted, that would not that would not work because then if you see where the lot line out, you're past that point almost. So, you wouldn't be able to fit it. >> So, you're saying where the where the gravel area is right now, you could potentially fit the structure.

298
01:28:36.159 --> 01:28:52.159
>> You lots of erances, I think. Well, I wasn't. Yeah. >> A little to the left of that. Yes. >> To the left of that. >> I I think that's right. >> But if you were to adjust the lot line as you propose, that would not

299
01:28:52.159 --> 01:29:09.280
>> that would go away. That's right. So, that that is really the reason why we didn't say, "Okay, you know what? Deed restriction below." I felt like we were sort of accomplishing that just by adjusting the law, but we're open to it. Why don't you consider

300
01:29:09.280 --> 01:29:33.040
to pile on um this line of thinking? Why don't you consider a much wider easement? >> Give 2301 a very large easement down to Anderson >> Hillrestricting 2302 further.

301
01:29:33.040 --> 01:29:51.120
>> Just just creative thoughts. um >> that's a great point. >> Then it stays under your control. You have the right, you know, the problem is that with all with an easement is it's you're in control of the lot. So you can

302
01:29:51.120 --> 01:30:08.400
dissolve the easement. So So that's not such a great >> also you got to make sure the driveway becomes different operators. So you have more of a >> right >> when you're driving, >> right? Then in then if to if if they're redoing everything,

303
01:30:08.400 --> 01:30:23.199
>> do they do they draw the lot line to include Oh no, then you lose the access. Never mind. >> Yeah. No, I I do >> it's insider though. So I mean if you had a you know

304
01:30:23.199 --> 01:30:38.639
you decided no I I really do you know I'll shrink the easement back. You know, like if you had a 50 foot easement and then you said, "Well, okay. I cut this back to 15 cuz this developer just offered me a whole bunch of money to >> build

305
01:30:38.639 --> 01:30:58.239
changing. But even if you kept the driveway access here for 2302, >> right, >> and you changed the lot line to include the driveway, the rest of the driveway,

306
01:30:58.239 --> 01:31:14.719
you haven't given up access to 2303, but you you've transferred that part of the land. >> I don't know if it's >> you could do it you could do it that way. You could trans you could put right all of the driveway as as a flag essentially into

307
01:31:14.719 --> 01:31:31.600
>> 2301 and then you give 2302 the easement >> right >> to be on your driveway. >> You could probably do it without it become you'd have to look if it would become a private drive but >> you know an easement might be enough. >> Um >> I I would say

308
01:31:31.600 --> 01:31:46.159
>> that's another way to look at it. we prefer to go to the easement route and I just convert >> it's just a matter of which home own you know has what owns the property that's there. So that's a that's a nice >> idea.

309
01:31:46.159 --> 01:32:01.600
>> Um how long it's been years since I've looked into it to discuss with someone your options for conservation if we're going to give them some time to do that while you're redoing everything else.

310
01:32:01.600 --> 01:32:17.440
It means, you know, um that's great. I I'm going into uncharted territory here. This is something I've never done before. So, um you know what? Um Rob Wilson may know who to talk to. He

311
01:32:17.440 --> 01:32:41.280
chairs the Environmental Commission. forever and you know if there's um you know anything green the town the bar will be pleased about. So, um, but he might be a good person to speak with.

312
01:32:41.280 --> 01:32:58.719
>> Okay. And, um, I have, um, you can probably find his contact information on the federal website, but I have it also, >> right? Okay. That's awesome. >> I'm on the environment. That's awesome. >> So, Chris, how would we proceed with

313
01:32:58.719 --> 01:33:22.639
this thing? But anything would be the positive as far as the conservation goes. >> Well, one other thing she wants to talk about would you like?

314
01:33:22.639 --> 01:33:48.159
They also theoretically leave it up to the board professions to determine whether the route they go for conservation be sufficient. >> I don't think that's was that >> we're open to that. We're open to expanding the easement.

315
01:33:48.159 --> 01:34:03.840
Another thing I was thinking of and now that I love the idea have a condition in the resolution future development 3.12 has to come back to zoning board disappearance that way they can't just nobody can just

316
01:34:03.840 --> 01:34:21.120
build something on there without it's another way >> I understand what you're saying even though it's like likely they would have to come before one of the two >> right >> if someone got so creative that they didn't trip you know didn't need any variance then they could just go ahead

317
01:34:21.120 --> 01:34:44.800
and get the >> permit changes changes the reg that's a good point and probably no matter what I think that should be that suggestion we should include that >> I guess we could stronghold or talk

318
01:34:44.800 --> 01:35:02.000
amongst a little bit here but in terms of what's what's the opinion on on the list of variances that uh survived. >> I I I think the

319
01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:17.440
the list of variances are not unreasonable. They're pre-existing. It improves things. They they need to be able to get into the house. It's large that they can. So, I have no issue with the variances. Um, I like the idea that

320
01:35:17.440 --> 01:35:32.639
they want to conserve this >> and I think there's value in having that in writing. But >> but having been having had my own experiences, I don't I I think we need

321
01:35:32.639 --> 01:35:50.320
to give them the opportunity to explore how they u preserve that and um but it we do need certainly you know it would be nice to have something in writing but I think we need to let them figure out what's best

322
01:35:50.320 --> 01:36:09.120
for them all around and how they can serve Yeah, I agree with with all that. I mean, varianc is a reasonable and yeah. Yeah, I think you have a good point letting them decide it's best for the property. Yeah. I mean, I think like

323
01:36:09.120 --> 01:36:23.600
we wouldn't be having the conversation about avenues and and service or green space or whatever if we weren't having a conversation on the law line. And that would be their decision whether

324
01:36:23.600 --> 01:36:40.400
or not to take that approach regardless of adjusting these lock lines. So, I mean I mean I'm in the camp of letting them pursue that if they choose, but I don't think it's going to make my decision

325
01:36:40.400 --> 01:36:56.320
making. >> I have no issue with the uh variances for the pre pre-existing conditions and I'm aligned as well. I think the rest of the board that I would like to just see memorial wise that there is attention to

326
01:36:56.320 --> 01:37:14.800
be serving uh what is it 230 >> is there so in general it's all positive is is there also an option to say that 2302 cannot be further subdivided does that is there any precedent for

327
01:37:14.800 --> 01:37:32.800
something Mr. The thing is like anybody could come back to the borders with less relief in that that conditioned. >> So I I give you an answer one way or another. >> No, I'm just throwing ideas. That's just

328
01:37:32.800 --> 01:37:49.760
>> I mean you're by committee potentially. >> Well, let's say the road committee says we're going to build on SE slopes. That's where that's where new houses ought to go. >> Um you know, modular trailer infrastructure to tiny homes and there's a whole ridge

329
01:37:49.760 --> 01:38:10.320
there could be full of tiny homes. >> Um I'm just trying to say do you know something we don't know? >> Yes. Um could I propose that maybe in a

330
01:38:10.320 --> 01:38:26.800
resolution we set a time period for us to explore avenues for conservation with the end result being that the lot is restricted from development. We're fine with putting that. It's just the avenue by

331
01:38:26.800 --> 01:38:47.199
which we accomplish it. That's the question mark. But the conclusion no matter what for us is we don't want this built on. We want this to stay. We want to protect it. We have very little left. >> I think I'm okay with that. That that

332
01:38:47.199 --> 01:39:02.639
would mean we'd actually vote and >> they could have magical draft resolution that you've got right there. as a result. Um, is that something the board would want to come to board or is that

333
01:39:02.639 --> 01:39:18.960
something to the country to stay with him? >> Well, I think we should, it sounds to me like we should pass those at least and it should include a positional clause that we're exploring the details of how something might be optimally conserved,

334
01:39:18.960 --> 01:39:34.719
let's say, right? um they could contact our professionals for ideas, you know, but of course, >> right? >> And um then it would be handled with the memorialization of the resolution, I

335
01:39:34.719 --> 01:39:53.440
think, because you can always adjust what you originally passed. You can refine the wording, especially if there's a placeholder for it. >> Yeah. I I guess the question is do you want them to come back to the board to explain what they're going to do for the reservation? >> I think it's going to be a resolution. I

336
01:39:53.440 --> 01:40:10.159
would want them to come back when we memorialize the resolution. Yes. Now there there would be interactions of course between them and you >> to adjust the wording. Okay. Now maybe the wording will be so clear they don't have to you know we

337
01:40:10.159 --> 01:40:26.719
figured out a way and some generous donor is doing something but they should be prepared that they may have to come back especially if it's like we just can't figure anything out you know we tried and so forth but we just can't figure anything out so you just have to

338
01:40:26.719 --> 01:40:43.840
>> okay um so I'd say a placeholder in the resolution >> would say the worst case scenario >> is we could say we're just going to do a deed restriction that it cannot be built upon without compensation without and just restrict the property moving

339
01:40:43.840 --> 01:41:01.119
forward. So here's my my concern. You know, the board's vote is the city, right? And so we're vote tonight. I mean, there's some things you can leave that discretion board professionals attention officials. But if we don't even know what the

340
01:41:01.119 --> 01:41:19.280
condition is going to be ultimately, you know, how we make a decision, oh, this is an open-ended condition. We're going to determine the way you're doing, but we can't do it. >> Well, no. what she's saying. >> Well, it's it's really open-ended because she has generously offered that

341
01:41:19.280 --> 01:41:35.920
they will have a certain period of time to investigate what their options are for renumeration or other things and if at a certain point they don't have that they will agree to a deed restriction. So, it's not that it's time.

342
01:41:35.920 --> 01:41:52.400
>> Okay. All right. So is the condition the applicant shall have 6 months to find some avenue of restricting development on the property ultimately subject to the board professionals approval and if all else fails essentially alert it much

343
01:41:52.400 --> 01:42:08.639
nicer way. Yeah, they'll put a de restriction on the property depending on the development. Is that >> that's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what I think to be >> if they don't have the deed restriction within the six months. Let's give them an extra month to actually formalize

344
01:42:08.639 --> 01:42:26.639
that. He was the zoning officer zoning. >> I have another idea just earns coming. The house is above this, right? The slopes are down to the stream, right? There is such a thing as a viewcape

345
01:42:26.639 --> 01:42:43.600
>> and you can get a viewcape deed restriction that says you can't develop in my view. Now the point is it's you on both sides of the equation here. So I'm just throwing

346
01:42:43.600 --> 01:43:00.239
it out as a thought that that if you wanted to put some kind of deed restriction and you could put a viewcape de restriction >> right and it may be irrelevant you just like another idea and that may trigger some other idea that you may have but

347
01:43:00.239 --> 01:43:16.880
>> they would not you could structure it obviously if you did the viewscape you could structure it in a way where it couldn't be developed unless the viewscape relieved but it's you so you decided you woke up one day and decided Oh yeah, develop that just another type of restriction,

348
01:43:16.880 --> 01:43:32.480
>> right? That's definitely something to look into as well. The the be all end all is no matter what, if we can't find some glorious avenue to have somebody come in and have there be some renew renumeration, we're just going to be

349
01:43:32.480 --> 01:43:50.239
restricted no matter what. That we're on the record. There's no problem with that. I also just consider the finances. There may be a situation now you've got two lots, right? They're both going to be taxable in some way, right? So, um any

350
01:43:50.239 --> 01:44:08.040
anytime a lot is less developable or whatever restricted, there's there's relief from uh property taxes that you would get some, you know, benefit from. Just keep that in keep that in mind that

351
01:44:10.000 --> 01:44:28.560
>> Sure. Understood. >> All right. So, you pretty much itemized the variances. Was there any there's any other things he wanted to say? I think we're agreeing we should vote. Correct. >> Yes. We got to do the public first.

352
01:44:28.560 --> 01:44:49.400
Any questions or comments from the public? I guess that's >> all right. Great. That was that was questions and comments. >> Anything from our professionals like you know just Okay.

353
01:44:52.400 --> 01:45:07.920
>> Yeah. And then you also have to confirm whether you need any permits. You need NJ repairing zone buffers. So you need to confirm. So any NJB permits as may be required.

354
01:45:07.920 --> 01:45:28.679
>> Oh, for the deck that >> shouldn't be an issue because that's complete on 2301 and it's very far away from any of the >> ones exceptional resource. It's 150 football. This is a C1 stream.

355
01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:49.440
Just check. >> Just double check. >> Yeah. If you check it and it's outside, it's outside. >> Just need >> Just make sure. >> Sure. >> Yeah. And to my satisfaction, the board engineer satisfaction. >> Sure, that makes sense. Not a problem.

356
01:45:49.440 --> 01:46:13.480
>> Okay. So Chris he would just quick invest quick set back mention where 15 or 50 is required. Um that's the 2301 the other 301 is the driveway distance from the adjacent bot lines of 23.2 two

357
01:46:15.440 --> 01:46:38.000
triple check for pretty far. So, so that's one and then for 23.02 to just the driveway distance 0 ft from lots 8 93.1

358
01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:53.840
or 10 ft would be required if I if I can also throw this out there just to be safe um given the interpretation of the board that that one yard is is front yard >> which is they might be included in the board to be included in the resolution

359
01:46:53.840 --> 01:47:12.000
should the uh some of the effect should that yard be considered for yard the uh with the 35.77 input >> or can't we just say that that we determine that the the front yard is facing Elmer

360
01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:28.880
that but just as a as backup so to speak the board stating the resolution should that for whatever reason the higher authority determine that that it's not in front of rather reader or signer that they would still have that make sense

361
01:47:28.880 --> 01:47:45.920
>> just kind of cover the basics Yeah. Or you could just describe that corner and say you have variance at at that corner. >> All right. Sure. >> And they're okay interpreting the front as what we have the the setback of 73

362
01:47:45.920 --> 01:48:08.880
feet from her lot to the front. Our new our front. That's okay. Right. What's the front yard setback? So in the event that that guard is considered front side or rear they have

363
01:48:08.880 --> 01:48:35.280
>> you know what I'm understand you do the combinations >> we don't ordinance actually what which what each boundary was interpreted I understand they're just protecting it against you know someone yeah said who

364
01:48:35.280 --> 01:48:52.000
thought about it a lot of it I would just also as it's been said include pre-existing conditions you know that they're not >> you know aggravating any condition they're just making >> making them better so because I think that's what we're going on so regardless

365
01:48:52.000 --> 01:49:08.080
of what you call it property or whatever >> it is pre-existing plays into the front so when you're covering sir that's I think the strong point I think that's a we >> thank you >> okay and then the conditions as we went

366
01:49:08.080 --> 01:49:24.159
over comp reports our board and engineer respectively dating March 31st both are superseded prior conditions that one of the new memos already

367
01:49:24.159 --> 01:49:38.719
um the other conditions hearing that we will revisit the debt expansion about 6 months to explore ways to prevent the element of 23.2 too. Ultimately, we'll subject review

368
01:49:38.719 --> 01:49:54.800
professionals or if the applicants unable to determine a solution for that, they'll they'll ask a de restriction reporting to some kind of club sauce within 7 months and uh that heat restriction will be subject to

369
01:49:54.800 --> 01:50:10.719
review and approval award for inspired recreation. >> Makes sense. I have one other thing that I just noticed because you mentioned it. So the gravel area where you want to put a shed or something, >> how are they in compliance with the

370
01:50:10.719 --> 01:50:26.080
dimensions from the corners of that gravel? >> I I see 25 fts there. Of course, interpreting front side and rear, but and I know it's a it's it's a ancillary building, right?

371
01:50:26.080 --> 01:50:47.920
>> One of the side are what? So are if they were to build a bar, if that was a barrage right now, would they be in compliance with setbacks? >> Well, they will, you know, >> let's just check. They're gonna >> It would be good to

372
01:50:47.920 --> 01:51:03.280
>> if it's if these lat lines I mean with like a minor adjustment. And you got those steps also going down there, you know, like you see the steps next to >> you see how some of it goes over the other line. Just >> they're saying moves a lot more now.

373
01:51:03.280 --> 01:51:24.760
>> They could truly for them to well not, you know, a lot easier than coming back to LA garage or shifting the travel pad or whatever they have to do. Sure. Or the face of

374
01:51:25.119 --> 01:52:06.760
>> I do appreciate that. He's brother. >> Anyway, um we're giving him a real workout over there on the code book. >> Yes. changes. >> Okay. What am I what do you need to

375
01:52:06.880 --> 01:52:29.920
actually >> I think it's pretty lenient for an insular bag. way better faster than anyone else. >> He was sitting here with the zodia officer. Why is it

376
01:52:29.920 --> 01:52:47.000
>> I just asked Brock saying burn this like I'd say no that's >> this is the contact information for Wilson. Thank you so much tonight.

377
01:52:47.040 --> 01:53:10.080
Yeah, we're just heading into unexplored waters, so any guidance is very much appreciated. Okay, no accessory building shall be located here any suspect.

378
01:53:10.080 --> 01:53:28.080
>> Slow down. >> I'm citing a section LB. structure is very limited in our front yard. >> LV-12-23 supplementary regulations and federal provisions subsection. >> Oh, you got that. >> 12-23.1

379
01:53:28.080 --> 01:53:44.560
D. No accessory building wall shall be located near any side or rear lot line 50. >> And this is a sideyard as >> no accessory building shall be reenter, >> right? >> So this this would be the front yard.

380
01:53:44.560 --> 01:54:01.920
Now it's front yard. >> No side. >> Side. >> If we follow the parallel line of the half the structure, that's the sideyard. >> Oh, now we're going to get into that. I I'm listening. Just like what is the definition of the front yard?

381
01:54:01.920 --> 01:54:17.520
>> As of my understanding from today, this line here is our front wall that's facing which means this is our side. Yes. So if we draw on the side

382
01:54:17.520 --> 01:54:33.679
>> unless you draw a line parallel to the front of the house >> it's forward to that. >> Yeah. >> Even if it's like Elvis's front that's in front of our other >> Yeah. No, you're right.

383
01:54:33.679 --> 01:54:48.960
>> It's between if if you carried the line from your front facade, right? That's not your but >> Oh. Oh. The new the old front yard and the new front yard would both have the same problem. Is what you're saying. It

384
01:54:48.960 --> 01:55:04.719
would be the front yard regardless of the interpretation of >> it of your original opinion and our revised opinion. They're both going to create a compliance issue. >> What?

385
01:55:04.719 --> 01:55:20.960
>> Yes. Building. >> Yeah. Yeah. No accessory building shall be covered on a residential level. Nonhabitable accessory structures limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, and garages are permitted in a credit provided they are located at least one and a half times the minimum

386
01:55:20.960 --> 01:55:41.159
setback on the street. So whatever your front yard boundary is, you got to go at least one and a half times further. That's >> not going to be a problem, right? >> Yes. >> But and the front yard setback was what did we say? 50 >> 15 yard

387
01:55:42.239 --> 01:55:57.679
>> yeah rental building >> so have to be 75 ft is >> so and it's and so it would have to be 75 is that >> from front to be from Elmer basically to that corner

388
01:55:57.679 --> 01:56:12.960
>> so from Elmer to that corner has to be 70 >> if that's your >> well this says it's about 80, right? >> No, no, it's not. It's about 60. Maybe 50.

389
01:56:12.960 --> 01:56:30.960
>> Here, which point at this point? >> Do you guys have any pricing plans to put a shed there? >> We have ideas in our heads, but no plans have been brought up or submitted. >> We have a general time idea of when you want to within the next year. >> Yes. Would you like to amend your

390
01:56:30.960 --> 01:56:52.400
application or request a variance to prevent that while we're here in front of our location of the accessory structure? >> Either Okay. Right. >> If it were side >> corner of this of the gravel area is 15 ft from the line, you know, the

391
01:56:52.400 --> 01:57:13.360
extension of the Elmer line. That's why it didn't because we were upgrading and those are side seven. >> Great idea. Great ideo. >> Yeah. Yeah.

392
01:57:13.360 --> 01:57:32.080
>> I guess you want to put >> Do we need it to be a garage? The plans have not been >> right now. We would like a shed. >> So to the extent necessary, we are your application to request the various

393
01:57:32.080 --> 01:57:47.280
accessories to fund our accessories. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Now that that is our front door, I would like to amend our application >> to request for relief. >> Well, it would have been the same. It

394
01:57:47.280 --> 01:58:04.560
would have been the same problem even under your original front door. You see, there's that problem. >> Either way, >> either way, you were going to need it. >> Okay. >> Luckily, you notice so you can post the variance and

395
01:58:04.560 --> 01:58:22.400
Okay, >> we would like >> and you get 10% off your >> I won't say no more applications. Not that this sounds. >> All right. So, uh, how do you get

396
01:58:22.400 --> 01:58:40.239
through the >> I think we got through all the relief. >> Okay. >> You know how to write it up basically and so forth. So, we can vote >> one more time. Any public questions or comments? There's a little bit more back and forth. >> Oh, there's a little more, right?

397
01:58:44.239 --> 01:59:08.320
He wants to watch the next >> uh should word it or does that just put a box on that? >> Understood. >> Okay. the area. Is that what you're talking

398
01:59:08.320 --> 01:59:27.040
about? The impervious part. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It'll be less than that area. >> Okay. >> You just say the zoning circuit those other ones

399
01:59:27.040 --> 01:59:51.440
for that had to deliver that bad news that they needed to come back to their >> Yes. >> We're welcome. That's >> Thank you. Thank you very >> can make a motion. I'll move to approve the application for the law

400
01:59:51.440 --> 02:00:12.480
investments. Application 664 uh listed in application 661. Second with all conditions and hearing of this with all conditions in >> Mr. Morrison, you second.

401
02:00:12.480 --> 02:00:27.440
>> Miss Geller, >> yes. >> Mr. Gillio, >> yes. >> Mr. Brian, >> yes. >> Mr. Malia, >> yes. >> And Mr. Morrison. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so very much in your research

402
02:00:27.440 --> 02:00:47.119
>> and your creative ideas. This is wonderful. We really appreciate it. >> Well, thanks to >> Okay, no reviews. Uh, second opinion, second swing for visitors if they want to say anything.

403
02:00:47.119 --> 02:01:09.440
No executive session. And so, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. Congrats. >> Um, is it or Jillian? >> Is it pronounced Gileian or Jillian?

404
02:01:09.440 --> 02:01:12.440
IA7