Wait. >> Good evening. My name is Ed Ruth and I'm the chairman for tonight's meeting. I'd like to welcome you to the October 27th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting. We
ask all to stand for hand salute and flag salute and moment of silence. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This meeting is in compliance with the open public meeting act. As adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by mailing to the annual schedule of
meetings to Union County Local Source, the ledger and star ledger and by posting such annual meeting schedule on the Bolton board of the town hall reserved for such announcements and a filing of said notices with the
township clerk of Clark. Formal action may be taken at this meeting. Madam Secretary, roll call please. >> Mark Hayden >> here. >> Douglas Croc >> here. >> William Helm
>> here. >> John Calaguire >> here. >> Chris Tierney >> here. >> And chairman Ed Ruth >> here. I ask the members to review the minutes
of our last meeting September 16th and was for two grouse lane and once you have done that I'll ask for a motion to approve. >> I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Bill Helm second John Calquire. >> All in favor I I All right, Madam Secretary, any correspondence for
this evening? Any none and none? No. All business. All right. At this point, I will uh ask the applicant for calendar case 4-25
to approach the microphone, identify yourself, and be sworn in. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, councel, members of the board, attorney Rosemary Stone Dowardy with the law firm of Ay Strauss. here tonight on behalf of the applicant,
Michael Martinetti, in regards to the application to construct a new single family dwelling with accessory structure on the property known as 60 Ridge Road, also known as block 38.02, lot 12.01.
Just to give the board a little bit of a road map of the plan presentation, I have with me three professionals. We were going to start with our engineer, which is Mr. John Maninello of Mantara. Then we were going to segue into our
architect, Mr. Apollo Dantes of Dantes Kerrant Architecture. And then lastly, we have a professional planner with us, Alexander Dowardy with DP um planning and development. If necessary, I did bring the um applicant with me as well,
Mr. Martinetti, but at this point in time, we weren't planning on calling him unless there becomes a question or issue that might need it. So, Mr. Chair, I don't know if your board prefers to swear all the witnesses at once or you
swear them as each one comes up. >> Gentlemen, you might as well just [Music] Okay. So, with that being said, I'd like to start with Mr. John Melio. Um, Mr. >> Before we do that, I just want to verify
the proofs of service have been checked by Kelly. >> Yes. >> And are in order. Okay. Thank you. >> Fine. Please proceed. >> Um, before we get started, by way of background, can you tell the board where you received your education?
>> Sorry. if you would mind. >> Sure. Uh legal name is Giovani. Gio Van Ni. Last name Manilio. M A N I L IO. Uh president with Mantara Design. Uh civil engineer for the project. >> Okay. So, by way of background, can you
tell the board where you received your education? >> Sure. I have a bachelor of science and civil engineering from Syracuse University. Have been licensed in the state for the past 16 years. Uh testify in front of numerous boards throughout the state. Um, I don't think I've ever testified in front of this board before, but testify in front of Westfield, um,
Union local municipalities, >> Mountain Side, >> Mountain Side, Springfield. >> And all your licenses are still current as of this evening. >> Uh, correct. >> Excuse me. They're just asking me if you could speak up into the microphone more.
>> Sure. >> He's having trouble picking you up. Okay, >> not a problem. And all your licenses are current as of this evening. >> Uh that is correct. >> Okay. Um if we may, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to um have him accepted as an
expert in the field of engineering. >> Thank you. >> Um by way of background, can you give the board kind of Well, you're bringing up your plans right now, correct? >> Uh yes. So, I have one exhibit for tonight that's new um entitled Martinetti Residence um aerial exhibit
with today's date. It's an aerial just a general vicinity with the um property highlighted in yellow. >> Okay. And this is new. So, this would be council A1 and it's one page. So, we'll just call it aerial exhibit if that works.
>> That works. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh yeah. Yeah. So, I'd mentioned earlier that the properties uh 60 Ridge Road, block 38.02, lot 12.01. Uh located in R150 zone, which is shown here in yellow. It's in a irregular
shaped lot. So, it's an L-shaped uh with the frontage on Ridge Road where my cursor is right here. Um and all the properties in this view are all in the same R150 zone. Uh the property itself is approximately 3/4 of an acre or 32,93
square ft. Uh it has about 125 ft of frontage along Ridge Road and is approximately 227 ft deep as well. U not shown on this plan but on the actual um site plans and I'll bring that up real quick. So this is the latest plans
>> and just for clarity this is the same set that the board members have in their packets. Correct. >> Correct. >> There's been no changes or revisions. Uh there should be. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um so I just do want to show so this is the property as well in black and white. As you can see here these dashed lines
they represent two sets of easements. Um there is a uh storm sewer easement and also Elizabeth water easement which are both 15 ft. So the easement itself is about 30 feet total for the two. And you can see it bisects the northeast corner
of the property and then runs along the rear of the property as well. Um back to A1. As you can see, uh the whole whole vicinity is generally um developed with single family dwellings. This lot is this is an old aerial. It
still shows an an old um dwelling that was on the property, but the dwelling has been um demolished since then and it is a vacant lot. Um >> and this lot is more than double the minimum lot size. Correct. >> That is correct. And in your opinion, is
it one of the largest, if not the largest lot in the surrounding neighborhood? >> Uh, again, this general vicinity is definitely the largest lot. Um, then as far as the proposal, um, so on the middle of the screen shows the proposal. Um, the dark gray represents
the new dwelling. Uh, so what's being proposed is a twostory new two-story dwelling, uh, with associated improvements. >> If this works for you, Does it work? >> Testing. >> Hello. Um, so yeah, what's being proposed is a
two-story dwelling uh shown in that the dark gray um and with the associated improvements. So what we are proposing also is a I guess what you could call a horseshoe driveway that with two entrances on Ridge Road and then a side load um threecar garage on this side of the
building. Uh, as far as other improvements in the rear yard, we are proposing um a a pool with um some patios and what's essentially um referred to as a pool house um shown here in the dark gray and light gray. Uh but the dark gray where my cursor is is pretty much the only portion that's
fully enclosed. So that portion consists of a bathroom and a laundry room. Uh the rest of the area has a covered uh outdoor patio area with an outdoor grill station and a >> Sorry, I keep interrupting, but they can't even pick you up for some reason. Try that one.
>> Hello. >> I can hear. >> Yeah. >> Uh so there's an covered area with an outdoor grill station and a um outdoor sitting area. And as the architect uh goes through his presentation, you'll see what that looks like and how it's
open on the sides. Uh, additionally on the house, there is a covered portion of a patio in the back with a balcony on the second floor as well. As far as relief that's being requested today, u there's three variances that uh
we noted. Uh, one is for front yard setback. Uh, so I'll zoom in a little bit. Uh, so the majority of the house is be behind these setbacks. The way that the setbacks work in the zone, uh the requirement is 40 ft unless there is an established uh front yard setback with
two of the property neighbors um to either side. Um with doing that, there are two properties to the west. Uh one of them is um numbers here 50.3 feet, the other is 49.5 ft. So that average is 49.9 ft uh
which is what we show as the front yard set. As you can see, the majority of the house is behind it. There are a small portion that comes um in front of it and then the little entry um element as well that comes in front. Uh so at the closest part it is 48.2 to that entry
element and the closest part to the house is 49.2 where 49.9 is required. I do want to note there is another house and I'll go back to A1 uh to the east of us uh right here. Uh but uh per the zoning official, that house does not count
because it's a corner lot um and it faces Fair View. Um even though I would argue that it does have two front yards per the ordinance um per the requirement. If that house was part of the uh calculation, then the requirement for the front yard would be 44.9 ft and
the house that's being proposed would be in conformance. Uh the second variance that we're looking for tonight is what's called u maximum lot coverage um which essentially is the coverage of building or roofed areas.
Uh what's permitted in the zone is 15% or approximately 4,814 square ft. Uh what's being proposed as part of this application is uh 19.3% uh which is 6203 square ft. of that
again 717 square feet is this accessory structure uh where only um numbers here 78 square feet of that area is being utilized as fully enclosed the rest is open um canopy
um I do also want to note that that the site does conform with the maximum floor area ratio 50% is permitted and we're well under that at 38.2% 2% um and we do comply with the um impervious lot coverage as well. Uh 50% is uh permitted
and we are >> John if we could just clarify your testimony there for a minute. I believe you meant to say we are in compliance with the impervious maximum impervious coverage. Um we're well under at the 38.2 or 50% and then we're also under on
floor area. >> Sorry I got those numbers mixed up. Yes. So floor area we're under 40% is permitted. We're at 29% impervious lock coverage we're permitted 50% and we're proposing 38.2%. >> So is it fair to say that the accessory
structure roof and the rear patio roof are really what's kind of driving the overage on the building coverage which here in Clark as you know they count as lot coverage. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Right. So it's not true building coverage in the sense of habitable
indoor space but because it has the roof coverage driving that number. >> Uh that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And lastly um the size of an accessory structure. So 717 square feet is being proposed where 100 square feet is um permitted. Again only 178 square feet is
fully enclosed and the remaining is open um with just a roof above it and um a partial wall. Um, again, that variance technically can be eliminated if we did attach it to the dwelling with some type of breezeway or connection um which would increase the lock coverage by
uh.1% or 26 square ft. Um, and I also do want to note that we are proposing um landscaping uh to the west or to the I guess we call it the southwest with arborvite and lower shrubs on the northwest portion of that pool patio. Um really I I think the biggest effect is
to the neighbor to the south um which is closest to the proposed pool house. Uh the neighbor to the north is approximately 50 feet to that structure and the the u distance to the property line to the east is approximately 100 ft.
Um and that concludes my testimony and it's what's being proposed as part of this application. Open up board or to council if there's any questions or comments. We are essentially dealing with three issues and you seem to have addressed
the first and the second that the setback we're talking about is less than a foot. The maximum coverage permitted you are exceeding that
little over a little under 4%. The biggest concern is the size of the pool house my estimation. >> Yeah. And there'll be further testimony. The um architect will show what that looks like and um what that entails and then I believe the planner has some
testimony as well. Um, I mean I >> but just for clarity for the testimony you did indicate is the accessory structure variance could be eliminated if a small breezeway attachment was utilized to attach it to the house because they're only 8 ft apart from one
another. >> Correct. >> However, that would then generate a secondary variance. Correct. For the setback for the accessory structure. And can you explain why that wouldn't be able to be moved? >> Uh, yeah. So again we could eliminate
the variance for the size of the excisive structure uh just given the the location of it and the proximity to the main house um by attaching it to the house itself and that would become part of the principal structure. Um but if that comes into play then the sideyard setback would have to be 15 ft rather
than 10 ft for an accessory structure. Um the reason that can't be shifted over is given the um the easement that cuts across the property here. As you can see, really this portion of the property uh to the northeast, this triangle and this rectangular portion in the back is
really unusable um because we can't really go past this um easement line. >> And then just for clarity though, if we did have that side um yard for the accessory structure, the relief is not needed for the whole portion of the
accessory structure neither though. Correct. With the L-shaped lot. Uh correct. >> Right. So it would be roughly about half of the accessory structure would need that relief because the rest you would pick up over you would be at over 60 ft.
Correct >> in the rear there if you counted from the side. >> Yeah. Give or take 60%. >> Right. >> But again, Mr. Mr. Chairman, we'll have a lot more testimony as to the makeup of
the accessory structure from the architect as well to better explain the design um so that the board has a much better visual and understanding of it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I have a question about the easement. You pointed out the easement. I
understand the the comments in the past two minutes about the easement and how that comes into play if you were to change that. But currently what's on here, does the easement come into play for any of these variances? Is is that what's driving the uh
the first one where you're 48, you have 48.2 versus 499. Is that >> it's driving it a little bit? Um just given the size of you see these patios and steps. Um, so again, those can encroach in the easement as well and those patios well in the back. So that
they were chopped off um where we could uh but some of them can't be be cut off um just given the egress and the um the way that the building is laid out. So that is driving it a little bit that that it got pushed back or pushed forward. But if the front was pushed back
a foot, you would be eliminating that problem. Correct. Which I know will impact the size of the rooms in the h main house. >> Uh correct. And I think the way this was, if I remember correctly, this is a while, I think this project is dates
back to 2023 for me. Um but I think originally the way it was designed was assuming that the setback would be 40 feet for the front yard and not the average setback. So the whole house was designed at that point um or was larger than um >> based on understanding >> of the setback and then we thought we
could use the corner lot and then we were told we can't use the corner lot. Um so that's that's kind of where that that came to play. But again, you show on the plans where the actual prevailing setback is, and we're talking a very
dimminimous amount is encroaching. It's more just the front entryway. Correct. >> Correct. The front entryway and that front wall is over at maybe 6 in, 8 in, >> right? So, we're talking a 6 in dimminimous encroachment really for the front yard if we follow the prevailing
front yard set back. So there were efforts to reduce and and move the house and reconfigure it. Correct. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from board members of this witness? Nothing.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> To public on council. It has to be open to the public first or do you do it all at the end? Mr. Chairman, >> uh, I'll take the witnesses and then we'll get to the public >> and the public call at the end. Okay. >> Comments. Yes.
>> Every board's different. That's why I wanted to ask. Okay. Before you get started, can you spell your name for um board counsel and the record and give some background as to your education and your licenses? >> Sure. Uh my name is Paulo Dantis. First
name is Paulo P A L O. Last name is Dantis Da Nas. I um graduated from New Jersey Institute of Technology in the year 2002. Um have been licensed in New Jersey since 2007. Um, I have testified in various boards
in Union County, EX County, and so on. Uh, will be my first in Clark. Um, and I think my license is up to date. >> You think or we know? >> We know. >> Okay. Thank you. If we could have him accepted as an expert in the field of architecture.
>> Yes. >> Any problem? >> No, it's good. Thank you. >> Okay. So, um, our project is located at 60 Ridge Road. Uh we are proposing a single family uh dwelling um and also an
accessory um pool house, gazebo, covered area um in towards the rear. Um let me start with the plans. >> And just for clarity, these are the same plans that are in the board members package. There's been no revisions or changes.
>> Actually, these are the new package. >> So then these would have to be marked as an exhibit. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, how many pages is the new set? Seven. So, this would be A2. Um, council and we'll just call it updated
architectural elevations. And what's the date on there? >> We have uh >> architectural plans and elevations. >> March 28th. >> I think that those is the set we submitted. >> Uh we we have a zoning application, a board application. So, it's uh one of
the applications that we submitted these plans, >> right, council, forget that these are the sets. The board should have the sets that are dated March 28th, correct? >> Yes. >> 2025. >> The most up to date we have. >> Yes. Okay. >> If you look in your upper left hand, uh
sorry, right hand corner, there should be a revision date. >> You're looking at the site plan. Look at the uh architectural drawings. >> What was the date? March 28th, >> May 27th.
>> Yeah, you're looking at the site plan. I can tell from here. Look at the architectural drawing. Uh the chairman has his out there. >> You have the old plans too. >> Yeah, these all the same.
Okay, we're good. >> Okay, thank you. Uh we'll start on A200 of our architectural plant, which is the basement. Uh what we have in the basement is we're going to have open recreational areas. Um we're also going
to have a couple slab on grades, um a bathroom, and then um a storage areas and all our mechanicals that we're eventually have um for the home. 88 A300.
Uh we created a formal uh foyer. Um towards our right and our left we have a formal dining room and living room. Towards the left side we created a guest suite with a private bathroom and closet. Um and additionally we did an
office towards the rear of the back. Uh to the right side, family room, kitchen um with an island has been proposed as an open area, open plan. And adjacent to that, we created not only a mudroom and a pantry um having accessibility to the
garage with some storage adjacent to the garage itself. On our second floor, uh we provided uh five bedrooms, five full bathrooms, and a laundry. master suite will include uh a bathroom itself with some um walk-in
closets. Uh we're also looking to provide uh slightly small um balcony laying um facing towards the rear. The remaining bed bedrooms all will have a closet and a bathroom in itself. Uh the layout is being proposed with the
two-story foyer and the family room to have um almost like a breezeway um maintaining um overlooking the twotory family room and foyer maintaining visual connection and openness within the the home.
our uh gazebo pool area, a pool house area. We designed it not only to complement the main residence by using the same roof pitches. We'll see that on the elevations, also the trim and finishes. Uh what we're looking to
include is an outside barbecue area covered, a seating area as well in the middle. Uh no back wall is all open in its entirety. And then the only enclosed elements will be just a full bathroom with a shower and a laundry room. This
is all purposely just for the uh for the for the purpose of the pool. That's what we're looking to have it as. So the our covered areas will be for um shading the sun and also we have also a barbecue area elevations.
If I could just go to the rendering on page A100. Our architectural characteristics were defined as a traditional design with some modern modern proportions and details. They were based on the client's
design request. Uh our front side centers on the masonry front porch uh with columns and a covered roof area providing both visual focus and weather protection. The home is a clad primary and brick and
with some fiber cement panels used to introduce some visual texture and scale variations. Um, our decorative brackets and trim accents the eaves adding depth and shadow to enrich the facade and overall the proposed design balances the
massing of this symmetry, various roof lines and materials to break down the scale uh in the building itself. This includes um as the same let me just go to the um a
A700 has the pool house. Uh the pool house is also designed uh to complement also the red the main residence similar materials similar pitches trim and finishes. Uh we have included some kind of window trims um details consistent
with the princ uh principal dwelling ensuring cohesive aesthetics and also providing a visual uh rear yard composition with the view of the main residence adjacent to the properties. So we took it upon ourselves to make it all as one unit.
>> So I just want to back up a little bit. when you were charged with the applicant to design the house. Is this applicant is the house design you mentioned several times is reflective of what the applicant is looking for. Is this house intended to be resided in by the
applicant? >> Yes. And uh all the bedrooms and bathrooms that we included in the second floor is actually needs to be there to accommodate for the family that he currently has. >> So his current family size, number of children, etc. will be occupying all
those bedrooms. >> Right. And then you also did which is very common now the downstairs on suite. Is that also for guest aging parents? >> So on suite is for guests like the parents uh most likely and then obviously needs an office and uh due to
you know the children and all this. We have recreational areas not only downstairs but also the living room. I think the living room is going to be um optional if the kids are going to occupy that. >> But again, looking at your design, you
have the twostory foyer, the twostory um for lack of a better word, you described it, living room. So, a lot of that calculation as to building coverage since it goes strictly off roof coverage isn't about size of rooms or number of bedrooms. It's really to have this
architectural feature as you described this openness, this breezeway light and I believe you said to minimize any massing and bring some texture to the house. Correct. >> Correct. And also then in the back as well the covered areas start breaking
down the facades and the massive block that a house may have. >> Now just moving on because you heard Mr. chairman say um when the engineer was complete the concern with the accessory structure right so the accessory structure right now your testimony is is
just the bathroom and the laundry area is enclosed correct >> and what's that breakdown of square footage >> let me see it's a 10 by 10 pretty much um box >> right well I believe >> 100 square feet
>> I believe it's over at like 178. Does that make sense? >> Just the bathroom? >> No, bathroom and laundry. >> Can I zoom in on this? Give me one second. 6 and six is 12.
6 and 12 plus another 10. So, it's 12 by 10. So, somewhere around 120. >> So, more accurate around 120. Okay. And that is the fully enclosed area, correct? And then the rest you said is open the back.
>> There's no doorway. There's no doors. There's nothing >> no sliders, nothing that can close it in. There's no outside heat source. Correct. >> That's correct. I mean, we even protruding some of the the bar area kind of already um extending out of the actual footprint slightly.
>> Right. So, a common concern you have with a lot of municipalities is the concern that a pool house could be turned into living space. And that's not what this is. This is not an apartment. It is >> That's not the intent. No. >> Right. Okay. And then you heard some testimony from the engineer that we
could add a breezeway and connect it to the house. Um, obviously that's not a favored um position because you want to keep that open and that architectural look, but can you explain to the board a little bit more about that? So uh
initially when we started designing we started also including the breezeway. Um we just felt the breezeway was just going to add more roof to it and we felt that at this point uh given the just the five five ft that we were just kind of
coming to the board today for I felt it was more I thought it was more feasible or more aesthetically pleasing not to have this whole roof kind of run across and to meet uh full house or covered area. >> Understood.
Thank you. >> Any questions from the board on the testimony of the architect? Other than I'm still concerned about the size of that structure. It does almost look like a mini house, but uh
>> a mini house with no walls on two sides. >> There's a breezeway. It's It's more just to cover you with a shelter from the sun. And that's the purpose of it. It's going to be more seasonal than anything else at this point. Um instead of having all these umbrellas and all these things
out there and having an open-end barbecue area, things like that. So, uh we just like to throw a roof. It accommodates uh for people sitting there for having kids being sheltered from the sun. That's pretty much it. And then the bathroom and and the laundry is just so
people do not tread water, you know, to your home and things like that. And all the clothes and things already could be washed and put it away, you know, holes in it. >> Any questions, board members, comments? All right. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you for your testimony. >> And we'll >> before wrap all it up with the public speaking to each testimony uh when we finish. >> No, I like it. It makes it easier because it's all together and then they hear everything, you know, where some
towns call them up each witness and they start jumping ahead. >> No, >> like it, Mr. Chairman. Um, so we are going to go ahead and call up the applicant just briefly. Um, I'd like to call Mr. Michael Martini. He's already been sworn in.
>> How are you? >> Spell your name for the record. >> Uh M I C H A E L. Last name Martini. M A R T I N E T T I. >> Mr. Martinetti, you're the owner of the property in question. Correct. >> Yes. >> And you currently live in town. Correct.
>> I do currently live in town. Yes. >> And where do you live now? >> I live around the block. >> Okay. You live over on Fair View. >> Correct. >> Right. And is it fair to say that you've lived here for a while? >> I've been here for 5 years. >> Okay. And a lot of your neighbors and so
forth. This is seems to be Clark is a lot of inground swimming pools. Correct. >> Yes. Uh four best friends within four blocks. And my mother lives three blocks away. >> And this house that you had designed, this is for you and your family. Correct. >> That's correct. >> You're not a builder, you're not a developer, you're not looking to flip
it. This is for the Martinetti family. Yes. Right. And you heard some testimony from your architect that the bedroom count so forth matches your family's needs. Correct. >> That's correct. It's actually undersized because we're expecting a fifth. So,
>> just found that out a week ago. >> Okay. Well, congratulations. >> Planning for the future. >> Yeah. >> Um, with that being said though, when you were designing the house, there were certain things that were things that are your preference for your dream home. Correct.
>> That's correct. And outdoor living is one of those. Correct. >> That's correct. We're very much involved with outdoor space and we're going to be hopefully selling our shore house to utilize this full-time. >> Right. And I believe when we were talking before you told me your own background being a former PE teacher is
very athletic in nature. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you wanted to have an outdoor space for your family. >> That's correct. >> Right. And you you do know that Clark has you can put basketball courts, other types of courts in, but this property doesn't really work for that, does it? >> Uh, not for what I'm looking to do. No.
Right. My kids are involved in travel sports and hopefully we'll continue to do that. And that's it's really just for them to be able to enjoy their lives growing up and through the township and things of that nature. >> Right. And with the easement, I believe you said you still wanted to give them some activity that the whole family,
multi-generational, could enjoy, and that was the pool. Right. >> That's correct. And obviously now with soon to be five, you you wanted to have an outdoor area for children and guests to be able to use the bathroom when they get out of the pool. >> Yeah. My I have young children, uh
2-year-olds, four-year-olds, 5-year-olds. So, it's really just a convenience of that and them not destroying the house, which they do very good job at doing already. >> Now, you're aware that the accessory um structure ordinance here is 100 square feet, which is really just 10 by 10,
correct? I'm aware. >> Which is a pretty in today's world modest shed. Correct. >> And but you heard your architect say you tried to make sure that the fully enclosed area was pretty close to that. It's at about 120 square ft. Correct.
>> And then the rest is just the covering over your outdoor kitchen and having some shade area. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Any plans to enclose this? >> No. Uh, it's really my my kids still nap and down the shore the sun just beats on
the house the entire time. And what I'm really looking to do is be able to have them if they're going to nap be outside. If they're with their friends be outside. Um, my parents live three blocks away other than my parents, my immediate family and I. There's there's really no connection. Uh, so it's not like I'm going to house somebody back
there. It's really just for that intent and we do entertain. So it's really just for that. And now you heard your architect say they could do a breezeway, but that wasn't ideal when you were looking at it visually. Correct. >> Yeah, visually I I think it would make
it look more like a hotel with having a breezeway just to an accessory um outdoor space that I think would not look pleasant, especially if you're a neighbor. Um if that's something I had to do, it's not what I want to do. I I'm willing to do it if that's what you feel is best for the neighborhood. Um, but I
just thought aesthetically it would it would look not the best in my opinion. >> And again on the plans and I know we didn't touch a lot on it with the engineering and I'm sure your planner will, but you're providing robust landscaping and buffering there as well.
Correct. >> Correct. I mean, ultimately, uh, I'm I have a real estate background. So, everything that I'm doing, I'm trying to be mindful because obviously I I would love the approval. Uh, but I also want to be uh very much aware of the surrounding homes and I don't want them
to uh look into something that would be not aesthetically pleasing for them. So, I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can with the circumstance that we have with what this lot provides us. >> Thank you, Mr. Martinetti. Thank you. >> Any questions of the applicant from the
board? >> I just have one. You you said this not a not a builder developer for for this purpose for this house or just in general? >> Correct. >> For this purpose. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I do build full transparency, but my main source of income is selling
residential real estate. >> Thank you, sir. [Music] Good evening. >> So, Mr. Dowardy, will you spell your name for the record, please? >> Certainly. Last name is uh Dowardy. D O
U G H E R T Y. First name is Alex, professional planner, PP as well as AICP certified. My education is at a Rucker's Blouse team with a masters in city and regional planning, conservation development, redevelopment, certification of public policy. I testify in this capacity on a weekly daily basis. I presented at the state
redevelopment conference league municipalities several years again this year as well. Um I'm also a municipal planner in Morris County for do during the day and I do this basically full-time at night. Um I've never been before Clark. It's my first time. Um I've been accepted in every board as
professional. >> Mr. chairman, we'd like to have him accepted as an expert in the world of world in the subject of professional planning. >> Yes. So, accept it. >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Dowardy, you're familiar with the application and the property?
>> I am. >> Okay. Um, can you please provide your comments as to the three bulk variances that are being sought here this evening? >> All right. So, to recap, not to blavor the board, we are here for block 38.02,
02 lot 1201 known as 60 Ridge Road. We are in the R50 zone. We are seeking three variances this evening. We are looking at a minimum front yard setback of 48.2 ft being proposed where 49.9 is the required. We have a maximum lot
coverage which is your building roof coverage areas uh 15% uh is what's permitted and we're at 193 proposed. And the big one on the ticket here in my opinion is the uh maximum
accessory structure permitted um of 100 square feet and we're at 717. So we are for three variances. Um for this evening um I did prepare an exhibit packet for the board really just consists of maps um and the survey where
we can talk about the easement. I do think there's um some critical components that to discuss regarding the property, the size, the easements running through the property and and you know kind of the responsibility of um you know a brand new development coming online in in this neighborhood and in
the community at large of Clark. But for purposes um with just maps and photographs we can orientate um what you're going to see here is other properties with large accessory structures visually uh an abundance of pools and abundance of well-mannered and well-kept homes and again that survey.
So please the board will we'll pass it out. So >> so this would be council A2. It consists of four pages and I guess we'll just make it simple and call it a planner exhibit. works.
>> We should have I think enough copies. I think there's like 13 sets. So, the cover page, if you will, again, is 60 Ridge Road here in Clark Township outlined in red. Very, very large. Um, the white squares, if you will. I'm sure
the board is is aware, that represents the the lots within the area. So, the red being the property in question, as we can see visually, um, it's fairly large, a lot larger than the surrounding, um, residential lots throughout the neighborhoods.
Take a look at the uh the next slide. You'll see it's a little red pen. Um towards the bottom of the page represents the property. It's vacant lot. What I like to point out is the makeup
of the uh community at large. Um you see there an abundance of pools. Um, you know, when we when we look at, uh, just going north of the little red dot on Fairview Road, we can see the property here. Um, really nice pool, we can see the accessory structure or pool house,
if you will, off to the side to to the right. Um, if we kind of go to the left, look at Hillrest and Charlotte Drive. We can see a a beautiful property on the uh right on the corner there. Again, very large structure from and then you can
see the pool. Again, another large uh I would call it a pool house as well. Um you know, some of these properties do host um similar amenities and and build out and scope and scale. Um as a narrative presented before the board um
from my uh prior two colleagues, the next two slides here, I'm sorry, the next page, we can see the red dot up on the upper left. Again, vacant lot. Um, what I want to point out is right on the corner here of Kennedy, that large patch
of uh wilderness and the baseball field, there is a uh a property here on the corner. And given the foliage from the top down, it's hard to tell, but there is a pool back there um and a detached uh structure as well. Um, you know, and
that's really just illustrative purposes that there are other larger uh detached structures in the areas featuring pools. And as we can see from this slide as well as the prior slide here, just an abundance of pools, uh, you know, very family oriented, you know, um, outdoor
neighborhood makeup. The last slide here is that, uh, survey how lined in yellow being the, uh, the easement question. I want to take a minute and talk about the property because one of the variances here that we need to, uh, address here is that that lot coverage, that building
coverage, if you will. When we talk about this property, I want to note that the requirement for the R uh 150 zone is 15,000 square ft. We're at 32,93 square ft and some change. So double
what their minimum requirement is. And with that comes the minimum lot frontage. So left to right on the streetscape, 100 square feet, uh 100 linear feet is required. We're at 125. So, we have an oversized lot and we have an oversized lot by frontage. And with
that, if you look at the survey, we have these two easements running right through the property. Now, we're building a brand new home built to applicable codes, modern living arrangements, and consumer expectations. This is a brand new premium product being built here in Clark, but it has these easements and we have this wide lot. So, when we look at your sideyard
setbacks, we're in compliance. We have 15 feet on one side. It both sides really require 15, total of 30. We're in complian with that. So, what we have to do here, we could shrink the house, right, and and kind of keep it to standard and just think about shaving
off the 25 square f feet and build a home that's really there, but then you would have that additional 15t yard set back to 25 and your neighbor would have another 15, you know, set back. We'd have this large void. So, we got to kind of elongate that, if you will, to kind of keep within or you'd have that big
voided pocket. So, we elongate that. You don't want to just walk in your front door and walk right out the back door. There's got to be some depth to a house, but that depth causes an issue because of that that easement. So everything's kind of if you look at the design of the house, it's almost like tiered and stepped. It's short on the right and it kind of gets a little bit longer in the
back to add that depth element. We're trying to play within the box and be mindful from, you know, an architectural and engineering standpoint, you know, of the street make out the use of the property itself. So, I would argue when we talk about this building coverage, we're trying to not cause a void in the
public realm that that well, something feels like there's missing here. So, we're trying to comply with that customary, you know, continuity, if you will, that 15 foot yard set back on one property, 15 on the next. That way, there's not just that large void. Um, so we're kind of elongating the the the
structure and then again to have that depth here um to to make that modern living arrangements and consumer expectations of of a home here, especially in a community such as Clark. Uh we do trigger the the uh lot coverage here when we talk about um that lot coverage being roofed coverage. Uh so we
do have a house, but I think it's very much in conformance with some of the properties you are seeing by way of that exhibit. there are some larger homes in the area. Um, you know, but by by purposes of comparing this property, is it overbuilt? Uh, is it too much for this site? And I would argue from a planning standpoint, it's not because we
are substantially over on impervious coverage. So, when we talk about building this site out, from a planning standpoint, we got to be mindful when we talk about the the scope of the building. We're under F, which I think is important to note. Um, but we're certainly under that impervious coverage. So from a planning standpoint,
when the properties get too much, you have too much asphalt, too much roof, you start to cause adverse effects on neighboring properties. Storm water, you know, runoffs and the likes of that. Um, and residential neighborhoods don't want we don't want them to feel like a commercial zone where it's just a sea of asphalt. Greenery is important. It's for
the quality of life and the aesthetics and just the overall enjoyment of the property again and any negative adverse effects. So I want to just point out though that on paper the house may seem big. I think there's a inherent responsibility for anyone who develops the site to kind of fill in any voids and not disrupt that fabric of the
neighborhood. Um but we have that that rear yard setback uh that front yard setback issue by virtue of a few inches. I would argue that it's again as council stated dimminimous. It's imperceivable from the public realm. You're jogging down the street, you're riding your bike, you know you're in the car driving past, you're not going to be like, "Wow,
that house is so much further to the the curb than anyone else." Again, we're talking a few inches here. Um, so I would argue from a planning standpoint, we could argue this is a C1 that there is uniqueness to this property, some difficulties to the properties that the, you know, we call a hardship, if you
will. Certainly, that front yard setback we can argue is a hardship because we have that easement. So, we can't really bring that too far back. Uniquely, I would argue that the width of this lot is a hardship in itself. We don't want to disrupt the character and charm of the neighborhood. And given the extra 25
ft in width, we have to kind of start to fill that void a little bit. But again, we don't want to walk in the front door and just walk right out the back door. We're trying to add that depth. So, we are picking up that lock coverage. But, nonetheless, I could always argue with C2. The benefits of this application as a whole substantially outweighing any detriment. Um, and that's the Poland
case here. But, we're going to talk about the big the big ticket uh elephant in the room here is that that building uh accessory structure. Again, 717 is what we're asking the board to look upon favorably knowing that the minimum uh maximum accessory structure is 100 ft.
And I would just like to point out when we talk about this, not to deceive the board, we talked about the idea of doing a breezeway. That's silly. It doesn't look good aesthetically. I don't think we can advance purpose eye miscellaneous law for a creative desirable visual environment. I think, you know, you
know, it's disingenuous. Um this is why it's not here before the board. Um, but for purposes of what can be here, I want to point out we can do a detached garage at 500 square feet. That's 500. We can do a gazebo at 100 square feet. And we
can do a detach, you know, shed, if you will, at 100. So, we're at 700 right there. Yes, we're asking for to move on additional 17 square ft. But what I'd like to point out though, when we look at this structure, and you know, the architect is talented. I've worked with him in the past. This is a a modern take
on the gazebo. um or what's the other the word I'm looking pergola pergola is just a wooden structure that kind of open an area you kind of kind of put some curtains over it this is more of a you know a modern spin on that pergola where it's really just a roof overhang as the architect and the engineer and
the council testified to and the applicant is really is open is to cover the grill it's cover some shade we're putting you know roughly 100 square foot for a bathroom and some laundry so the the pool equipment and and towels and so forth can get washed and stay there again servicing the pool. And the
minute, as you heard, the applicant is an active, you know, a retired gym teacher. Um, every time I talk to him, I'm prepping for the call, he's out and about, you know, active. Um, this is, you know, a growing family, as you heard, where we can certainly do, uh,
baseball, I'm sorry, u pickle ball and and and all the other permitted uses by courts that aren't really regulated by how big these courts can be by your definitions. and looking at accessory structures. When we talk about the uh recreation um for game courts, it just
says 25% of the rear yard area. Now, there's some other language here not forgoing coverage restrictions um for the overall uh improvements and maximum coverage permitted in that particular zone. But 25% of a rear yard uh can be a
lot bigger than 100 square feet or even 717 square feet. But as the you heard the applicant state, you know, we're going to find a use that is multigenerational, stands the test of time. Who doesn't like swimming? Who doesn't like lounging around a pool? But if you put a basketball court in there, you better like basketball for the rest
of your life. If you like put a tennis court back there, you know, your kids or your next generation kids, they hopefully need to be avid tennis players. A pool is that that that kind of test of time, you know, activity use that brings the family together that doesn't really isolate one individual
per se. Um, and so the pool I think is a better fit here. But again, the pergola aspect here. We could keep the bathroom and the laundry room, tighten it up and do a pergola, you know, throw a curtain over there to add that shade and cover the grill. Is that really going to work? Is that going to be functional to the
kind of investment that you're seeing here? I I don't think so. Um, but I'd like to point out again, the detached garage, that that gazebo, the accessory structure, they could all be right next to each other in this generally in the same vicinity here. and and and be at 700 ft. We're asking for 717. So I say
that not to hairsplit or or you know to deceive the board. But when we talk about the massing scale and the size of the structure being located in the general area, I don't I would argue that sound planning is rooted in zoning. It's this wouldn't be atypical to see 700
square feet generally off of a house because again that's a detached garage of 500. That's a gazebo of 100. That's a shed of another 100. You could put them all next to each other if you if you would. So to see 700 square f feet of massing off of a house I I would argue is not something that
hasn't been contemplated when we wrote this ordinance. Um but nonetheless we are here for that relief. It's the benefits as a whole outweighing any substantial detriment. We have a building that is going to be built to all applicable building codes, fire codes, regulation, a modern house if you
will, I would argue advances purpose of the general welfare of the community. um you know this is a modern living arrangement. I would also argue that we are advancing purpose C. We're not asking for any relief related to you know the bulk dimension sideyard, rear yard. We are asking for that front but I don't think it's going to impede on any
any light air and adequate space. So I'd say we are advancing purpose C of the miscellaneous law. Um purpose E we are here appropriate density is appropriate location. This is a detached single family home in a single family neighborhood. I think it's very appropriate here. I would also argue that we are advancing purpose G. um
provides sufficient space in appropriate locations. Um and you know um certainly when we talk about the the lot size here, I would also argue that we are advancing purpose eye for desirable visual environment here. As you see the renderings here, this is a beautiful
home, a modern home. I it's a positive investment to the site, but it's also positive investment to the neighborhood and the community at large. Um and I would also argue that we're advancing purpose M to make more efficient use of land and uh on vacant property. So, this is a large void in the residential neighborhood and we're trying to fill
that void with something tasteful and respectful of the community. And again, I really want to emphasize we are asking for that building coverage, but our lot is a lot longer and we're trying to make it cohesive and keep that continuity from a planning standpoint given this is a brand new buildout. Um, it's going to
be built with all modern best practice from engineering. Um, you know, like I said, old building codes. This is modern living arrangement, consumer expectations. I do not see any negative here. any negative effects that the board may feel by this additional 717
square ft of accessory structure by the mass and the scale I think we can do a great job hedging that and planting not to cause a visual void if you will or nuisance um but respects to the property itself I do want to emphasize that um a
lot of our variances here do relate to the property in question that's that accessory structure again we can have three permitted accessory uses onsite at once that would bring us to 700 square feet. Um so with that I think we have a downthe-m middle application.
I don't think there's anything to you know deceive the board here breezeways causeways and the likes of that. Um from a planning standpoint I think it's a great application and and and a great investment in the neighborhood in the community. I see no negative effects and I think the the purpose of the C2 balance uh um has been met and approval
would otherwise be warranted. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Dowy, before you completely conclude, I just have a couple uh followup uh questions for you. >> Yes. >> Uh one is um in your exhibit package with your aerials, you point out a couple other properties that are more
recent new construction or updates or additions. Correct. >> Yeah, we have some additional Yeah. properties. Correct. And would it be fair to say when you look at several of those lots, there's a lot of pavers or concrete that's going really almost all
the way back to the rear yard line. Correct. >> Yes. >> Right. Where this application, the applicant, even though with the constraints with the easement and the L-shaped of the lot, made it a point to keep the pool and everything up close to
the house. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I believe the engineer testified that just from the edge of the pool or um you're talking there's minimum of 50 feet just going back to the property line, maybe more. Correct.
>> I'm seeing 52.3 from the edge of the pool and 49.6 from the back of the uh pool house proposed location. Yeah. And you also discussed with the client the landscaping and I know we didn't really go probably in as much detail as we
should have with the engineer but the site plan does show some um landscaping proposed. Correct. >> Correct. I think um when we talk about this property, just seeing the architectural the proposed layout, um this is this is not where this applicant hopes to stop this, you know,
landscaping is is certainly on the agenda. >> And also just kind of going back to how the house has been spatially designed to help fill the lot. Correct. >> Correct. Again, we have that elongated
frontage of 125 or 100 is required. And as you can see, we are a large lot in the area. So it almost be criminal not to elongate that house to because you would have such a a void there, >> right? And with voids tend to come in
the world of planning and zoning things that probably should >> subdivisions and requests. Yeah. To fill that void. See it a lot in my line of work. you know, they a lot of people ask for the most tight lot because there's a there's a 75 foot void there and hunters
required. So, I think this really does hedge against any any any future requests down the road. >> And then just going back with Clark's um ordinance for lot coverage. Again, that is the covered roof areas. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And you heard the architect discuss the design of the house. how when you go into the house, you have that just big open. >> It's an impressive house. It's it's certainly um you know, modern living arrangements and you know, especially
you know for a brand new build 2026 27. >> Yeah. [Music] >> Um so again that twotory foyer, the big open cathedral living room area, correct? which is providing some of that
additional roofed area as well as the rear >> Yeah. >> that open floor plan concept. Yeah. >> So, it's not so much about habitable living space, but it's more about that roof coverage. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. Again, we are under that F, that floor area ratio as well.
>> And we're well under on lock coverage overall. Correct. >> Yes, we are. uh lot coverage is 50%, impervious coverage is is what's per uh allowed and we're at 38.2. So certainly again when we look at a balance here, I don't think we're overdeveloping this property with that
additional block building roof coverage component here. The property could certainly allow for more impervious surfaces. >> Thank you. >> The overall size of the lot. >> Correct. And yet again, I do think that
the house is very much palatable >> like part. >> Yeah, correct. So, we can trade off larger driveways and patios, you know, more concrete or, you know, a little bit of a larger roof structure or square footage, if you will, on a balance here.
But overall, the site, I think, is breathable and is is underdeveloped by way of the ordinance. And it also made sense to tuck that pool in rather than try to put a pool over in that L-shaped portion, right? >> That's a that's quite of a walk, but again, yeah, you have it close, you have
the patio, you know what I mean? Um, again, it's it's sitting right uh straddling that that easement lines for the utilities and and sewer there. So, you know, um I think it's well designed given some of the limitations here. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any questions? Yeah, just so I understand, if there was a breezeway going to the pool house, this wouldn't be an issue. >> The accessory structure size wouldn't be an issue, you'd still have the roof coverage issue and then I would argue that you're under on a previous surface. Um, and and given it would it would
connect to the house. The house, the prime, the principal structure needs that 15t setback. This accessory structure has a 10. So, you'd have that that um that sideyard setback. We would lose one and pick up another. Um, but I I really want to emphasize the the
pergola concept. Like the pergola has the wood there and they have the curtains and the shade. This is this is this is a more modern take on a pergola in my opinion. >> Got you. Okay. >> Any other questions? Doug, anything? >> I I did have have one question um
>> just about the building lot coverage. Are there any potential, I guess, flooding issues that that might arise because of that? Um, >> I would argue no. No, because when we look at, you know, the house first off has to be built to applicable design code and engineering best practices. So,
your leaders aren't just discharging in in the yard and that kind of stuff. But for purposes of, you know, negative adverse effects, I really want to emphasize when we talk about the um impervious uh coverage here, 50% is what's allowed. We're at 38.2. So yeah, the building's bigger, but we're not
maximizing the impervious surfaces. So I think there's a balance to be had, and that's that C2. >> And like the planner said, obviously, if this were to be approved, it goes to your building department. Grading plan has to be done. It has to comply with all current codes. So if anything with
new construction, you get better adherence to grading and drainage and improving issues. >> Thank you. Trying to understand the points one and and three here where you indicate uh
where no variances are required for building coverage. >> We have a building coverage variance. Yes. >> Yeah. That's that's the 19.3 that you're looking for. >> Correct. And 15 is allow uh the permitted. >> Yeah. I was just trying to understand
the wording in number one and number three of the arguments. So with the building coverage, >> the applicant's plan and does not require any building coverage variance. >> Number one says the same thing. I was just trying to understand >> we require building coverage. The roof,
if you will, that 19 uh >> yeah 15 and I I like to argue that because we have a longer lot, we're trying to make sure there's no void and and have that depth there. Um but for purposes, we are asking for three variances. the front yard set back just
by a few inches and um the building coverage 19% versus 15 accessory structure at 717 where 100 is there and again my rationale is 500 for a detached garage 100 for gazebo 100 for a shed we could all put them in the same location
700 square feet of massing um and take on this is this is a more of a modern pergolo if you will open up um three sides. >> The rendition, the picture makes that uh
pool house look almost like another dwelling. Um maybe if the peak could be lower or I don't know, it just looks like it overtakes and could be almost a whole
house structure. >> Yeah. I mean, and again, this is where sometimes elevations help and sometimes they hurt, right? Because every board wants to see the elevation. Um, you heard the architect say they tried to match the roof line to match the house. Like you said, Mr. Chairman, almost like
a mini house, even though it's not a house, but certainly, um, the applicant would have no problem lowering the roof line if that is a concern. We're not over on accessory height as you're aware, but if the board felt that lowered the mass, um we could certainly
lower the roof line, >> right? >> Um the intention was just aesthetically. It was not to increase the volumes. A lot of these pitches match each other throughout not only the principal roof but also along with the second floor
sheds. >> Thank you. Any other comments? >> I just have a question. Was there any thought to going smaller on the um on the accessory structure? Let's say just down to I guess the bar area and then
just have like an open area. Was there any other thought to that to bring it closer to the 100 we're hired >> or the maximum? Yeah, >> to be honest with you, I think if if we take off the roof and we do a pergola, you know, I think we're we're right at
100 cuz the we're at 100 and change for the laundry and uh and u the restroom. The idea is to have a fully shaded, you know, it's it's open aired. I mean, I don't know how much smaller it can get.
There's three sides of the structure is wide open. You know what I mean? It's >> I I think that the structure itself that gets enclosed is the pool area where the bathroom and um the laundry area is, but then everything else is um just imagine
like four posts with a roof on top of it and then the bar just needs, you know, is wrapping around. So there's there's no walls intended in that area. So that middle portion that we're looking where that area here in the
middle >> I don't know if you could see it but that middle part here the it's all open. It had it doesn't have a wall in the back or in the front of it. Exactly. That's just a fireplace just to electrical just to give it, you know, aesthetic look, but there's no
>> It does appear like a wall between the barbecue area and the sitting area in the rendition. >> So there's maybe I could go to my archive. Is my archive still? >> They're right here. >> Okay. So, this this current area here is I
just have the barbecue area wrapping around like a U-shape. Correct. The back area is just going to give us to put um whatever their shelving and things like that. This this current place right here where the couches are situated, it's
just going to be uh a small fireplace with electrical fireplace just to give the aesthetics of it. But as you can see, one, two, three, four columns or or in the front uh small wall here and then
and then a fireplace in the center. So the intent is not to really close it. It's more just to accommodate to whatever activity or purpose is is is using. >> Yeah. I mean, it looks great. I just the thing is I'm just looking at the the
intent of the codes. I think they're trying to make structures like this a little more modest whereas this it just I mean from 100 to 700 I think was there any thought to maybe trying to even maybe half that or anything along those lines? >> So so when we when we tried to do these
these things is um so this is not the first time we do these these structures right for accessories and the pools. So when we when we tried to do these things is we tried to give it um almost like you you buy those things at Costco with
the four posts. You cover it up and then you could have whatever fabrication around the in the concrete and it gets built. That's your barbecue area. That fireplace we always remove it but that just becomes an area that's covered. Um
me personally as uh previous previous happenings uh we buy those canopies. those cabinet piece get you know turned down. So something that is built more framed out is more permanent more stable through wind to to all these things. The
purpose of the the laundry room and the bathroom also comes into play and that's just to have um not people going into the house for the purpose of we're having a birthday co party for the kids. Everybody's there and then they're not going through the house to do that. So,
a lot of these spaces um with the intent if can I shrink it smaller with these spaces is just more for the accommodation of the pool and outdoor uh living area. Nothing else. >> I would add the the bathroom that that actual four walls is 178 ft. We pinch it
in make it 100 certainly the rest of that >> Mr. Dowardy um the architect confirmed it was more 120. >> Okay. 120 ft. But for purposes of what remains that is increasing to that 117, we could take that roof line down and we can just every year put up a big
plastic, you know, tent that we get in and serve the same purpose. That's distasteful. It's not it's not appropriate. It's yes, it's not a permanent structure. We're trying to find that balance and that's why we didn't make the comparison of a 500 foot allowable detached garage, the 100 foot for the gazebo, which is its own little
structure, and a 100 square foot addition for that accessory shed, if you will. we're going to put them all right next to each other in a 700 square f feet and we're right on balance with that. Um again, I just really want to emphasize the intent of the ordinance 100 foot accessory structure. We don't want to create these, you know,
independent accessory dwelling units or apartments. Try to keep them modest in size. I think the intent here we talk about the three walls being open aired is so we can ensure there will never be a dwelling unit here. There will never be four fully enclosed walls in this
area. It's just more to provide product that's compl complimentary to the the primary structure from an architectural standpoint without kind of taking away from that by way of a pergola or you know putting a tent up every year to to provide shade out
there. >> Any other questions? >> All right. Uh then do you have any other witnesses at this point? >> No. was what I would ask is after we hear from members of the public if there are any that's what I >> then I would reserve my right to do a
summary please >> fine do we have any comments from or questions from the public any statements in favor of the application I see a few members. Do you have any statements
in favor or I was also going to ask if against the application? I'm so sorry. We're going to need you to have you come forward and sort of repeat that on the mic if you'd be so kind.
Right. >> And we're we're going to have to swear you in as well. >> Wonderful. >> You go raise your right hand. Uh do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> May you please state your name and spell it for us?
>> Anthony Cercio. A n h o n y cur cio 32 Kennedy Drive. >> As I was saying, I'm not here for or against. I wanted to understand what was going on. As I did receive a notice with I'm within 200 f feet uh of the uh property and as I said I'm not here to
tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their property. I wanted to understand what the property was going to look like and what the uh scuttlebutt was as far as the uh application and the variances. So uh I'm just here as an observer and I have nothing to say for or against anything. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your participation. All right. Um, closing statements. >> Yes. I'm just trying to figure out how to use Scuttlebutt in my summary. Um, again, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, we're here tonight on the
application of Mr. Martinetti so that the Martineettes can build what they see as their forever home here in Clark. You heard him say he's currently a resident here. He lives on Fair View Avenue. He's got a rather large family and is
apparently expecting another one. And with this lot, most people think bigger is better, right? It's a big lot. I can do all this stuff with it. But then when he acquired the lot and it had the easement constraints on it and some other issues, he found out that big lot
wasn't exactly what he had thought it was. Right. So, you heard there was been a lot of care. This application has been in the works for over two years. It wasn't just thrown together. It wasn't just picking out an architectural plan
out of a book. It was actually designed around the easements. It was designed around the constraints of the lot and it was designed to complement the lot. So, yes, we're here for three variances. And you've heard the word dimminimus used
several times. And as an attorney who's done land use for over 30 years, I agree. I think the front yard variance is probably the easiest variance for the board because it really is dimminimous. We're talking about 6 in at the heart of it. And I think the board can understand
with the easement in the back, we need to kind of be in that area. And it's not for a living space. It's for architectural design and features of the house. So you don't have some of these houses that we've all seen built here in Clark and Westfield and Springfield that
are just huge masses of a home with no real character. The second variance is the roofed area. What you guys call lot coverage, you know, which is building coverage in essence. And you heard what's driving that roof coverage. And
that is that nice twostory open foyer cathedral ceiling living room to give that openness to the house to give it some depth as well as the rear enclosed patio area off the rear of the home. And
then of course the accessory structure as far as what the planner testify to. I'm not hearing from the board and I could be wrong as much concern with the building coverage aspect because we are under well under on F and we're well
under on maximum coverage and everything has been tightly put together on this lot in one area. So we are really respectful of not only the fact that we have the easement but of the neighbors. No, trying to put anything on the other side of the easement like a gazebo or
structure over there and not utilizing that L piece which would then be behind two homes and that really didn't make a lot of sense. So, in a lot of ways that L piece helps maybe for lot size but otherwise it's not really helping the
applicant tremendously. So, what we're left with is the accessory structure. The accessory structure is that modern take of a perglia, right? We all know what they look like. They sell them Costco, Amazon, you name them. A lot of
people buy them and put them up and they don't even come here to the board to get approvals cuz, you know, they don't know, you know, and I'm sure you guys can drive around your own neighborhoods and see plenty of them because when we did aerials, we saw a lot of accessory structures as you saw on the aerial
plans that were provided. The difference here is is the applicant was thinking forward. And by thinking forward, they were saying, "Listen, really, what we're actually enclosing is the bathroom, what we're calling laundry and storage area.
You know, that's where you keep your pool toys. You got five kids. You got pool noodles, rafts, floats, towels, and a bathroom to be able to use. Um, other than that, what you see is an open seating area. You heard the applicant
indicate, or should I say the architect indicate that if the board was concerned with massing, they can lower the roof line. We certainly have no problem doing that. We can substantially lower the roof line, which means when those arbor varieties grow, you wouldn't even know
there's an accessory structure back there. That's not an issue. We can take out the decorative fireplace. Although again, part of the argument there was it did just kind of fill that void since it is open and you can see straight through
it, but we can take that out to make it more open. And you heard that that little kitchen area, which is really your barbecue, grill, etc. I think most people would relate that it's really nice to have a covering over your outdoor kitchen
equipment to protect it from weather and snow because they last longer. Because let's be honest, anything you put outside has a limited lifespan. This is not fully enclosed. It doesn't have the ability to close it up, lock it, sliders, any of those things that you
see on some of these more elaborate pool like structures. We just didn't feel like the breezeway made sense. I mean, if the board was more apt to want the breezeway, we can do it. It does eliminate the concern
about this being an accessory structure and then it leaves us with just a sideyard setback for about half of the length of the structure because we do have that L-shaped and we don't have a problem with that if that's where the board was leaning towards. I would ask
that when the board votes tonight if possible council and Mr. Chairman if they vote on each variance separately rather than a whole. So if we come up with one issue, you know, we can still kind of see where things are going. Um,
one of the things that I can say in working with the client and this team is this wasn't even the first version that we submitted. This has been a project that's been over two years in the making, which when you think about it for your primary residential house,
that's a long time. you know, when they bought and they moved in on Fair View and they had the opportunity to buy the property over here, the goal was this is going to be our forever home. This is going to be where we raise our kids
and they go to school. So, the applicant was willing to take time and patience to design it to have it make sense and not just do cookie cutter apologies or some mass, you know, design that
really wouldn't suit the neighborhood. And we hope, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that you all take that into consideration when you vote this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments or questions from board members?
Yeah, I'll just comment from my my opinion is so my focus when I saw this application was not on the accessory building or the like you said it is the minifist the the front setback it was the the 19.3% the 1400
square feet of uh of overage above the 15% allowed because when I when I looked at it I said all right you you've got a lot that is twice more than twice the size of of the standard minimum required 15,000. So by definition, by math, the
allowable 15% is twice that much. 4,800. You're at 6,200. So 1,400 square feet over. So that was my initial thinking coming in. And and I think we all agree it is a it is a massive house. It's a big house. And my my opinion would have
been this belongs on an acre lot. Just does it doesn't really fit in with the other homes. Uh most of them are about 2600 square feet in the area. But but I was on the fence because it is very tasteful. It is a very nice looking house. And we talk a little about the
accessory building and I I don't think you could have an accessory building for a pool house that's 200 feet that's going to look right. Right. It'll just look like a little rinky dink shack that you put up there. To your point, you buy a pergola from Costco, it's not going to look right. So I think on this property
I think everything looks feels nice. It was done tastefully and it it feels okay to me. Uh I just wanted everyone to understand where I was coming from on on the kind of initial application and I would have put a fair amount of weight on the public
coming here, the neighbors who who have to live there. And I think the the uh the applicant pointed that out is that he considered that whether he really did or not, only he knows. But from not having neighbors here to to have a
problem with this application, that kind of sways me from the fence to to aside that I'm I'm inclined to likely not not have an issue with these variances. Certainly not the the other two. >> Thank you. All
right. May I have a motion? And we'll vote on each item separately. Uh so first, may I have a motion on the accepting the minimum front yard setback
at the 49.9%. >> I'll make a motion. Motion by Mark Hayden. >> Second. Second. >> Second. John. >> Roll call. Madam chair. Madam Secretary.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. On the second requirement
regarding the um maximum I'm sorry the maximum lot coverage permitted and with 19.3 proposed and what's permitted is 15%.
Have a motion on that item. >> Make the motion to accept that motion for lot coverage. >> Lot coverage. Have a second. >> I'll second it. >> Take it. Mark. >> Okay. Mark in the second.
>> Seconds it. >> Okay. Roll call. Madam Secretary. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. On the third variance, uh the accessory structure, what is permitted is 100 square feet and what is being proposed is 717
ft. And I have a motion on that ordinance. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Have a second. >> Second.
>> All right. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> No. >> I'm a no. Also, I would like to see something done with that extra
structure, whether lowering the roof line or some other that to work that out with the building department. So, we need another motion. on that. What would be the proper way to
handle that? The attorney. >> Yeah, >> we need to carry this and set another date or no. >> No, it wouldn't be carried to know they they made a motion to accept the accessory structure the way it was and it passed because it was 4 to two.
>> Oh, I see. >> So now procedurally can't really go back but is what I can tell Mr. chairman um because he does he is a resident and you know he's going to be here um that we'll certainly look at lowering that roof
line. Um but the motion did pass with it the way it is. >> Okay. >> Okay. But we will look at lowering that. You heard the applicant say he doesn't have an issue with it. >> So we'll make that roof line smaller. >> Okay. >> I'll have to ask a question. >> Sure.
>> Yes. >> It doesn't matter. already approved, but you'll work to lower it, right? And you'll make the massing less. His concern was that height, >> right? >> Okay. I mean, it's it's it's up to you.
>> If it will just make Right. >> So, we can stipulate if you want to add it to the resolution, counselor, that we will lower the roof line. Um, so it won't be the roof line that you see now, but the architect's saying he's just got
to check his pitches on the 3 by 12. So, we can't say exactly it'll be 3 feet, four feet, but we will lower it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It'll be noticeable. You heard it. Okay, thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you
>> and everyone >> uh that participated. >> Madam Secretary, is there any other organ? >> Yeah. That's my server.
>> Janet, are we going to talk about the U motion resolution? >> Okay, we have a resolution on our property at the >> address. Was it two grass laners?
>> Two grouse You want to read the resolution? >> Then vote on it. Whereas pursuant to the applicable provisions of the township code herein defined as the code of the township of Clark chapter 195 land use and
development an application has been submitted to the township of Clark zoning board the board by Steve and Elizabeth Olaflin the applicant for sea variances to construct an ingground pool and related equipment at the property identified as block 40 lot 43.09 09 also
known as two grouse lane in the township of Clark and situated in the R-150 zone district. The property and whereas the application reviewed by the board included the following plans and/or reports
description uh site plan pool site Olaflin residents prepared by Mark J. Mentila PE pls MJM surveying and engineering Sparta New Jersey and survey of property lot 43.09
block 40 township of Clark County of Union New Jersey whereas the following exhibits were presented at the hearing and considered by the board. property photographs A-1 area map and photos of residential pool locations A-2
whereas the applicant is requesting the following variances front yard setback section 195-124-11 swimming pool front yard section 195-123E3 and swimming pool front yard section 195-210A
A uh for each of those uh beginning with the front yard setback the the requirement is 40 ft for the pool and the proposed is 11 for the swimming pool front yard section 195 uh it's not permitted and the proposal
is to put in the front yard and for the swimming pool front yard section 195-210 uh it's not permitted in the proposals for the front yard whereas the applicant provided notice of the public hearing pursuant to and in full satisfaction of NJS SA 40 col55D-12.
And whereas the board took action on this application at its public meeting of September 16, 2025. This resolution constitutes a memorialization of that action in accordance with NJSA 405D-10g. Whereas the board after reviewing the evidence presented as well as
considering the testimony presented makes the following findings a fact. First, Mr. James M. Forced Esquire represented the applicant and presented the application. He explained that the applicant needs variance approval for the location of a proposed swimming pool
on a residential lot. Second, the board attorney explained to the board that there are two contradicting provisions in the ordinance regarding the permitted location and setbacks required for residential pools on corner lots with two front yards. The board is being asked to approve any variances it deems
appropriate to permit the applicant to proceed with the construction of the pool as presented. Third, Miss Elizabeth Olaflin, owner and applicant, was sworn and testified. She testified that she lives at the property with her husband and three
children. The house fronts on two streets, one on which is a deadend street and the property backs to the Garden State Parkway. She presented exhibit A-1 photographs of the property and identified the location of the home and driveway as well as the significant wooded area to the rear of the home and
at the end of Partridge Run. She also presented exhibit A-2 area map and photos of residential pool locations. She testified that there are 31 houses in the neighborhood and 14 of them have pools, including the neighbors to her sides. There's also another home with a
corner lot and pool in the same location as she is proposing, but that street is not a dead-end street. It is the main entrance drive to the neighborhood, a much busier street. Miss Fourth, Miss Olaflin testified that they would that they worked on the location of the pool to be at least 10
ft from the property line. It is also the area with most sun and where it is set back and separate from the patio for safety. The pool will be in its own section of the yard and leave safe areas for play outside of the pool. She testified that she discussed the pool
with the neighbors and no one objected. Fifth, Mr. Jerome Guly, a representative of Anthony and Silvin, the pool company with many years of experience in pool installation, was sworn and testified. He testified that an 18t by 35- ft
uh unit swimming pool with jacuzzi was proposed. He testified that this is the best location for the pool. There is an existing drainage structure behind the house that they did not want to disturb and the pool with a small retaining wall will fit in the location
proposed and leave a flat area of the yard for the patio and play area. He testified that the plans were prepared by professional engineer that works for the company and that they would comply with all building codes. Sixth, the board advised that the app the board advised the applicant that any
approval would be conditioned on full building department review, including drainage, and that the applicant would need to comply with any changes requested by the building department. The applicant agreed. Seventh, the board asked about a safety fence, and the applicant testified that a 54-in high aluminum fence with 4in
separation would be installed. 4 feet is the minimum required, but they will go to 54 in and won't have a locking gate. The applicant also testified that they would provide landscaping on the partridge run side of the pool for privacy. Eighth, Mr. Forest explained that the
applicant requests approval under NJSA 405D-70C1 and C2 because the corner lot creates a hardship and the proposed location is a better alternative than where it would be permitted. Ninth, the board voted to approve the application with the
conditions discussed at the hearing. Conclusions of law. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Township of Clark zoning board, based on the above findings of fact, makes the following conclusions. First, the board finds and concludes
that the variances for a residential swimming pool in a front yard or front yard setback can be granted under NJSA 405D-70C1 hardship NC2 better planning alternative. The B the property is a corner lot with two frontages under the
ordinance, but the pool will be located on the yard that functions as the second yard of the home. The applicant established through the through the testimony that swimming pools are customary in the neighborhood and indeed another property in the neighborhood located on a corner lot also has a pool
in the technical front yard. There has not been any detrimental impact from that pool. The applicant is complying with what would be the sideyard set setback requirements for this accessory structure. The applicant has also set the pool as far back as possible so it is as near to
the rear yard line as possible. There are mature trees to the rear of the property and Partridge Run is a dead-end street with very little traffic. The applicant has agreed to provide landscaping between the pool and the street and has established that placing the pool in the rear yard would
not be practicable would not be practical because it would be too close to the house and prevent other uses of the yard and conflict with existing drainage structures. Second, the board finds and concludes that there are no negatives, only positives to the granting of the variances requested and that the
benefits of these deviations substantially outweigh any detriments that may result from the granting of this relief. The board finds and concludes that the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the municipal land use law,
the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The board therefore concludes that the variance as requested can be granted subject to the conditions contained herein. Now therefore be it resolved by the zoning board of the township of Clark this 27th day of October 2025 that the board hereby memorializes by the
adoption of this resolution the action taken by the board on September 16, 2025 granting the applicant's request for C variances as more particularly set forth above subject however to the following conditions. First, the applicant shall
install landscaping between the pool and partridge run. Second, the plans are subject to review by the construction official and building department and the applicant shall comply with all changes requested by SAM, including any additional drainage measures requested. Third, the applicant shall construct the
improvements in compliance with the testimony provided at the hearing. This approval is only for variance as explicitly stated herein. The construction of improvements at the property must comply with all other applicable ordinances of the township and all building department requirements.
Fourth, the applicant shall pay all taxes, fees, and required escrow deposits that may be due and owing prior to the issuance of any building permits. Fifth, as provided in section 195-35 of the township code, the variances granted
by the board shall expire one year from the date of the adoptions resolution of approval unless construction has commenced or an extension has been granted by this board. Sixth, the applicant shall be required to obtain any and all approvals, licenses, and permits required by any other board,
agency, or entity having jurisdiction over the application over the property. Seventh, the applicant shall publish notice of this approval and provide a copy of SAM to the board secretary for board's records. Be it further resolved that all representations, commitments, and
agreements made by the applicant or his or her representatives at the hearing in this matter or contained in any document, plat sketch or submission submitted to the board at any time prior to this approval, including notes contained in original or revised submissions are hereby incorporated into
re res into this resolution by reference. B and the same is hereby granted. Um so that that's the resolution. I think we just need your signature. >> Okay. upon a I guess a motion in a second. >> We'll then get a motion to approve.
First, does anyone have any questions about the resolution or what was contained? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Second. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. Anything
else you have, Janet? Uh I would mention that um Art has already submitted something to the council regarding the discrepancy that we had last meeting on the uh 200 four
100 ft for an exterior shed and I think that is being recommended to >> submitted ago. Yeah. >> Right. Right. And we did discuss that at the meeting
on uh the grouse. So, it's being attempted to be remedied to be less confusing. Right now, it's for the town council approved. All right.
If there is no other discussions or questions for the board, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> A motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> I was waiting for the roll call.
Not sure if you >> Yes. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music]