Welcome everyone. Uh this is a regular meeting of the fair zone board of adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting have been given pursuant to the provision of the public's meeting act at the time of the board reorganization of January of this year. The board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press
on January 30th, 2026 and the Two River Times on January 22nd, 2026. That notice was also posted on the bulletin board in Burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the B office of the burough
clerk. Copy the notice has also been sent to the members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having being given the board secretary is directed to include this statement in the midst of the meeting. Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I would like to say a few words to the applicants, their
experts and the audience about the role and authority of the fair and zoning board of adjustment. The board is a separate and independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is specifically set forth in bureau ordinances and the New Jersey municipal land use law. It has quasi judicial in nature and the members of the board are
unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and council. The board does not enact the burough use land use laws and regulations. The burough council does not. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough favor. That is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer. This board deals with appeals for relief from
the requirements of the burough's land use laws or the denials by the zoning officer. An applicant is never entitled to a variance, also known as exception to the regulations, but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal land use law and the fair haven ordinances by satisfying
certain required standards of proof. This board has no authority to wave those requirements. The burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to the specific relief requested. The applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation
would substantially outweigh any detriment to the zone plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary personal or unique situations. Uh roll call, please. >> Mr. Ler >> here. >> Mr. Sangelo >> here. Mr. Ryan
>> here. >> Mr. Forte >> here. >> Dr. Mr. Walker >> here, >> Mrs. Newman >> here, Mr. Lava, >> Mr. Shetti >> here, >> Mr. Nessie >> here. >> I 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. >> Um, just one quick second before we start, and this is not normal, but Mr. leader was not here at the board reorg. I would just like to uh recognize him
for his 20 years of leadership as chairman of this board and I'm honored to take that spot. >> We are going to start. >> Yeah. Um if anyone here is for the Federo application 65 in Normandy, that application will not be heard tonight.
It was requested to be carried to the April 16th meeting. So Fero will not be heading C. >> The waiver of time. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so we're going to go start with 66 count. Um carried from our last
meeting. Okay. Uh yeah, please know that >> could I have anybody to testify on this and make me out? >> Yes. That would be Mr. hour and miss waterberry. >> I'm going to swear you in Florida also are in
swear the testimony. >> Yes. Direction performing direct testifying. Please state your name correctly spelling your last names commission council. I'd like to mark additional exhibits. Um I have
um A13 the architectural plot plan floor plan elevations a sheet uh revised January 30th 2026 that'll be A13 A14 is plot plan um
revised January 29 26 on A14 A 15 will be cover letter beared by Warbearing Associates dated Jan January 30th, 2026. You know, as I say, A15, you will also mark age 16, the certification, Mr.
Shvetti, confirming that he has read and reviewed all of the materials and listen to the tapes as well as A17, same certification of Mr. Larry. Um, a leader, excuse me. Um those are all the
additional sorry and also ZB3 that's the CSD report February 9 2026 believe that those are all the additional exhibit since our last proceeding you have any additional material that
>> not at this time and I concur as to the additional exhibits >> so you're up to for the if there is something else your next one will be a >> we'll mark as we go a A18 being the next one yes >> thank you sir >> thank Thank you very much. Good evening, chairman, board members. Mark Aens on behalf of the applicant. Uh this is a
continuation of the hearing for 66 Kemp Avenue LLC. We had started in January. The board had recommended certain um considerations on behalf of the applicant. I'd like to have the applicant's architect summarize them and then provide uh the engineering
testimony with regard to the impact to uh drainage as well as the sole remaining variance at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> M. Brown. >> Okay. So, based on the feedback we had from our previous meeting, uh it was determined that we should just treat the house as a new house. Uh not plan on
saving the existing foundation. And uh so what we have done is we've basically um eliminated the existing foundation uh proposing a new foundation under the house. We've taken the entire house and we've now shifted it back within the uh building setbacks um for the main body
of the house. We still have a rear yard variance for the attached uh garage at the rear of the home. Um in addition and also to allow for some more conformity around and some leeway around the the setbacks, we've reduced the size of the porches on Camp Avenue and Laurel Avenue
by 8 in. So they went from 8T down to 7'4, which has been indicated on the updated plans that have been provided. Um, in addition, we've also eliminated the uh backup generator and we've also cut the uh public force that runs along
the left side of the home. We've we've reduced the depth of that to just include the the stair to the basement and we've used that uh empty space now for the relocated AC units. Um so essentially we've eliminated the uh variance for that as well. Um
>> and has the generator been eliminated or resided? >> It's been eliminated. >> Okay. So there is no generator. Uh and the other variance that we eliminated was also with respect to the uh prevailing front yard setback on Laurel. There was an an issue with the front face of the garage. Yeah. We were over
by four or five six inches I believe it was. So what we did was we reduced that by 8 in now. So now we're >> you know well within the the setback on >> I believe the engineer will testify. We've recited it. So we're kind of like in the middle of the building envelope now. So it's that's give a little bit
more leeway around the house. Um, with respect to the house, there's no changes to the to the design of the house. The house on the outside looks exactly the same, um, cosmetically. Um, other than that, that's pretty much the summary of the changes. If you would like to go through the individual report, but I think I touched on most of these
already. >> Um, so essentially what we're still looking at is, so now we've triggered by moving the house back, you triggered us a rear guard set back with an attached essentially. >> That's correct. So did you remove the porch on the uh on
the southeast side or >> the porch has been reduced in size. There was a number of variance required for this porch but the issue that came up was the AC units required. So what we did was we reduced the size of the depth of that porch so that way we could allow for >> you maintain that location.
>> Yeah. So the AC units are now going to be closer to the they'll still be behind the front yard setback but they'll also be within the sideyard setback if you have. >> So we cleared that. >> Oh I see. Okay. >> But the front porch remains. >> Yes. Front porch remains. We just flipped it off at the edge of the house. >> Right. And it sweeps around to the right
side. >> Yes. That still sweeps around the right side. >> You still have that stairwell going down to the >> Yes. Okay. >> Other than that, it's basically the same floor plan that uh you saw last week. >> Patio is the same size. Everything's just been shifted back on the property.
The only thing that we clarified is the fencing. I'm not sure if if Elizabeth, but the fencing we're showing um connecting from the back face of the garage to the property in the back and then also on the on the left side of the house just connecting to the property. I
believe the existing fence along the remainder of the property is just going to remain as is and we're just making these two connections here on the two fronts. >> Correct. >> You're removing the existing fence that's on the on the the oak on the uh the Laurel side then, right? >> I believe so. I can address that when I
>> Sure. Yeah, she'll she'll clarify. >> Do I have no further questions? Chairman of any questions from the board. >> Any questions from the public? Ready? Thank you. >> Thank you for our applicant now calls
Elizabeth Mort, licensed professional engineer and professional planner. See you up here. and she was previously qualified. >> The architect had just outlined for you the changes that we had made in the building and in the orientation of the
building or the location of the building. Uh as you know prior we had the garage conforming but the front porch was within the setback. Uh we did shorten the the depth of the front porch slightly as was testified to and we've shifted it back. As you know, we're an
undersized lot um for the corner. It's a pre-existing lot. There's no land to change that condition. And it's also a lot that is uh deficient and uh the depth in the one side. If you had that, we'd be much closer. Um we uh as it was
just mentioned that when we shortened the garage by the 8 in, I also just kind of shifted it slightly so we had a little bit of wiggle room for construction margins. So, uh, the only thing that did was on the south side, instead of being at 12.2 ft, it's at
11.9 ft. It's required to be at 10. So, we're still greater than what exists now, which is 11 and a half or 116.6 and we're at 119. But, it was just so that we had uh a little bit of leeway to that um uh average setback so that
during construction they don't accidentally, you know, get too close. Um we so the only variance that we have remaining is uh just for the garage it's at 22.4 ft. The main portion of the
house conforms all the way around in the rear, the sides, the front. So the only variance that's left it relates to the attached garage. The ordinance does permit a garage to be up to five feet from a property line if it's detached
and 16, you know, less than 16 feet. Of course, you have to be 50 feet from the house on the adjacent lot. Um, if we were to, let's say, try to make it uh more conforming and detach that, we'd be within 50 ft because the whole thing's within 50 ft of the house on the other
lot. So, that would trigger a different variance. we are at the 16 at that uh height limitation with the garage. So in a sense the fact that it is attached pulls it further away has less impact um to uh the neighbors uh in the rear.
>> So with your planner's hat on Miss Waterberry is it fair to say that it's a better planning alternative to have the attached garage even with the requested variance than a detached garage? >> Yes. I think that it's more beneficial to the uh surrounding area and to the neighbors especially to the rear.
>> Thank you. >> I will also note that the garage and all that we're speaking about is the part of the house that kind of faces Laurel which is a uh less major street than Kemp. Right now the existing driveway comes off the camp has the parking in
the front etc. So all that is being removed. So the vision from Kemp Avenue is uh enhanced and anything is off of the more law minor side street >> and the property has an address of 66 camp. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that's not proposed to change.
>> Thank you. >> The other item that had been a discussion at the last one related to uh storm water. Um and again I just have up on the screen here or on the screen on the board the grading plan that was
submitted at the time uh short story. Uh at the point that as you know we had several storms in between our last hearing and this one was evident outside. We scheduled the soil borings. They got delayed. So when the soil borings were done uh the right before we
had to submit these in order to be in time for this. Um I came in on that Friday. We were going to have another storm on Monday. So uh we brought it in on Friday. Um the person that was here to be uh in only person in the office
that day happened to be Rich Gardell, the burough engineer. So he and I chatted a little bit about this. And one of the things that we chatted about was uh he had shared with me about the new stormwater ordinance that was passed in December. uh we kind of um straddle both
sides of that particular ordinance because we were submitted, you know, prior to that. Our ne revision that we did, our first revision we did after the first review letter was two days after it passed and we had no no idea. In
speaking with him, um, one of the things that they were trying to do was to, uh, enhance, um, green infrastructure and they had kind of like a hierarchy of the types of things that they would want you to use and at the bottom of that was
drywall. It also defined in it um, and it's just more because there really wasn't criteria set before. It was just what we were all trying to do, right? So now criteria was set and it actually could set also the criteria for uh the manner you would do it, how much you
would do. It's based on your additional coverage that you might be putting on a site. We do meet lot coverage but obviously the existing lot has less coverage on it. Um so when we did our soil boardings we discovered that there
is a our our water table is down like we didn't hit water till like 10t down. But we have just 4 feet down we had the beginning of a restrictive layer as it would relate to permeability. We have a uh nice sandy nice sandy layer and then
right at where the bottom of a drywall would be is this restrictive layer. Um >> so is the drywall not an option then? >> So what we would what we were proposed when I was speaking to uh Jordan again today um because I called him and spoke to him after I spoke with Mr. Gardella
um and uh I spoke with him today and said that we were uh offering to meet the criteria of the current ordinance uh not by necessarily using bioales or those kinds of things because it's more but we can actually take um the driveway
make it a permeable surface with recharge below it like they do in Romson and uh and then take whatever additional roof area we need in order to meet the criteria and then pipe that into the storm layer below. Um, obviously uh in I reviewed
that in concept with Mr. Rizzo. Um, obviously he hasn't reviewed the design. We would just ask that uh should the board look favorably at the application that it be conditioned upon us meeting the condition meeting the requirements of the current stormwater ordinance.
>> Did Mr. Gardella indicate either way whether that was acceptable or or >> he said they were encouraging the permeable pavers and encouraging the green and that they were discouraging the drywalls. Um and if you look at the uh listing of
>> the hierarchy >> the hierarchy. Yes. Thank you. Of items that they want to use at the very bottom they have right wrong or indifferent. They have a drywall with an asterisk saying to be used when nothing else can be used. Yeah, it's I'm I'm I'm familiar
with that portion of the ordinance. Um, of course, you have some restrictions with rain gardens and things like that where you don't really have the lot the the amount of acreage to right we're the spirit of it was not to say you have to put a dry, it's any of these including
to a dry, >> right? and we're able to um I did do calculations, you know, before speaking with them because I didn't want to speak out of turn and then have it be something that I couldn't address. So, I did do uh calculations based on the soil
boardings we had and spoke to them about that concept of a design based on what I had with calculations and obviously they would have to be reviewed and improved and whatever amendments they may have. >> Yeah. So, I will confirm uh I did speak to Jordan obviously on this and all that
is correct. Um we obviously will need to review uh the submitted design. Uh but as mentioned based on the new ordinance, drywell is at the bottom of the list. Um compared to that green infrastructure. I do just have a couple questions board.
Um, so one of the things I guess would you propose connection to that storm water inlet at the corner um for the discharge to run off? >> Uh, for like an overflow we wouldn't have an issue with that. It was just whether some towns want you to
do that, some don't. We have the opportunity because it's there. If it's allowed, then we would like to. >> Yeah. So I just because of the lack of permeability, I do think uh that would be recommended. No objection. >> Okay. Uh, and that also does reduce the
sizing based on the new ordinance. So, >> yes. >> Okay. All right. >> So, it did it did work. And, um, the other thing was it does have in the ordinance that that we would have to have um some kind of uh uh it noted and it said in the ordinance how it's to be
addressed so that, you know, someone can't just decide to change the driveway, you know, or whatever storm water has to be. and that um I also had indicated to him that uh I always recommend to my clients to stay away from the uh porous asphalt because if it
doesn't look right, people seal it. >> Oh, of course. >> So, so those are the kinds of things that we discussed. >> Okay. >> Did that kind of cover the >> So, essentially, you're going to follow the new ordinance for the sizing of that system. Okay. >> Sizing and design. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Perfect. Yeah, my office wouldn't have any issue with that based on the discretion of the board >> and we'd stipulate to the engineers or you know post approval review if that's what the board sees sees fit >> the fence
>> and the fence >> so the fence um and I'm going to go back to the uh plot plan uh sheet two it does show the fencing as was noted by uh Mr. bur the uh new fencing connecting from
the garage to the existing fence in the back and from the side of the house to the existing fencing. There is a portion of existing fencing about 27 linear feet that extends from that connection toward Laurel Drive that's coming out. So I uh
indicated to Mr. Rizzo that that's the intention to tie it into make that a corner where the new fence is going to be. And if the note is not clear in that regard, I'm happy to make it clear on the plan. >> Okay. So that would eliminate any >> we'll provide an updated plan to that effect.
>> Your rear yard setback went from 49 ft to 22 uh.4 ft. Um are you proposing any any landscaping additions to the back of the house to wall that off of the neighbor? >> So if I could just offer that the 49 ft
before was to the back of the house and the back of the house goes from 49 to a little over 30. The garage was at a little over 30 and goes to 22.4. So just so that the so the variance is right at the area behind the garage. If there's a
desire for us to put in landscaping, we will. But the 49 before was to the back of the primary residence which is like I said now at like 30.3. >> So the old So it was it if I remember the old house it was a a an attached
garage. What was the the Did that stick back further? No, the the existing house the existing house was closer to the street. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And and that was the uh so that 49 was to the old to the old house and the and that um
that was not as deep as our house. >> Okay. Um, and if you recall, we were proposing our uh front of our house using that existing basement. And that uh existing foundation was
non-conforming to the uh uh average setback. >> So, yes, we're going from 49 from existing to 30.3 for the house and 22.4 if there's a desire for plantings. It depends what the board thinks. I I
don't know that it's I mean necessary be nice with defer to the board. >> Yep. >> Um is there a one or twocar garage? >> One one car garage
double wide driveway. That's and which Thank you very much. The uh we do have a design waiver that remains from before and that is is that the onecar garage is supposed to have a 30 foot driveway in front of it and
we're like we were before before I think we're at like 25 and a half now we're at 26 and a half. So that we're back behind that average setback. So we have that >> that's non-conforming. >> Yeah. that right that not that uh design waiver and the second was is that
because the driveway is fully within the front yard required setback you know parking supposed to be out of that so we have we have that design waiver so it's the one variance and the two design >> two two spots right >> yeah two spaces for the two
>> okay thank you um can I >> yeah sure go ahead you just clarify the note of June and page Five for DB3 talks about the older ed service through the other final company. >> Yes, the service has to be underground.
We're going to comply with that. Um at the point we talked to um the electric company, they'll guide us as to where they want us to do that. Actually, the closest poll is on Laurel Drive. So, we'll have to just see how they want us to handle that. But we know that um
coming into the property has to be under Brad, >> right? >> There was a couple of um drafting things that were in here as well. Obviously, we have no issue with >> So, we stipulate the all the conditions in item five >> with that. No issue >> just the exception of the anything about
the drainage. >> Yeah. The storm water measurement. >> So, >> right. >> Follow the ordinance. >> Yes. And the seasonal high water table was like I said down so that at least we know that we can also comply with any
basement uh seller. >> I did that last time too, right? So >> yeah, there's been no change to that with the new with the new foundation. There's been no change to the uh the FF. >> The only the only No, the only um the clearance is still exactly the same. the finished floor just raised 2 in, but
that's because with the basement, we had to have a larger uh beam joist that went across. So, it just raised the finish floor 2 in. Um, but it did not the the ceiling height in the cellar is still exactly the same.
>> Yeah, if I could just draw your attention to number five on page six um with regard to that. 5F that gives looks like it's a note issue. >> Yes, revised set back. Y no problem.
>> Will you revise that before calculation? >> Um >> that's just indic uh yeah that's >> that's just a no correction >> but but yeah I guess but the we had the I think I just have to put that the finished floor is 2 in higher on there.
It doesn't change any of the actual calculations. I think that leads us into an explanation on that. The edge of the front see that going. >> Oh, that was an easy one. >> Um, yeah, this line is missing >> on this one plan. It connects this
corner to the front of the porch. >> Oh, okay. >> So, that's that's >> that's the line work. He's asking about the step though. >> Yeah, he's asking about the >> And then with the step And then with the step, um, I spoke with the architect. We have one foot difference between the
finished floor and the ground around which would be a step out and a step down. So I uh can provide an elevation on the porch that will reflect a step out and a step down. >> Thank you. And uh >> but at any rate, we're well within 30 in.
>> Oh, easily. >> Yeah. Couple other uh things just for the benefit of the board. Uh so I know at the last meeting you indicated no tree removal is needed. Uh but I assume you don't have any issue that to provide a tree removal permit if it does become
a need to remove anything. >> We can certainly stipulate as to that. However, none are intended to be removed. Um and then similar uh page 6H it was 4 H as well as 4 I u two additional condition approvals one being
the the payment in L for sidewalks. >> Yeah. >> Um >> we'll pursue that with the governing body. >> Okay. And then also for I you'll have seen the free old soil >> and free old soil since we're disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of soil >> and that information the free old soil type of information is already all on
the plan. So, should we get approval, we're going to ship it right over. >> Okay, that >> good. M. >> That's all all the questions I had. >> Any other board members have questions for Miss L? >> Will the public have questions for M?
Reflect on. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, M. Warberry. Applicant rest. Chairman, board members. >> Thank you, students. >> Thank you. discussion >> before we deliberate. I'd like to hear their thought from the neighbors.
And as the public uh have issue or would like to make any comments now delivers I I think u I'll I'll think it's a nice plan. I think the uh
uh I think the applicant really went overboard to try to uh accommodate a lot of the questions that we had and uh I think it's a great project in my favor. >> I'll agree. I think they I think I
appreciate the fact that they listened and um made some significant changes. um by just moving the starting with the new foundation. I think that made all the difference. >> Anybody else?
>> No, I'm in line with the last two and I do agree that an attack while requiring variance is better than a detached fraud for the neighbor. >> Yes.
Todd, anything to add? >> Yeah, I think given that if you detach the garage, you can locate it closer to the property boundary and require no variance. And if you attach it, you're here and you need the variance. I think that in the end is the right balance that it's a no-brainer.
>> Al, you good? >> Yeah, I appreciate the uh the efforts of the adant. I really do. They took everything. Um on that I will make a a motion to approve as submitted on condition of the um actually the record
in addition of the storm water management uh uh ordinance >> condition upon review with the with the engineer approval as to the appropriate >> feature. I will I guess >> and placement
>> hierarchy hierarchy. >> Yeah. Whatever is agreed upon with the board with the engine services under driveway, >> correct? Services underground design waiver with regard to the
>> parking uh parking and also design ware. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Second vote or Mr. Leer, >> yes. >> Mr. Dwell, >> yes.
>> Dr. Longer, >> yes. >> Mrs. Newman, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate the opportunity to make the revisions and presentation
to the board. Good evening. Mr. Mr. Thanks for put You weren't anywhere in here too. Facebook someone's going to testify. Mike testify.
Oh, okay. Sal testimony for >> same definition I gave before you start testifying state your name for the record spelling your last name for identification
citiz Of course, if I can Mr. Brusk mark some things last year any hearing me uh A13 as the architectural options to revised
January 12, 2026 u mark A14 certification of Dr. offer or to his confirmation at least read the materials and prepared to participate in
this hearing. That'll be A14 and ZB3 will be the uh updated CME report February 9, 2026 over do so. You have any other exhibits, we can mark them. Your next exhibit will be
A15. You have something else. I think we I think I'm not sure that we're going to have any new ones. So, >> okay, >> we do. We'll mark it. >> Okay. Um, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Brodzky on behalf of the applicant. As the board
will recall, uh, this is a continuation of a hearing. We were here back in December, uh, with regard to, uh, the property that's located at 67 Willow Street. It's on the corner of Willow and Oak. Um, in your R5 zone, the applicant
is is seeking an addition to the rear of the home. Uh, when we were here last, um, uh, what was being proposed was a 648 square foot two-story addition. Um
and uh you'll hear uh we heard some comments from the board and concerns when we were here last time uh particularly with respect to the fact that we needed of relief from uh the
maximum floor area restriction of 2200 square ft. We had exceeded that by a couple hundred uh by a couple of hundred square feet. Um we heard the board went back the revised plans uh that you have
before you actually reduce the size of that rear uh of that addition such that we uh are able we have been able to comply with uh the maximum floor area
uh restriction of 2200 square feet. So we no longer need that relief. Um the only relief that uh le so so the only relief that leaves us is with respect to the rear setback requirement which is
27.1 ft is what's proposed where 30 is required and as the board uh will recall uh in the back there it's actually sort of um adjacent to the sideyard of the uh
neighboring property. And so we thought um the 27.1 ft was palatable uh in this particular situation. Nowhere near the 7 foot wide setback if the house had been turned and fronted on oak. So um in
addition in addition the reduction of the addition to 438 square ft in on that two stories. Um the uh it's only the first floor that that goes to that 27.1
ft off the adjacent property. The second floor is set back so that it does hold the required 30 foot uh rear setback. So um >> and that's how you get down to the 2200. >> That's how we get down to 2200. And I
think a little bit on the sides as well. There's a little bit taken in. There's a little bit taken in Frank on the sides as as well which which which actually increase even though it was already conforming increase the front setback on oak by by two feet as well.
>> I think it actually looks better too visually. >> Yeah, I I think it's it works out. It's a little less space than than than the applicants wanted but um >> just looking at the two I had the old and the new in front of me. You know, it is a significant I was okay with it for I was the old one. I thought it was a
good plan, but I think this is much better. >> Yeah. I mean, and and and it works. We we reduced the size of the bedrooms a little bit. So, we're still at the was is three bedrooms, will be three bedrooms. Um we added some conceptual landscaping to the plan at the board's
request. Um and uh >> um you know we're still obviously well under on lot coverage on building coverage on F really um really it's only that 27.1 ft
>> the existing setback to that back deck that's there now is what >> we're going to 27 is it >> uh 26 yeah it's actually. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And and
that this addition is essentially over Jim, am I correct? The existing deck, right? Which is why we have >> we've actually reduced a lot of coverage. >> We actually do a slight improvement on work. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and a
slight improvement on the cover building coverage as well. >> Correct. Right. Or or >> um in the previous uh I'm not sure how the dates work out with your application. So, as you earlier, we have this new uh ordinance regarding storm water that's required if you're disturbing if you're making more than
400 ft additional um which I think we are >> but I'm not sure how your application fits in with were you before. Is that required here or not? Are you noticed with that? >> They're not required to comply. >> They're not. Yes. >> Um key is
>> Yeah. I Mr. Chair, I mean Jen, uh you're sworn in. You're here. Um just um everything I said so far correct in terms of what we proposed. I know you also from an architectural perspective had >> sort of reconfigured the uh the floor
plan a bit. >> The second floor that >> so this is the revised floor plan. Um, >> and this Jim that we're you're looking at, is this an exact copy of what was submitted or do you have >> the revised copy that was submitted?
>> Is that does the revised copy have the color on it just like this? >> No. >> Okay. To help visualize the >> Okay. So Doug, I think we should mark this as A15, which is a we'll call it a colored
version of the submitted uh what is it? A2 of the architecture. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry, Jim. Go ahead. >> So this is a revised floor plan. This is this is the same uh 27.1
for the revised. This is after removal of the deck that is in this area. The 27.1 is to the first floor only. It complies on the side set back over here which is required 25 here 30 and then the second floor got completely pulled
back. So this second floor completely um complies with both set. >> So it's only the first floor that is requiring this uh rear section. >> And that and that first floor is is constructed on the existing
>> right that's on foundation here. Here's here's the foundation plan over to the left here. >> And that's on on a new seller adjacent to the old seller. >> Okay. >> It'll be it'll be accessible through the existing basement. >> Okay. Oh, there there there is a a builder here too. Yeah.
>> Gotcha. Um we have existing nonconformities with respect to the lot depth. Right. Just as a reminder, >> pre-existing 95.4 four where 100 is required and the front setback right of the existing home >> pre-existing
>> pre-existing and remaining >> there don't change to the front of the house >> remaining >> questions for >> Mr. What did you uh >> what did you remove to get you back even to even with the cat? >> Uh mostly the second floor actually. So
the second floor got shaved by two feet over here and then it's uh four feet actually. >> First floor >> and we actually narrowed up the first floor a little bit too for that matter by about six inches I believe. >> Two feet on each side.
>> Oh we pulled it we pulled this in two feet on each side on the >> screen. pull it in. >> Yeah, we increased the second >> we tucked it in this way. We kept this distance the same going back the width that way and then and then the entire second floor got pulled back.
>> Did you cut out closet space or did you cut out, >> you know, you cut out some of the >> There was some circulation that got cut out, honestly. You know, we had to rejigger some stuff. So, we it did require it's going to require extra work on the second floor here uh to tighten this up. And we removed
some extraneous hallway space. And then there was a little out cove coming off the existing master bedroom that we got rid of. So, >> I have the old plan in front of me. Looks like a reduction in that walk-in for the master. And right and the closet
itself got a little bit smaller. The walkin clos. Yeah. Yeah, Skip. The the the new family room is the old one was 254 and the new one is 21 ft. >> 21 ft. >> Correct. Yes. That shrunk a little bit
like this one as a long version. >> Still a decent size. 21 by 13. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. We didn't want to reduce this one too much because you know that's >> Yeah. >> Proportionally that's pretty small. Okay. Any
more questions for Mr. Bailey? Mr. >> With regard to the review letter on page five. >> Yep. Goes to paragraph five to the comments. Any problem making those revisions?
>> No. No problem. No. with regard to page four, paragraph four and you verify or you make the verification as to paragraph C. Wow, that the height between the floor
and the roof raft was created the first in fact was more less than 30 in the zero floor area beneath the first floor. >> Yes, we can uh let me just go put a little dimension in here on for you. So, so that would be right here.
This is this dimension of um I'm going to get there 1 foot2. So, so that's what you're talking about there. The extra the roof that's over top of the first floor after we pulled the second floor back >> and and we have a dimension here of 1 foot2. >> That's on A3,
>> correct? On A3. >> Okay. So, that's a new added dimension. >> Yeah, that's showing compliance with the height that you >> That is A16 administrating. >> Yeah. I mean, it just looks so much better. It looks so much more balanced >> from that side, from from the whole
place. Yeah. >> Yeah. Which, by the way, I think outside of the front, of course, you see a X house. I think that's going to be the most viewed elevation by a mile, right? >> Maybe the back looks quite nice if you're on the repeated peak that's
already on the side and kind of get to being with that peak in the back. >> I know we are under the requirement for storm water management. Has there been any thought to drainage for the the new family room >> gutters to a splash box?
>> All the gutters all around this first floor section which you know after we pulled that back. So now the gutters are on the lower level here and those will just go into a leader into the correct >> go to where is a leader into the into
the grass. It might not be. >> Any other questions from Mr. David? >> One other item uh minor item, but number 4B, page four of our review. >> Uh it's regarding the existing bay window. I would say uh it's guess up to
board interpretation on whether you think that counts as floor area or not. If you do feel it counts as floor area, then they would be slightly over. It would be our opinion that since it is a bay window, it's a window sill and should not be counted a floor area. We >> discussed something to
>> in the first meeting is I don't think there's any floor under there. I think it is a bed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. It's not it's not a walk-in bank, right? It's not a floor level. >> It's a window. There's nothing under >> correct. That's it right here. Yes. And that's existing. >> Yeah, I recall that question coming up
before. Okay. Any more board members? No. Any more testimony? >> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Any members of the public have any questions of Mr. Daily? Mr. Brown.
>> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. We rest first. Yeah, I think I think it's a meaningful improvement. Um I think it balances the house much more than previous uh submission. I think I think it looks much more balanced, right? The other one just look like just took a
massive house and just appended it onto the back. I think this is I think it's going to be a much better view for most people, especially as they come down oak. We obviously appreciate the applicant um you know hearing our commentary and make the necessary adjustment. So I I'm in support of that.
Thank you. pulling in the house from the uh folk place uh view pulling in the second floor I think does a lot to uh to mitigate the the overall
appearance of bulk and u I'm in favor of the application the the uh applicant did everything that we were asking asking of them and uh I have no problem with the uh 27.1
as opposed to 30 ft set back. So, I'm good with >> it. I would have to echo all those um all those reviews and um I think that this fits well in the neighborhood.
>> Anybody else? >> Correct. It's three feet to the rear and they have a sideyard behind them. So, um I think that they've done a lot to try and make sure that they've requested the minimal um deviation and I agree it
looks uh it looks nice. >> A motion to approve second >> Mer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Yes.
>> Mr. H. >> Yes. >> That's >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman. >> Yes. And Mr. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Congratulations. >> Bless. >> Oh, yeah. >> We'll talk about this later. It didn't
happen. It didn't happen by mistake. Okay. Well done. Just for >> the um approval of the minutes from January 8th uh meeting today we're having a couple
hearing none. Make a motion to approve the minutes for January 8th meeting. >> Mr. Le >> Yes. >> And Mr. Netti. >> Yes. Uh the approval of resolution ZBR 202601
authorizing the 30. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman.
>> Yes. >> Yes. The race happened to do the same. >> I thought I thought you were going to tell us they went down. >> They did fire back and forth. >> Uh, approval of resolution 2026
authorizing contact board. Can I make a motion to approve? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Uh finally, approval of resolution 2.603 authorizing the contract for our board planner. Make a motion to approve. >> Mr. D'Angelo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. 410. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> All right. Yeah. I had put this on um >> about the land use committee, but George advised me he wasn't in here. So, we can move that to the next meeting.
>> So, just to update you, I spoke to Joe um at some point in January and we talked it through. He's going to go through the list and he's going to give the sort of recommended tweaks >> and then present that to us that he's
going to look at it and discuss it as a public session tonight. >> Yeah. >> Um but actually and we don't have it from China. >> No, I know I said I wanted to get it on on at least this Jordan City. So at least it's on the agenda. So
>> yeah, >> when we do get it when we have it before the meeting. >> Yeah. I I think it's it's kind of pointless to look at it without without a warning. So, >> yeah. As soon as we get something, we'll circulate it. Everybody can have a chance to take a look.
>> Can I mention that other house um park with the garage? >> Yeah. Yeah, good idea. >> So, um there was every once in a while Scott pops up and we wind up on text chains asking about development. Um I would recommend everybody take a drive by the house. It's on like there's three
parks, right? road. I'm thinking it's something >> road. Okay. >> No, it's on park at >> so like over by Forest and Harvard and Princeton and all that. There's a park. It's a cross street that'll take you like angled towards the school. Uh there's a new house. It's listed if you were to look it up.
>> That's the white one with >> Yeah. Listed at 33. So, I actually drove over to see it and um it it complies with the setbacks, but what they've done is the lot is maybe 75 by could be as deep as 225
>> 250 and they've placed the twocar garage in the front facing the side and then the house is in the back and the garage is not 16 ft. The garage is full height because it's attached. And so what you get is this garage folded look. Um years
ago, uh people had called them snoutous. Look right here on Barry the road where they push the garage forward. This is like the McMansion version of that. Um but I would suggest people take a look at it because they think that it warrants some attention by the land use
committee. I'm not quite sure what the fix is. I just know what the problem is. >> It's 94 parked data. >> It's kind of interesting. It's coming back too because it's very much an older style like you don't see >> this is the first time I've seen a lot of these in a long time. >> So where you see a lot of it is on
Graange like over near Skip on interior lots. A lot of them have two cars. They're slid forward but but it's wider. Yeah. And so you don't have the garage in front of the house. It's 75 ft in width that I think is the problem here. Um it and it even has the depth. It just
it looks really strange. And it when I first saw that I thought >> I thought there was a porch there like it was blocking the front porch you know it's like who would do that but >> very strange it looks worse in person >> that's the best look >> it doesn't look like that picture from
the street >> right because that picture >> I've had people fall and >> so we had disapproved >> yeah wondering if the varants have been given for that I told them it was
confined Right. But what you're seeing is that >> the twocar garage is proud of the front of the house almost all the way to the front door in the middle. Now, I got to ask you if if it is not attached, it's not clear to me that it's attached. >> Yeah, they say it's attached.
>> Detached. >> Attached. >> Well, it's on a breezeway or something. agreement like as long as I went to Joe and I asked him about it and based on calls that I received and he said it is compliant because it is attached.
>> So right if it were detached it would have to be 16 ft and it would probably look much much different. >> It wouldn't be allowed in the front yard >> and it wouldn't be allowed. >> Yep. Also, also imagine being in the right side of that house occupying you and you're in that dining room or whatever
that is and you look out and it's just >> that's what I feel. It's like what's what part of the house is looking at the side of the garage. >> It's hard to feel bad for somebody that's going to spend that kind of money for that house. They know what they're buying. They show up there. I feel really bad for the neighborhood. >> Yeah.
>> Drive's massive. This looks gay. It's >> It's very reminiscent of like a dense New Jersey neighborhood where they just try and jam everything in and the setbacks are thin and you get these disgusting Franken houses. >> Well, we can we can fix it. We just need to figure out how >> how it's uh it's interesting and
unfortunately like most of the houses that look terrible, it conformed. It never became trying to explain to people is always very difficult. So, I actually thought about how we there should be some kind of change because that house that we approved on
Hance um that was supposed to have the clay walls that they put down that is very garage forward and I wonder if there >> I've got so much negative feedback from people on that hole because it it ends up complying with the exception of that
side yard issue and it's you drive there and it is on top of the road or at least it feels like that >> because of I think because of the garage. >> I I think you're right. Yeah. >> So, is is there a way to word add an exit to the garage session?
>> So, I think the reason that hasn't been figured that way is because they tried to save the money on the foundation and candidly the board did a great job with the first application tonight uh basically calling them out. Um he was right about the cost of $60,000, but there's no way that it's going to cost
them less than 30 to modify that basement. The delta wasn't 60. It made it made absolutely no sense. It's it's it was a >> personally I think the >> I think the removal or the elimination of the generator was a purely monetary thing. It's like if it's going to cost me 60,
>> I'm not going to spend an extra 15 on a generator. let whoever buys that house, it's a spec house, you know, >> well, there's a Jenny there, but they didn't they didn't have a place to deal with it. Um, the other thing that's come up in my discussions with Joe is a 50% uh ordinance. So, there's an ordinance
that says that if you're replacing more than 50%, they treat it as new and they haven't historically, right? And so, across the street from me, there's a house where they preserved only one wall so that they didn't have to abide by the setback. That's the same situation although they got tripped for a variance
with regard to the one on hands. At the end of the day, I think we wind up getting ourselves in these positions because people are arguing about reusing and I think we need to be thoughtful. Um, you know, but what's the other one on is it on Oak? >> Yeah. Um, >> on the corner of Oak and Willow, >> the one that was here forever, three or
four times, right? They argued they were going to reuse the foundation. That was the whole problem. Well, when you drove by and they were doing the construction, that was literally all they saved. >> They were going to use the first floor and it didn't happen. >> Yes. They said they were the problem with that is it was entirely mowed down the house. >> What What do you do if that's the that's
the application and then it winds up not happening. They take it all the way down. They're not going to go back and we know the building department is going to stop it. >> Well, the solution from our end is to deny the request for the variance. Effectively, you're adding a problem on top of the problem. >> They're doing it because the these guys
strategically wanted to use more of the front yard and preserve more of the backyard. It was obvious. They don't have to put the porch on. That was another solution. But, you know, in the end they're trying to maximize the value of what their end product is, they shouldn't do that at the expense of the public. >> So, is that new that it's if you knock
down more than 50%. >> It's not new. It's it's in the ordinance and I don't think they have a clear understanding of how they want to enforce it. Um, but I think what's instructive for us is that if if that ordinance is there, and I know it's there for things outside of the state,
flood zones and stuff. I know that's tied in. If you replace more than 50, you got to start over. But from our perspective, asking us to accept something imperfect because they're trying to hold on to something of value. I mean, that that house, the first house today, that house is every bit of a
million dollars just to build. So $60,000, they're saving 30, that's 3% of their construction budget. Um, it isn't a reasonable ask. >> And look at what our 94 is being is going for. I think I think I think the challenge becomes right. They're in a onecar
garage and they're in and it's a threebedroom. Obviously I cued from the app because I know I know the applicant but it'll be a beautiful design like they've done other good work but much much there's some other people sugar in here but but listen a three-bedroom house
but but well nevertheless a three-bedroom house in a onecar garage is a tough thing and people want porch variant. I agree with the fact that it should have never been crowded that far of the other. I mean that just it doesn't look good with the streetscape foundation notwithstanding. I think the
challenge becomes too often people and they didn't argue the hardship of the foundation initially that wasn't a part of the initial argument but I think too often it becomes the cat you know tag w you know tail wagging the dog whatever you want to say where it becomes the easy argument for the well we've been
dealt this insane hand now we have to deal with it when you know in reality if it's new construction apps and I'm not talking about this application I'm talking about applications where they do this in general they argue this and some argue do it on hands. And I think the only reason that the construction got stopped on hands is because I'm so
explicit not to take down these walls and it did. If it was a little bit more abstract, they it would have gotten lost in the buyer. I put out that correct. >> But by the way, the second application, you know, that's a small addition to a pre-existing home. That's very different
from doing a full gut rena on an existing foundation. Um, you know, that's the million-dollar budget. Those are the people that don't need it. Um what we saw on the second application I think it treated differently. >> Well I think the second application they're also in that in that place because the house whatever addition they
did in whatever time it was was quite >> addition. Yeah. It was incredibly poorly engineered. Thought >> but the point is that the addition of 400 ft may cause you to grant some latitude that you wouldn't if you're doing a whole new house at 30. >> For sure. By the way, why did they cut it back to three bedrooms and 2700 ft? I
mean even with the one car garage that seems like a mistake out of spec. It's because of the because of the setbacks in the corner. >> How much 3200? >> But I don't think I don't think I don't think that that house was
properly designed initially. Oh, I knew what it is. It's 28% of the total lot size. They are pinned to the number. They would have gone floor because like the lot's only 9,800 ft. 9880 I think something like that. They need 12.
>> Yeah. If if you remember they were very thoughtful when they came in and they worked to reduce the variances before came in here and asked for it's just you know when the whole streetscape is here and the other house is here it's a very difficult thing to and especially on the corner it's incredibly visible >> that's why we did the
correct corner is the worst place for it to be >> they had a poor floor plan initially >> which we >> that they were dealing >> the second oh no >> oh for sure but that's a true hardship with that house being the way it is. Yes, they designed it poorly, but it's
it's a it's a it's on a it's like a bowling al lot, right? >> I I see completely different warranted. >> Yeah. And the trade-off with the detached garage is totally liable. They didn't really need very much, but that one made sense. But just to flag that,
right? So on a 10,000 foot lot in R10, right, you're capped at 28% on floor a ratio. the 3220 that you can put into an R10 only is something you can get to if you're in excess of the 10,000 square. >> So, so that's your number and it's
really important because the flurry ratio is the serious one that you know that's intending to show you that that's too much density. >> Yeah, >> I like the way it came. >> They're both going to be positive outcomes for >> Can I ask you guys your thoughts on the corner lots? I feel like it's a hardship
because >> penalty for sure. >> Yeah. So it would it ever happen that there would be any like um easement written into the law about I was considering that if your whatever street
your address is on that's the front um setback front yard setback of the followup and then for the other sideard that's a front yard. What if we did like the average between the front
yard minimum setback and the sideyard standard or inner >> instead of making it too so it allowed to allow that >> instead of two front yard so it's not up against the street like a tradition true sideyard but you have a little bit more >> I think there is there sight triangle
issues with that or there may be but it also may depend on the balance and the configuration of the block if you're going start if you're going to start playing with that. >> Well, you might get into the prevailing front. You might >> Well, that's that's the thing. So, say look at this house and you have Diane
Kennedy's houses next to it. So, then my side or my other front will be proud of that person's front yard. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's cuz that one's respecting the 25 ft and now you're going to be at 16 ft, let's say. >> So, you'd run into the same sort of issue just with your side of the house. Yeah. It's
>> unless it was at 140, I would never buy property. I I think corner because corner properties are traditional like oh it's corner lot right it's like over advertised like that >> no price >> I think so too >> but no privacy and you're pushed into the corner >> yeah and you get you get screwed on a
lot of other things you can't put a fence in your front yard and that's considered the front yard setback you can't put a fence there it's got to respect the >> I think it works if it's a bigger I think it works if it's a bigger property >> I would give them I would give them relief on on the back of the house rather than >> the front move the front that much
closer to the I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I >> I think what's happened historically is that we've increased the requirement for the corner lot to not be 10,000, but be 1150, 11,500. Um, but I think that we have largely um
adhered to the idea that you have two front yard setbacks. From a planning perspective, you want that house to make sense on both streets. I agree with you that it's a burden. I also agree with Skip that the latitude should be granted to the weird. Um, but I I don't know that I could imagine a uniform
application of reducing that and not winding up with things that you regret. >> A lot of the problem is that you've got undersized corners and wherever there shouldn't be an undersized lot, it should be undersized on the corner law, you know, but unfortunately you're stuck with with what what you got and the
streets were there before before they uh but I don't can't remember when they adopted these zoning laws. But this applicant tonight could have made an argument for 29 or 2950 in order to get the fourth bedroom in adhering to the setbacks because they actually made it all work. They have a very small
backyard and the plantings would have messed up the only area to build. But I think they could have made a strong argument for glory ratio variance. >> I think if they came in there came in with that and led with it, it probably would have got >> they chose they chose to prioritize the
the Porsche. I don't I don't um I don't question what they want to do. >> Bill sells homes and if we're back in the house supposed to be the three bedroom. >> No. >> Right. I thought it was odd. It's for you to spend money on, you know, bought the house, you tear down, you're constructing all new and it's only three
bedrooms. >> You're going to get off though with the one car. Well, well, the the point really is is that they could have adhered to every single setback, asked only for the deviation, so they didn't have to detach the onecar garage, and they could have had more square footage in the house. It would have
triggered the FAR, but otherwise, the setbacks were compliant. The house wouldn't even have to look any bigger. Just slightly extend the second floor. >> I'm I'm not asking people to ask for variances, but making the point that they had, I think, the opportunity to create a strong argument.
>> Strange things feel different over here. I mean I still have the designers on that side. That's the only >> Yeah, that was a change from that's a change from the existing. I actually prefer it to be on the on the Laurel side. It looks better. >> Yeah. So that is another thing by the way that we could talk about when we
talk about those works because I don't think we've ever um held somebody back from not having the appropriate amount of parking. And what we got was for a period anyway those extended driveways along the side just I don't think that needs to continue. >> I I I know that was one of the things on
my list. I know we talked about it at the first lang use committee that that that the whole parking thing is is ridiculous. >> I think River Oaks doesn't conform. I >> think anything that encourages people to not park on the street is a good >> but but I mean people have to come for
relief because oh I only have two parking spots instead of four. I know people have more cars, but I'd rather have people in the front yard, not near the front yard, but on the driveway rather than parking the street. Obviously, >> I don't think we've ever seen anybody come just for that. >> No, but it's always added. I know that when I uh put my sun room on, I was
going to do a bigger addition, which would have taken some of my garage space out and Nick flagged it as a var as as a variance. And I said >> and he was going to send you the board for that one. >> Well, it was one of the only ones that I would have had to go for. He said, "Oh, you're not going to have a problem with parking." I said, "Who cares?" So, I cut
it out and I never didn't wind up doing it. We only did half the project. >> You don't live in a neighborhood that there's a problem, but I'll tell you, particularly snow season, you go through some of these neighborhoods where >> the roads are parked out, you got >> even what we were talking about. Um, uh,
oh, it's right next to Ken's house, next to Rainy's >> between I actually sent an email to Rich McGovern about it, asking if there was to chief McGovern if there was a way if we ever thought of making that from River Road to Willow one way on Oak and
one way on Elm the other way because people park on >> Oh, it's bananas. >> It's terrible. And even out of when school is in in session, people park on no place because they don't have um enough parking in their lots. There's two houses there that you cannot get.
There's no driveway. Marty Monz have there's no drive. There's the the house is right on the sidewalk. Right. Well, then you get largely unindulged people trying to go down the >> Well, then both ways. >> It's terrible. >> I said, "Have we ever thought cuz Willow's one way in front of the school.
Why would you make it one way a oneway loop around?" >> See try to jam an escalade down the that >> should be there when it's one of them with the wagon ear going over people's box. Just so that I don't
problem you create if you do that is then everyone that's coming >> from the west side of town to drop their kids off at school is going to have to turn onto Oak Place instead of going down farther and turning
>> No, I'm just saying that you're shortening the loop. No, no, it was just a thought. public uh yeah public comment. Public comment nothing. >> Anybody else have any ideas? >> Yeah, sure.
>> So, this kind of came up the last session with the Laurel and I think I was talking about Skip and Hugh and um that we were saying how far he was trying to figure the porch, right? >> But then I asked you on the side I said
would you rather there was no porch and you said both said no. So, is there a way to incentivize um softening architecture so it's not so that he didn't decide, oh, I'll scrap the porch. I thought I'll maximize the square
footage, and like build it straight up and like, how can we incentivize that? >> That's been discussed. um a council member maybe 15 years ago actually adopted an ordinance which permitted a protrusion across the front in order to facilitate um porches, but by the time
it got adopted, it really didn't do much for a real porch. Um and actually wound up being misused because people were elevating their homes, dropping stairs in front of even that in our five zones and um you I could pick it by a few houses that are the result of that. Oh, >> is that the one on the corner of
Ferdinand Road and like Mark Carter or whatever it is? It's the two I'm thinking about are both on lake. Um but very very tall stairs going up to the >> Yeah. And it actually it's not so much it's not so much the height of the stairs. It's that when you lay stairs in on you know what have been a six foot
clear foundation you're almost to the sidewalk by the time you get your stairs to land. >> Um I think that the horde traditionally looks at porches a little differently than the house itself. Um, obviously the applicant could have just gone with a straight twotory colonial. That would have been an option. They didn't do
that. Um, and presented with that choice. You know, the board might have said, you know, we're kind of okay with it. But I think the problem is that, you know, if you were going to be permitting this house to be 10 foot proud of the ones on either side, it creates a problem even if it is a porch.
>> Yeah. >> Um, but anyway, we we have talked about it and I think the board applies a softer standard when it's a porch. Um, but I haven't seen anybody explain to me how we could incentivize it without becoming too loose. Yeah. To allow weird
things to be built. >> Right. >> All right. All right. If there's uh anything else motion to adjurnn I favor two applications