--------- This is a regular meeting of the fair zoning board of adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting has been pursuant given pursuant to the provisions of the last public meetings act. Time of the board reorganization of January of last year. The board adopted its regular meeting schedule for 2025 and January
2026. Notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury portal press January 31st 2025 and the two river times on January 23rd 2025. The notice was also posted on the bullet board of burough hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. A copy of this notice has
been is and has been made available to the public and is on file under office of burough clerk. Copy of notice has also been sent to members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given. The board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes 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 fairing zoning board adjustment board is separate and independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is specifically set forth in the burough ordinances and in the New Jersey municipal land use
law. It is quasi judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and counsel. The zoning board does not enact the bur land use laws and regulations. The council does that. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough of faven. This 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. Applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning limitations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal land use law and the
fair hit ordinances by satisfying certain required standards of proof. The board has no authority to wave these 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 relations will advance the purposes of the
ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to its own plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal solutions situations. Roll call please. >> Mr. >> here. >> Mrs. D'Angelo
>> here. >> Mr. Ryan >> here. >> Mr. Bang >> here. >> Dr. Ler >> here. >> Mrs. Newman >> here. >> Mr. Lab >> present. >> Mr. Shetti. >> Mr. Lever. So yes, has resigned to the board as
res. >> Okay, >> that's why >> that's it. Okay, we've got to do our reorganization and then we'll get to you. >> Um, those appointed and reappointed members folks who are asking for stand.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. 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.
You remain standing. Do your oath. The state your name to the appropriate place. You will say only board of member. You will say only board member. We'll say alternate line of the zone board at the end. Okay. I >> Frankson
>> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> in the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. I will bear true faith allegiance to the same faith faith against legion state in this state
>> and to the government established in the United States and in this state >> to the government establish the United States and this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> that I will faithfully and partially and justly perform the duties of >> and I will faithfully and partially perform duties of
>> zoning board member member one member >> according to the best of my ability >> soility Okay. If you will sign just above your name >> and I will confform the rest. You can pass those down and I will pass.
>> All right. >> Congratulations. You're welcome back, Drew. >> Thank you. As I said, >> okay. Um, now is a portion of the program where I normally nominate Todd to be chairman, but Mr. Leader, he's stepping down this year as chair. So we need somebody to be nominated to be
accompanied Peter and Chesy. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose any. >> Thank you. >> I will do my best to fill these shoes. Uh vice chairman. Obviously I'm not
going to be vice chair any longer. I will nominate Frank Forte to be vice chairman. Second. Favor. I >> thank you. Thank you for looking forward to you making a positive impact. Hopefully watch my
uh Okay. Appointments. This is your job. There you go. >> All right. Um the board secretary. >> All right. We'll do the appointment of the board secretary. I guess she know. >> Yes. Yes. Secretary.
>> I'm assuming it's not a roll call that sh >> you're fine. Roll call. Voice. >> I'll just voice. >> We move on to a roll call for you. Next. The appointment of the board attorney nominee uh Doug Kovett. Second.
I favor >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you for my appointment. I'll do my best. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh appointment of board of engineer nominate Jordan Rizzo.
CN second. Oh, sorry. Jackie second. >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh I don't know. Mike Sullivan is >> for the planner. Sorry. Uh uh CCH >> CC. >> First of all, all in favor for um CME
Associates. >> I I >> no opposition. And then the appointment of the board planner. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um the appointment of the board planner nominate CCH. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I opposition. >> Nope. Um the meeting dates for 2026. I had a chance to look through this, but I'm not sure if anyone else did. If anyone had any issues, Drew, did you happen to see these before? Yeah. In my calendar.
>> Okay. You're good with that? We went through these two months ago. >> Okay. >> All right. All in favor to adopt uh zoning board meeting dates. >> Somebody second. >> Second. >> All right.
>> Approval of the official newspapers. Not sure if I have the list >> as press stars. start and start. Okay. So, >> just so you know, we're going to be doing things also publishing on our website and folks visit the blog that's
coming out. We will alate those once the state of says we're going to have our site off. There will be postings also on our web. All right. May second from the approval of the newspapers. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> All right. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you everybody and welcome. Okay, on to new business. Uh Mr. Akens, so as you've probably been informed, due to accusals and illnesses, we are down to
four votive members. >> Four. Four. You need three to carry this. So I am It's up to you whether you want to proceed or how you want you. Next month I expect to have six. >> So um >> so we're ready chairman.
We are set but say it again. >> Oh, okay. So, I'm I'm sorry. I thought it was a jar of quorum, right? >> I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> So, if if not going to make it worse,
but you're prepared to proceed, but but so just for your Yes. You would need three yes votes tonight. >> Yes. So, chairman, board members, it's Mark Akins. Good evening. Happy New Year. Nice to see everyone. Um, thank you very much. Congratulations on your appointment. Um, wonderful. And, uh, for
your many years of service. >> Appreciate it. >> I think dates back to when I had darker hair. That may have been some time ago, too. But, uh, in in any event, um, what I respectfully request in situations like this is where we're, you know, significantly less than a full board is
they have the opportunity to, uh, at least gauge towards the end of the presentation where we stand. so that if I could request that it be carried so that I would have the benefit of if not a full vote then at least additional votes from the board to be considered um
I would ask that indulgence please. >> Sure. >> Absolutely. >> Terrific. Thank you so much. Grateful. >> Let's let's do this if we can. We spare all of you in charge. Anybody going to testify? Sure. Step forward please. really testifiable. If you think you're going to be testified, I'm not going to
call him, but you might as well get him sworn in sworn in matter. If you don't say anything, you don't have anything to worry about. >> Thank you. >> You still testimony what be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. I do. A usual admonition or advice. State your name before you start speaking, spelling your last name so we
have the recording. Follow direction with council. I'll be seated now. If I can agree marked marked the statement legal basis the land development checklist the zoning
board of adjustment application as A1 >> A1 as one >> uh A2 will be the architectural clock plan floor plan elevation sheets prepared by
and architects dated February sorry revised to December 18, 2025. That's A2 meeting the plot plan prepared by Ian Lberry and Associates revised to December 17, 2025.
A4 will be the survey prepared by George Anderson LLC. uh dated is that 11725 cover sorry A5 will be the zoning permit
of June 11 2025 A6 will be color photographs of the subject to adjacent properties. Um then we will also have ZB1 the CME letter of signature of George Lizo dated uh
10 2325. Um, ZV1, Z2 will be sued for 30 years of January 6, 2026. Um, and I'm going to mark as a
7th of December 17th, 2025. A letter from me and Warbury Associates responsive from Buril Engineers 10.3.5 report for the signature Warbury with attachments their soil test
submissions. >> What was that that number? Sorry, >> that's A7. >> A7. Um, do you have any other exhibits? >> Can we mark them as we go? >> We can mark them as we go. Your next one is going to be A8 for you. We will reference. >> Yes. Thank you,
>> Mr. Viza. Do you have any waiverss that the applicant received that we addressed initially? >> Yes, please. I had two that I flagged in the checklist. The first one is the um a draft of the notice to the the residents. Um and as I understand that's
since been submitted for review and it's is accepted. Um so I take no exception with that. And then the second one is the freehold sedd application which I expect will be required. Um, so I would just ask in testimony that that be discussed and should it be required that
they do that as a condition. >> Correct. >> All right. Um, I do want to note just for purposes of of this proceeding, we did take jurisdiction of this matter. Uh, back in December, uh, an issue was
raised concerning the notice. Um there was an issue as to one matter during the review period that not had not been specifically addressed in the notice having reviewed the notice finding what I would carry I it's inappropriate to
really designate as a cash law but it is specifically designed for a situation where we don't anticipate all of the variances are required uh Mr. is being being very good at what he does put in that language of and or any other
variances and or waiverss that may be found during the course of these proceedings or words to that effect. Having done that, I find that the notice remains adequate uh to adequately fully informed about what we're doing here this evening. Um I think that covers all
the procedural things that I want to address and we'll leave the floor over. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Kovats. Again, ladies and gentlemen, Mark Aikens on behalf of the applicant. Um, ladies and gentlemen, this application involves an existing uh single family one-story
ranch at the corner of uh Kemp and Laurel here in the burrow. It's situated on undersized lot of approximately 9,865 ft where 11,500 ft² is required in the R10B zone. Uh the lot is not surprising
non-conforming as to frontage both on Kemp and Laurel at slightly less than 95 ft where 115 ft is required. Uh the residence currently is also um non-conforming as to the set back to camp the front yard setback to camp at
25.5 ft. Now what's significant is the existing foundation of that resident establishes the setback for the new building. The testimony you'll hear this evening is that we are preserving and reusing the existing foundation of that single family ranch in connection with
the pro proposed 2 and 1 half story new residence. So that generates a lot of the metrics that we're talking about. A new covered porch, covered front porch is proposed at a 17.5 foot setback from Kemp, which is something that we believe
when you view it will you'll deem it appropriate relative not only to this particular property, but the properties and homes in the neighborhood as a whole. Um, around the corner from Kemp uh on the Laurel side of the property, there's a proposed new single bay garage
set back at 25.5 ft where 26 ft is required. Again, you'll hear testimony from our engineer and planner as to that rationale. The key theme that you'll hear this evening is that the applicant is reusing the existing foundation. Um, you'll hear testimony specifically from
our architect anticipating many of your concerns, as I hope I have, that is this foundation suitable and appropriate to be reused. And the answer you'll hear from the architect's testimony, not just my say so, is that yes, it is. And that's significant because nobody wants
to get into a situation where we base this entire presentation on re reutilizing the existing foundation and we find out for whatever reason it can't be utilized. Right? That's nobody wants that. We don't want that and this board certainly doesn't want that. So we will
show you as a result of the testimony and the exhibits that the result will be a very aesthetically pleasing proposed new 2 and a half story residence for this property again utilizing the existing foundation. So, with that, um, I'd like to call our engineer, uh,
Elizabeth Waterberry, have her sworn or she's been sworn, have her qualified, and just give a little background to the board as to what exists on the property presently. Um, and, um, some some very fundamental um, engineering, site engineering.
>> Good evening, everyone. >> Okay. >> Would you place your credentials on the record? >> Sure. Elizabeth Waterberry. I'm president of EM Waterberry and Associates situated on Prospect Avenue in Little Silver. I am I've testified before this board. I testify before
boards from Mawa down to exit two on the turnpike out to Park uh Princeton. And here I'm the West Long Branch and the city of Long Branch Zoning Board Engineer. Um a professor at NJIT, an adjunct professor. I am also uh an
instructor at Ruckers where I change where I um train the zoning officers and the board secretaries and part of their courses for their certifications for the whole state. >> Thank you. Anybody have any issues with credentials? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. Uh, Miss Warterberry, having established your credentials as a licensed engineer and you're also a licensed planner, can you review with the board the location of the applicant's uh, existing residence and talk a little bit about what's proposed? >> Yes. And I have a couple of handouts for
you probably for talk existing by starting out with the uh, aerials that would show I have extra definitely extra copies because I wasn't sure how many would be here tonight. >> Terrific. So if we can have them >> A8 would be an aerial of the
neighborhood as a whole. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, here's No, those were large. Here are the two. Thanks. >> Uh the the the uh the large scale is A8.
The zoom in is A9. >> You want to mark this at the same time? Uh yes, that would be great. We're on A10. >> Then uh A10 is a foundation exhibit where I've tried to show you know the existing foundation road. Can I describe
Oh, I have it on the show. >> I can I have it available. >> Sure. >> Yep. So we can talk about the existing uh versus the proposed and what portions of the foundation are remaining. Oh. Uh,
>> okay. Why don't we start with um A8, which is the small scale of the neighborhood. >> Yes. I was just making sure they all had it because they were still handing >> Thank you. >> handing out. >> Okay. So what you have before you is you have one exhibit which is the large
scale aerial area A9. These aerials were taken from the Mammoth County GIS or 2023 uh aerials from near map. Uh they show that they were done in May of 2023. It's
a leaf on so you can see the leaves that are on the trees. Uh D a lot of times you can see difference. deep. He tries to do them a leaf off so they can see violations. But this shows the existing conditions of the property. I was out there today. The pictures that you have in your file
and I have some others if we need them show that we have the footprint of the existing house uh and which has a driveway that comes in off of Kemp Avenue to a onecar garage right near the corner of Laurel and Kemp. And you can
see where the red car is situated is in front of the extension of the house. That's just a onecar garage. So that portion of the house uh has a um lesser support to it than obviously the main part that has like a basement etc to it.
Uh and so with that you can see um the location of the house. We have a house opposite us on camp Avenue that I just wanted to on Laurel Avenue that I wanted to draw your attention to. and that one in particular because our drive will now come off Delural which is now a
secondary street. So that you can see that we'd be uh not quite opposite their drive but doing the same type of arrangement. Uh on the A8, right? Did I get that right? >> You did. >> A8 is the surrounding area aerial. And
that for the most part I have pictures of some of the houses in the neighborhood and I just wanted you to get a sense of how this particular lot uh lies. uh along Kemp Avenue and within the neighborhood. I will offer to you that on our side of the street, right on
the western side of Kemp Avenue, that is the R10B zone. When you go to the eastern side of Kemp Avenue, it's the R10A zone, which is very similar with just some minor differences. Um I the
lots that are along Kemp Avenue uh with the exception of a couple are mainly all the interior lots are 100 by 100 lots. Ours kind of come out to that but are limited in their frontage because of the curve at the intersection of Laurel and
Kemp. The zone permits interior lots to be 100 foot in depth, 100 foot in width and 10,000 square ft. The corner lots however are required to be 11,500 with 115 uh dimensioned 115 rather than 100. So
in that regard we are lesser than the interior lots because if you were to square it off and not have a little rounded area at Laurel and Kemp, we would probably be the 100 by 100. But because that comes out of it, you know, we're at we're under the 100 as Mr.
Akens had indicated at like 9865ish. So, um, we are non-conforming in our size. We're nonconforming in our frontage. All because we're mainly because we're a corner lot and these lots were probably put into place prior
to um um maybe the ordinance was uh enacted. However, I will offer to you that one of the things that had happened in one of the other master plans was there was a recognition that there are many areas where the uh lots that exist
maybe don't aren't quite in keeping with the layout the layout of existing lots. The lots are required in the zoning ordinance are not quite in keeping with the lots that exist. This is uh and that ordinate the national master plan acknowledged that and you can see here
that this is one of those cases. The other exhibit that I provided to you uh I have up on the board which is sheet one. Was that marked into evidence or was it just because it was submitted >> a uh it's part of A1? >> Part of A1. So sheet one you have and
that is basically just the existing conditions which just replicates in a you know line form what you have on the aerials that I provided to you. What we had proposed was the uh construction of the two and a
half story house with a garage a onecar garage that comes in off of Laurel Drive with a double wide drive. Uh we one of the exhibits that I provided was at 810 >> 810. So A10 uh was an exhibit and it's easier to see actually on the exhibit
that you have because it tinted better than I'm here was one that is called a foundation exhibit and it's if you look at the one that was handed to you that's going to be much clearer where there's a solid red line that's existing
foundation that's being reutilized that our proposed dwelling for the most part is over top of that area. You can see in the back of the home, the home widens out slightly. So in that area, we are creating a new foundation. The areas
that are in orange are the locations of the new foundation. Most of those relate to the garage and then just that back wall of the house. The green relates to the supports for the uh porch, the wraparound porch. You can see that the
wraparound porch on the uh common property line at our side yard uh with lot two. So I'm pointing to that area that common property line with lot two that the foundation of the existing
house is being utilized for the porch on that side the outer side of the porch. So actually our location of the dwelling in on that side is actually inset from what it exists today. In the front we
have the dwelling itself is set back at 25 1/2 ft. Uh the existing has a set back of 21.9 to the railings that are on the uh front uh landing and that was noted in your engineer's report. We have
our house being set back at the same spot, the main part of the house, and the architect will review that uh more that's being set back at that point. To put anything on the front of the house that has a roof to it uh requires a
variance. Um because the existing house is at the 25, we were required by Mr. Rizzo and by your ordinance to provide the prevailing setback for it goes a couple of houses over because I think it's 200 ft and these lots are 100 ft
wide so they only go a couple houses down and along uh Kemp Avenue it was at uh 26.1 >> 1 ft >> right >> so the existing house at 25.5 although your zoning schedule says that the
setback would be 25 ft the existing house was at 25 and a half. We're maintaining that for the dwelling, but to put anything in front of it then, you know, creates uh exasperates that particular variance for it would be for
the open porch. And the architect's going to speak about that design more. So you'll see on the frontage along Laurel Avenue that you there is a dashed part of that foundation that's shown as um being removed uh in this uh kind of
goes around the words covered porch in that location. That part to be removed is the existing garage. So the main part of the house is actually the back of that covered porch. We have uh that foundation being used and just a little bump on that first
floor, the rectangle that's by just below the letter H um with the solid is the location of the existing chimney that will remain in the proposed condition last. And then we have, you know, the
three sides of the porch. Uh, and then the porch in the back that has its new supports, which are certainly less um less impactful or less uh required than it would be for the uh basement and foundation for the house, which is the
red. >> And again, there's no basement underneath that covered porch, right? >> No basement under the covered porch. There is an existing basement in the house, >> right? We do propose where the house bumps out uh to just extend the basement
to the end of that. Not going any deeper, but just there's so the part that has the red all where the existing footprint was has a basement under it right now. That basement's not out of the ground. That basement's
>> Let's Yeah, just for the record, let's call a seller. >> Seller. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. So, you're going to send the seller to the rear. >> Yes. To the new foundation line in the back. It is a seller. It barely comes out of the ground. And um the architect can speak more to the height of that. Um
we're not looking to it's not, you know, these days everybody wants a 9 foot and or 10 foot cellar below the house. Uh we do not have that. We're not looking for that. We're not overdigging. Uh I will note that it says in Mr. Rizzo's letter
which is right in the ordinance that any new uh seller or excavation would have to be 2 ft above the seasonal high water. Uh we have indicated uh that we will be doing uh soil boring. Should we get approval, we would do soil boring,
we need to do it for whatever drywalls are being installed to recharge roof water. And at that same time, we would also confirm the location for any extension of that basement. But it does, it says that's only required for new basements. If there's some issue with
that, then the old basement, I believe, is allowed to remain. So, we have our uh house that's proposed with the wraparound porch. As I noted, there's an existing basement below on the I guess that's like the southeast
corner, right? On that southeast side, we do have where we propose stairs down to the seller area. Thank you. Sorry. Stairs down to the seller area. So they are shown. All of that is outside of the required setback. So the porch, the
dwelling itself is now at an existing condition sits at 11.6 ft off of that property line. In the proposed condition, the house itself will be 16.8 ft off. So, we've moved the house further from the neighbors and the porch
edge of it would be at uh basically um at 12.1. So, slightly more than what exists right now for the full house. And again, the porch being an open porch with a roof around it, no railing. That can be confirmed by the architect. So,
that it's not a, you know, a solid wall or something that would be >> You are replacing though whether it's moving that back. You're replacing that with the air conditioning and the generator though which currently sit to the rear of the house. I live around the farm. So >> right now they I don't believe they have a generator. They do have an air conditioner.
>> There's a generator. It's uh it's to the rear of the house on the Laurel. So >> So one of the issues that we have is that with this bumping back and then with the garage being on that side currently the garage is on the side of the house and comes out to camp. So,
they've been placed on that side um in order to connect easily to the basement area and because everything's been pushed back. >> I'm just pointing out that you're you're replacing. You said we're improving, but you're not improving because you are replacing that. >> I'm improving with the structure and
obviously the generator and the AC units are within there. That's one of the variances that I was getting to. Thank you very much. And they're certainly much smaller. They do have their own impact of their own nature, but they're much smaller than the whole side of the side of the structure.
>> Does your Does your u second floor go over the new porch? >> No. And the architect will review that again with you. and he has an example of a home that's very similar to what we are proposing that would show plus he has
the uh exhibit you know the elevations provided in his plans. So I'm I'm looking at Mr. Bower saying if I representing correctly he's to kick me. So, we have our house, we have our
garage, we show a onecar garage with a double driveway on the side. Relief is required um because the ordin So, the relief from your ordinance, but not from the residential site improvement standards.
The ordinance requires that you have your parking behind the front setback line. Um, one thing that happened after we had done the original plans and submitted was we received the prevailing, you know, we had gotten
confirmed the prevailing setbacks. Now, in this instance on Laurel, there's one house, you know, that's on the opposite corner. Um, and so that setback is at 26. We have the garage at 25 and a half.
Um the rest of the house, the uh porch itself is at 29 12 and the structure is at 37 and a2. So we have this one uh section that because the garage is attached. Uh it would need to meet that prevailing. We meet what's in the bulk,
but we don't meet the prevailing um at the where 26 is required. We're at 25 and a half. >> Mr. Do we have any issues with parking on this? You know, I'm I'm a champion against this whole parking that happens. So, what do we need? Three uh two spaces for three bedrooms. >> Yes. And I was just about to review
that. >> Yeah, that is one of the it's a design waiver. >> So, the residential site improvement standards are the ones that govern over the state the town requirements. I have copies of a copy of them with me if you
wish to see it. For a three, this is a three-bedroom home. And I want to just back up just for a second. Uh, a three-bedroom home does require two parking spaces per reus. A onecar garage and a driveway that's at least 18 ft long counts as two parking spaces. So,
per Reesus, we meet that. We do have a double wide driveway. So, it does allow. If we try to put a a twocar garage here, we would be within the rear setback and over on our coverage. >> Um, when we started, one of the comments that was in Mr. Rizo's letter related to
that what we submitted right now doesn't appear to match the denial that the older denial that was in the application because at that time we had requested uh F variance and uh >> it talked about using the existing house or some portion of the existing house
putting an addition above it. >> Yeah. And I think that we had at that point the house was uh that they're looking at they were looking at developing it more like in keeping with what um uh it seems to be very desirable
in the net in the in the market and that was a four-bedroom house and um that exceeded the F and had additional variances associated with it. So the difference is is when we submitted that we saw that information and responded to
it. So we are down from the four bedrooms not that you saw four bedrooms but the zoning officer for s four bedrooms and an F variance and that was revised uh including the area over the garage and whatnot so that we conform with that as to what counts and what
doesn't count. So I might I might I might pause here. Pardon the interruption. Just just to say that effectively what the board is seeing today is the result of many months of refined plans which I think is better than coming in to you revising the plan coming in another night coming in
another night coming in another night. So we've worked with the zoning officer to try to achieve that rather than the board. In the process we've met some of the key metrics, right? We've met lot coverage, we met building coverage. We have not exceeded the maximum building
uh area. Uh we habitable area. We also are you know meeting the F. So we've met those four essential metrics here under the burough's ordinances. I apologize for the interruption. >> No, can you take a step back really quick back to the parking? Um I agree you comply with RSIS, but um the
burrow's ordinance has like a location requirement for parking. >> Yes, I I I agree with that. Okay. And I have some of what I have for you and some of what we can see on the aerials and some of the pictures that I have is that the location of we have one space
that's located in front of within the front yard setback. Um there it's not uncommon for there to be driveways along the frontages, you know, and cars in them along your frontages both on Kemp and in the area. We have relocated where a corner lot. If this was not a corner
lot with our setback that we have on the northern side, we could have brought a driveway down that side, had uh uh you know, rotated the garage, had maybe a detached garage even and would have had it, you know, back and out of it. With
it being a corner lot, we're have two frontages plus we're a smaller lot uh than the ordinance requires for a corner lot. We're about 20 ft short, right, on lot width and lot frontage on both sides. >> Correct. >> About the depth of a space, >> which would which would allow that to
occur. So, um we've looked to put the driveway on Laurel Drive uh so that the main street has the appearance that would be uh desirable. Um, one of the I have pictures of some of the houses in the neighborhood that I was going to
pass out if we needed to that show that the house opposite on Laurel, you know, has a side. It's the side of the house there. There's a a garage there. There's a driveway that comes in. We're kind of mimicking that to some degree. Um, except that we are proposing we had we
have a more open view on our lot. And so we have looked to wrap that porch around so that you don't just have a flat side on all frontages that you have some relief that occurs on all of the frontages uh to help to break that up.
So yes, there is a setback requirement to be off of the uh to be off of the out of the front yard setback. Now, if I were to take the drive the garage that's here and shift it back so that I could achieve that, you can see that the
garage right now is located um half a foot shy of your prevailing front yard setback. So, if you put another space in front of that and then the garage, you can see you've eliminated the rear yard of the
>> No, I appreciate that. I I personally I don't think the whole the uh the parking thing is not realistic in this day and age. I there isn't a there isn't a house in that neighborhood that conforms. So the two ranches the ranches around the corner don't so is what it is.
>> Well, there you go. You covered uh some of my testimony and a bunch of pictures. >> Well, I appreciate your your the efforts made and and as far as this front set prevailing front step setback goes, it's close enough for to the house next to it. >> Right. So the house itself is conforming
what we're just talking about. So the variances that we have relate to as we just spoke about the parking because we don't meet the town's uh requirement. We have the air conditioning and the generator on the sideyard that are required to be at the 10 ft. The
generator has to be further from the the building than the AC does. Uh you know because it's required to have a certain setback to windows and doors and things like that. Um, so that's 6 and 1/2 ft off of the property line where 10 ft's required. The AC units are 8.1 ft off
the property line. We do look to have uh dual zone so that it would be two smaller AC units rather than one large AC unit. Um, and they are 8.1 where 10 ft would be required. >> How wide is your porch? >> So the uh it varies as you go around and
I believe the author can confirm that even better for you. I think it's only about three and a half to the post on that side. >> But can I reserve that for when he when he testifies? >> That way you don't have to guess to it. >> In the front I can say from the the back of it to the very front of it, it's 8t
because we're asking for a 7 and 1/2t I mean a 17 1/2t set back to the porch in the front. So that that I know is 8 ft because doing the math you go that's what you get. I'm going to ask how far the uh the width of the porch and I'm
going to ask uh what if you were to remove that porch and move the move the uh utilities in >> on the side. >> On the side. >> Yeah. So, so if we were to limit that here and I believe >> on the east side
>> on the east the east side of uh >> you mean the south side I think south >> a lot too. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. The common sideyard. Is that correct? Yeah. >> Where I locate them now. So, I believe that uh the architect will be able to
address to address that because it would relate to the architectural aspect of that porch. Uh certainly if portions some or all of that porch was not there, they could move it in. We do still have the stairwell that goes down and we would like to still have that covered um
just for usability and to keep rain water from going as much as possible down into that area. But that's something that I would defer to the architect as an engineer on walls out. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And then the last thing I just want to
talk about was the drainage. >> Yes, please. So, in the existing condition, we have um and you have a grading plan. I'm just going to uh describe it for you. In the existing conditions, obviously, we have a house that has roof leaders that drain that drain into the rear. They're not
controlled. Um we have uh drainage that kind of goes in both directions around us. The front seems seems to go kind of toward the streets. Um it's fairly flat uh in there. We do have uh some beds and and improvements that are back. There's some decorative walls and things like
that, you know, that that were for beautifification and not necessarily to channelize anything. Some of those things help to block the water. What we're looking to do is in the current condition, I was showing taking all the roof water that went to a yard and to
put it in. We're needing lot coverage. I shown them going into the dry wells. I had discussion with your engineer today. He noted that the board uh uh with a new house and we're kind of like a new old house because we're using the old foundation um prefers to have all the
water go in. One thing I just wanted to have you think about um you know because I have to deal with this in my own communities when I sit on Mr. Rizzo's chair and that is is that um we have a balance that we try to achieve and that
is you know the flow going across obviously to the street and into the drain system but then whatever you put in through the ground has opportunity to impact people's basement and so we try to balance the impact to the the not just us but the neighboring properties
because the more I put in the more mounding on that whatever groundwater's there has opportunity to impact you know the surroundings. So, um, with that reason, that's why I had taken any water that would have gone to a neighboring property and left the ones that would have gone to the street. Uh, that still
would be a reduction from what exists. Um, but I leave that up to the board. Whatever the board's pleasure is, like I said, we just try to balance the extra water in the ground that can impact, you know, the surrounding basement, especially when the lots are small. >> So, again, your testimony is you defer
to the recommendation of Mr. Rizzo and the board's determination with regard to the installation of a second drainage structure in the front yard. >> Correct. Or much larger one in the rear. But we are >> either way. Yeah. >> Uh should we be approved, which I
hopefully I'll speak uh in a positive way from the apathy side. Uh if when approved, we would do the soil borings speak with Mr. Rizzo uh prior to so that they're done in the location of where any dry wells are proposed to be done
and confirm permeability as well as seasonal hardware. >> Anybody have questions, Miss Bor? >> This property has curbs um around all around, right? And also it looks like
that's a storm water drain right outside of the right driveway, but that that won't be there, right? That drive. >> Uh I'm moving the driveway for a couple of re Well, number one to so that we think it's less impactful visually.
Plus, um with it right there at the driveway, I at the it has opportunity if cars are parked in there to block your vision, you know, coming around that curve. So, we're looking to bring it around. That driveway won't be there.
There is an uh storm inlet right there in the front. Um, so that anything that did come off of ours onto the streets goes to that storm inlet and has a very short distance. >> Will the will the water coming off that new proposed driveway take the same
path? >> So, Laurel looked as if they graded down toward that inlet as well from that where our drive is. >> Sorry. So, it goes from the driveway towards Kemp. Um, >> yeah, I can confirm that now. It does. >> Yeah. Say again.
>> I'm looking at the the uh topography now in the street of of Laurel. Yeah. >> And the driveway uh drains from the west to the east towards that storm inlay. >> So, the proposed driveway would would drain towards that that existing storm. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Yeah. If I may really quick, I just want to comment on this the storm water. Um, from my point of view, it is a new house, right? Foundation's existing, but the house is new. The impervious coverage and building coverage, while they comply,
um, lot coverage is going from 24% to 40 almost 43%. And then building coverage is going from 15 and a half% to 28 and a half percent. So, a little bit less than a double on those. Um the yard is relatively flat. Um if it all had a
great pitch towards the front, I'd say it's a little bit different, but I think there's potential for some low areas or a little bit of runoff towards adjacent properties. Um that's just the natural grade of it. Um typically with a new house, we would recommend full infiltration from other roof areas. So
they have about maybe a third or quarter to a third currently going to the back that's been designed already. Um that was the applicant's choice to do that. Um my recommendation would be to take the remainder and then you can put in the front most likely as well. So you can have two dry wells. But um I I would
certainly recommend that all but be captured and put into the considerable there's considerable paper space in the back now >> or in the proposal. Um >> um other than that I still have a few questions um at this time. >> Can I just comment one thing?
>> Yeah. So uh I was having discussion with my with my client concerning if we have end up having to split the drywall or not split the driveway. I don't know what the permeability of the soil is going to be. So it could be that one could take care of it and
but in splitting it we have new utilities that all have to come in. You have to have setbacks between between the water, the sewer and any storm water. So we have two frontages. We try to work it between the two. But I just wanted to share that there is a little more complexity in the front yards
because of those utilities and the electric has to come in. The electric's probably going to come from the corner of Oak and Laurel and come up up to us. So that's coming up that side. The other ones are probably coming in from PE. So we have some of our front yards restricted with utilities.
And then while you mention utilities, I have a comment here that there's an ordinance section. It talks about um existing streets um bringing in new electric and it wants it to be underground. >> Um is that something you can comply with? >> Uh we know that it has to come in
underground. I had spoken to Mr. Rizzo. I'm assuming that we're going to be of course JCPNL doesn't talk to you till you have approved, you know, to be able to confirm it with them. We would like to take it off of the one at Oak Laurel because obviously I don't have to cross the street with that. I don't know if
they're going to uh which is better coming in underground from there or you know trenching under there or if they want to take some of it overhead and then bring it underground into our lot. But in any instance, we know our service into the lot has to be underground and then we can coordinate with Mr. Rizzo as
to how that would be achieved >> and that might be achieved after resolution compliance with his approval. So you would agree to comply with any of the burough's road open permit requirements? >> Yes, we would have to. Yes. >> Um the flag pole in the front, does that
proposed to be removed in Tarta? >> That's going. Yeah. So I show that bed being removed and I I noticed that I didn't specifically say and flag pole. So I will add that lateration. >> Um are you aware of any trees that are
specifically coming out for this? >> None. none greater than a 10 in caliber to our knowledge. >> Okay. And if and if there are, you >> we would stipulate to comply. >> We have to get a tree removal permit. >> Thank you. Um there's a question about curbs, but there's currently no sidewalk in front of either Laurel or Chem,
>> right? >> Um there's an ordinance that talks about riding a sidewalk for payment and lube. It's not really something this board gets involved with other than just a reminder that if the burough engineer requires it, um >> we got to do one or the other. We either got to do the payment or we have to so
that we would coordinate with them as to what the desire is and bring that to a conclusion. So you'd have it for >> you can contact engineer on your schedule whether be a requirement. >> And then the last thing I quickly talked about STD at the beginning um to anticipate needing to get that and and you will.
>> Oh yes. Yes, we do exceed and he's talking about the free old soil conservation district and we do exceed the threshold. So we will be required to obtain uh certification from them and we provide that before we achieve compliance. >> And Miss Waterberry, no no trouble
stipulating to Mr. Rizzo's comments 6A through 6E with regard to his ZB2 exhibit January 6 letter. >> Correct. >> And then I'm sorry I have one more thing. Either you or the architect. Can you speak to the fences that are both existing and what you're proposing? So,
I had spoken to my client about that and you know, I know at this time I show that we're taking it basically from the building to the existing fences that surround the property. Um, and I think right now that's what our proposal is. Now, I can't say that when someone else goes to buy the house that they're not
going to want to change that and at that point they'd have to get their fence permit. In any instance, we would conform in that we're not going to put anything higher than what we're not proposing any in the front and we wouldn't be higher than what's permitted in the others. >> Can you can you seek any relief with that now?
>> No, no relief is >> no relief. No. So, I think for the plan with an approval, could you just note where the fence is to be removed? Except the portion of it will be removed. >> Just a small amount that would extend past where we connect. >> Okay. >> If you can show that in the plan. >> Sure. on your plan on E2 you have fence
on both sides that's existing at home >> there's existing fence that's kind of surrounds our >> back part and so we were looking at just taking a fence from the garage to connect to it and then from the proposed house on that side uh to connect to it
and um but we will definitely show that and anything forward to that we would re remove fet curious bigger k >> and then just curious um the prevailing setback is 26 feet. So Laurel, right,
>> you're six inches shy of that. Did you you look at I'm not going to like fur again, but did you look at what that six inches would be if you were to apply? >> So I'm going to defer that to the architect since I don't want to mess with his design. >> They're going to stay in my lane.
>> I'm also appreciating. Great. Thank you. Any more questions for Thank you very much, chairman. I'd like to just bring her back for the varian's testimony after we've got the architect's testimony established. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Burn. >> Sure. >> Clean my stuff out of the way. The
questions. >> Okay. Applicant now calls John Brower, licensed and registered architect in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes. Licensed in the state of New Jersey since June of 1998. I'm the principal partner in the firm of Dugas and Brower Architects for the past 27 almost 28
years. Um I have given testimony in front of this board about five years ago I believe it was during co um and I was accepted as a expert witness at that point and I am the architect for the applicant >> problem. Okay Mr. Brower your show.
>> Okay so I'll just walk you through the existing house. The existing house is just a one-story nondescript ranch style home. Uh three bedrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, single bathroom. It does have an attached garage on the Laurel uh drive side of the home. Um and
just to clarify, there is a seller uh but there's only a partial seller. Half of the foundation is seller, the other half is crawl space. Um all of that is planning to remain. Um some of it will be affected by the new work, but um what's there now is planning on being uh utilized.
And as you can see on the elevations, um just matching the point. Now you're referring to I'll be referring to the floor plan sheet A2 the first floor plan and sheet A3 the second floor plan of the proposed new residence >> proposed new
start proposing to construct a two and a half story home uh mainly on the existing foundation uh the the new area behind the existing house would be on new foundation which would be that additional seller space uh for providing access to the new stair to the outside
as well as a new stair from within the house uh to m to access the first floor. Um let's see one through there. So the first floor is going to contain a large living room, an office and a large eating kitchen with a dining room table,
a mud room with a powder room and a onecar attached garage. Access to that garage will be from the door at the rear yard. There's no direct connection to that garage from within the house. There's a door at the rear um of the garage structure and a wraparound porch is proposed at three sides of the house
along with a shallow covered porch at the rear for access to the PA patio. That's for first floor. Second floor contains a master bedroom suite with a walk-in closet and a master bath. Two additional bedrooms, a hall bathroom and a laundry room. and an outdoor terrace
is proposed over a portion of the garage with reach. We decided to do a portion so that way the front area of the garage would still maintain the peak appearance in the front. It wouldn't just be a flat roof that you would see from the street. So the visuals on that would would be
more appealing. And there is an attic that will be used for storage only and it's going to be access from the second floor. And I believe um maybe that's a is that considered a hash that that attic. >> Yes. Go. So there's no habitable space
proposed for that. That's the floor plan. With respect to the elevations, we refer to sheets A4 and A5. Be careful. What sheet A4 is the drawing that shows the
front elevations on both Kemp Avenue and Laurel Drive. Obviously, the home is located on a corner lot. So, we have two front-facing elevations. Uh the existing Kemp a Kemp Avenue elevation and the new Laurel Drive elevation which the owners will use for general use and when they have
visitors parking in the driveway. So the thought on that was that um dovetailing with what Elizabeth was talking about, the existing garage is very close to the intersection of Laurel and Camp. So whenever you pull out of that driveway, it's very close to intersecting traffic.
So the thought was the existing house really has no presence on Laurel Drive at all. So having this corner lot, we thought it would be prudent to relocate the garage to the secondary street so that way traffic becomes less of an issue. keep the parking on that side as
well. And then also we'd be able to dress up both of those elevations. So that way as you're coming down Camp Avenue, you'd be able to see sort of both of these elevations at the same time rather than just staring at the side of a garage structure that we do now. Let's see.
Uh we feel the wraparound porch is a nice way to connect the various entries in the home under a single roof. The wraparound porch is also a great way to provide a smaller scale element on the elevations to break up the massing. So that way when you're looking at a house in general, this if this element was
removed, you're basically just staring at two twotory walls. Um so the that wraparound porch scales things down, gives you a little covered at your at your entryways. Plus, it gives you those nice outdoor spaces. Uh that became very popular during COVID and we're actually seeing a resurgence on these outdoor
spaces. For years, everybody was enclosing their porches and now everybody wants to have their porches back because they want to be outside and uh be able to see their neighbors and have conversations. Um we also feel that these wraparound porches add a lot of
curb appeal to the homes as well. Um, with respect to the materials and the colors, the finishes for the home are anticipated to be in the vein of like a raw or weathered cedar shake with white trim at the doors and windows and all the quartz details. And then the owners
are looking to keep within that that Hampton's beach house palette of materials and colors. U, we do have renderings that we can submit that are sort of in the vein of what they're thinking about. These are conceptual in nature. We'd mark them A1. So that would
be the color one or the bulk color but the >> and A12 A12 is not our house but it is it is a sample of something that's very similar in terms of the type of uh porch that we're dealing with finishes look
style so we have extra copies of that we can pass around >> A1 is the house >> A1 is the Avenue >> A12 is an example of colors and uh materials, but not this house.
Not this house specifically, I should say. >> Brower, you got seven columns across the front. And what size are those columns? >> Those would just be 6x6 columns that are probably 7 in columns, you know, finished. With respect to the seller, the
foundation, I visually inspected the existing foundation walls about a month ago in preparation for the hearing. Uh the walls are in exceptional in exceptional condition with no apparent settling or cracking uh both in the cellar as well as in the crawl space. The foundation of home is unusual in
that there is currently no sill plate um which is unusual. There's no apparently any anchor bolts either securing the home to the foundation. I don't know how that happened, but that's the way it was built. Um, so this will be corrected as we plan to take the existing house down
to the top of those foundation walls, install the seal plate with the anchor bolts, and then install the new floor framing on top of that. Uh, this dimensional change has already been accounted for in the updated drawings that were submitted with respect to the established average grade and the overall height of the home. So that's
already been already factored in with that update that we submitted on December 18th. Can you speak to the first floor elevation >> elevation in terms of the uh compliance with our ordinance of FFT no greater than 30 in it's going to be how many steps are you looking at coming in off grade?
>> Uh you have essentially the from grade to the >> step is just one step. >> I I have that calculation if you want to tell me. >> No, I was just curious but I I know it's low. >> Maybe it's less than a foot. >> I mean essentially your average grade is 10 inches to the finished first floor and the porch is in between there. So
you're only >> very good. So there's not going to be any grading change. You're not going to be >> there's no we have no anticipated changing to the grading that and also um that brings in the fact that we also don't need any handrails or anything around this thing. So we're not sort of walling off any or corelling any porches
here. Everything open platform. >> There are no stairs that would approach 5 yard set. >> No. So you're essentially the edge of your the edge of your porch is your step to the grave at that point and that's where the the setback was taken to. >> Yeah. On the laural side as well.
>> Yes. >> So Doug talking about those porches. >> I refer back to sheet A2. the court's floor plan. We're proposing to develop a front porch along Camp Avenue that's 8 ft deep off the face of the house along
the left side which was I think the southern side adjacent to lot 2. That porch will be 4'8 wide. And then on Laurel there's a little undulation in the wall but at the at the part of this point it's also 8 ft. So that way you have a square corner coming around coming around the two intersecting
streets. So essentially you have an 8ft 8ft and a 4T 8 along the three sides. The back porch is a 4 foot deep. This is straight just a 4ft deep covering to provide rain cover over the dining room doors and and the rear building. So let's talk about the question that's
been on my mind since I've seen this. Now obviously it's new construction um setting down. >> Was any thought giving to let's put it where it should be because the the prevailing front yard setback is there for a reason. You've got two houses with
no landscaping in between them or roughly very little. There's no trees in between them and you're going to be 8 foot proud of both of those as well as the conforming house that's across uh Laurel that's on the opposite corner, >> right? Um, was there any consideration
to and you're using? Yes. Portion of a small old 75 year old foundation to just doing a proper job and putting new foundation in and moving it back 7 ft and and conforming all across. I understand that everybody wants to have
the 8ft covered front porch, but you are considerably proud of the houses that are existing on that block and I worried that it's going to make a serious visual impact. It looks great. I love that. Love it. And the fact that it's at grade makes it even better, but um I do am
concerned with the adjacent adjacent properties being overwhelmed by it. Not so much obviously on the on the Laurel side. No, we don't that's that worked out great in your favor. >> Right. >> But on the Camp Avenue side, it's I think it's going to be visually very out of out of sync with the neighbor. >> Well, we were lucky on the on the Laurel
Avenue side or Laurel Drive side to your point because when we got rid of the garage, that gave us the space to do the to do the porch. Uh we're also okay along the left side the adjacent to lot too that porch is actually conforming right um it does create issues I guess
with the utilities or the the generator and the AC >> but from a structural standpoint it there's no issues with that >> um considerable patio I think you know obviously the garage is there but things can be worked with this was there any consideration to the visual impact to that that street I mean it's going to be
considerable I I live around the corner I walk my dog today and it's and I was good friends with the previous owner who passed away and it's going to be it's going to look very >> out there >> when we put that >> prevailing front yard set back into the master plan several years ago was
specifically for this reason to keep it hold the line at what was there with new construction >> whether you're using a portion of a very old foundation I still consider it construction >> right and and obviously there's no I'll say practical point for the porch in that sense it's it's not building area
and since you're not living in it, you know, in that sense. >> Well, is there consideration to using a new foundation and just saying we're gonna just using three sides? >> There's always consideration for it. The only thing is that foundations are very expensive these days and they've gotten considerably more expensive over the last 5 years uh ever since co um a
foundation if you were going to rip this out and do this entirely entire new foundation could run you anywhere from $60,000. So the thought was >> in this today's market I'm probably >> I guess 33 for this house 32 somewhere around there on the market. So it's it's
not a big just my opinion on uh conforming as opposed to non-conforming. So you could get your big front porch and and not make such a big impact. >> Well obviously if obviously if we picked if we picked up this design and we slid it back say 8 ft to conform that would all impact say potentially the backyard.
The garage would definitely be in the backyard. You got plenty of room there. You got a considerable patio. Um, >> right. >> If the whole thing is shifted that the garage is >> the garage will then become a rear yard. >> No, I understand. I understand that. I'm just I'm not I'm not saying this. >> Yeah, I got you.
>> Just saying what was the what was the thought process and the design? It's very easy to say, oh, I can I can use this whole bit of foundation to all of the line and then build on top of it and use that as you know, it's creating your own hardship really. But right, my opinion. Also, Dr. Clever. I think I got some points on the on the
>> Yeah. I I'm assuming that that the steps there are steps inside the house to the seller. >> Existing. Yes. Or newer. The newer existing. >> The the newer. >> The newer. Yes. >> Okay. Um I'm troubled by the fact that you have
as you as you face the house from Kemp, >> the left side of the house, which I think is is east, maybe it's south. South. I think is what we were talking. Yes. >> Um I'm troubled by the fact that the the utilities encroach on the front door set
or on the on the side of said that. >> What if you were to remove the porch on that side? You you have a possibility of potentially getting the AC units to be fine. The only issue that comes up is potentially the generator because there's going to be certain clearances
that are required for the generator. Um, so that regardless of the porch may still not have an impact on that. >> But you're reciting that generator around the point. The existing generator on the house is is on the uh north side of the property, >> right? on the on the
>> Yeah, it's the back of >> I am troubled by the fact that that you've got basically new construction here >> and that you're encroaching your generator and your uh air conditioners within that sideyard setback. And I I
think that he should be able to resolve that. And I think the way to resolve that is to remove the porch on that side. >> Okay. especially because you do have on all four sides currently. And is there any opinion on what it would do to the aesthetics or would you consider
>> Well, I mean, obviously that's the sort of the the one side that pretty much nobody's going to really potentially see on a regular basis. >> I mean, can we I guess we look at the elevations. >> It looks like there's one door going out to it from the office, right? >> Yeah. Sure. So on on the on that side of
the house, we have one door that leads out of the office to the covered porch, but that that porch also provides cover for the basement stair. So potentially you could leave a covering over that stair need if you know if if necessary
to give you a little rain cover, snow cover over that. >> Well, that's why I asked you if there was if there was access to the basement >> within the house. >> Yes. And if there is, then maybe you don't need those stairs. >> But can we take a look at the the the
front elevation just to get an idea of what it would look like without that? >> Did you have any incentives? Not really. No. >> You're talking about is where we sweep the corner. Right. >> I understand that aesthetically it looks
better, but at the expense of moving utilities closer to the neighbor, I I I agree with Delta Health that I would say it's putting it in in in a new construction, especially just to gain the utility of that. Nice to have access to the basement outside.
>> Love to have it, but at the expense of asking for a variance, I think it's tough. That's our >> Yeah, it's true. I wasn't suggesting one way or another. I just wanted to no >> I don't think aesthetically it takes that much off and I think there's plenty of other spaces. I mean as far as and I
understand the problem sighting a generator with road to windows and that sort of thing >> but there are it's not like you're going to have to reroute because you're digging up the whole thing anyhow. So running gas you know to a proper but I know where the where the gas goes in now. So there possibly could be somewhere else on the
property beside that generator. >> Okay. Any more Mr. BR. >> No, that's my presentation. Any questions? Mr. B, the board, >> can you just quickly discuss the the garage to Is that dimension set or is there any
>> Oh, that's right. >> Yeah. Well, once we found out what that prevailing front yard, I guess we have no problem eliminating that 6 in. Uh we we can pull that wall on 6 in and won't affect the look of the house at all. >> So, we'll eliminate that variance. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. What percentage? So the the
the proper was to comply and pull it back another half foot to meet the 26 ft setback on uh Laurel that would eliminate that barrier. Mr. Coz, >> we didn't have that information available when when we when we did the submitt, but now that we have that information, it's only a 6 in
difference. So it has there's no impact on the on the garage at all visually. >> Any questions? Sure does. Chairman, might we have five minutes to confer uh based on the comments received so far? >> Take five recess.
>> Thank you very much. >> I think so. There's no there's nothing >> centered on 25ations. >> Yeah, that's great. I mean case if they get rid of the stat
that we just move. >> What's that? >> Oh, yeah. supposed to be every sorry she Part: 2
Please >> Mrs. Dangelo. >> Yes. >> Dr. Ler >> here. >> Mrs. Hman >> here. >> That's it. >> Mr. Thank you, Chairman. Board members, we appreciate the opportunity to have a short recess. So, I would like to just
maybe make sure my notes are clear as to the board's comments so far. So, as I'm as I'm hearing the primary one, it's that the front of the porch should comply with the prevailing front yard setbacks. It's it's it was my concern
that in new construction, given that the how should I say the modest percentage that a new foundation would give in the construction, I think the the the every effort should be made to compl. That's just my take. >> Yeah. >> Awesome. I'm not saying you have to do this, but that that is my opinion. Now,
I know it compromises the rear yard. Could be space there, could not be spaced there, but that's something that, you know, was was why was this not considered and would you try to comply with that? >> That's on the front. The other uh thing obviously we brought up was the sideyard
that that that with the utilities, >> the AC units and the generator. >> Let's be honest. I mean, the house is very it's modest. It's a threebedroom, 2,800 ft. It's it's great. It's not something egregious. Um I do appreciate the low nature of the front porch.
Obviously, I'm not saying I I prefer that to no porch. Obviously, it's it's Yeah, but um with new construction, I always think that that compliance is is always the goal. >> Um
yeah, continue. Um, so yeah, I just so I had the uh front yard set back uh the AC units and the generator. the what I'll call the left side or the um southside uh covered porch we didn't necessarily have a
problem with >> were the accessories because of the southside >> right but if the utility if those utilities were relocated >> to a compliant >> to a compliant location then that's something that
>> well yeah there's I don't think there's a there's no setback issue with from the porch to that side is correct Okay. >> Correct. Right. So if the porch were reconfigured or stairs were reconfigured or something was done away with then that might be one one solution >> and move the AC move the utilities in
you could I mean obviously if the porch conforms um and the AC and the generator could be sighted somewhere else on the property that would be ideal and you have the porch with the coverage there and no uh intrusion onto that sideyard setback.
>> Right. And we had stipulated that we would make the um on Laurel we'd pull the we'd pull the garage elevation back half a foot so that um that complied and eliminated that variance. Good. >> Okay. Um
so I I think with those revisions we'd certainly want to see what the impact is on the on the rear yard and I think from the board's perspective you need to know specifically what any impact would be on a newly created. So, if we're eliminating potentially any front yard
variance by by sliding everything back, if you will, or or finding some shallower depth or whatever the combination is to the extent that there's a new rear yard variance that's created for that portion of the garage. I think that's something that, you know, that the board would want to see
graphically, I think we'd want to see it graphed on it, too. from from from my perspective. >> I'd like to see both of the I really would like to see what it would look like because obviously it wasn't a consideration now, but I would like to see what it would look like >> and I I I fully anticipated that chairman. Right. So So that doesn't surprise me at all. I I'd also like to
be able to consider that in the context and present to the board that that even if the placement of that garage created a new rear yard variance, that might be a better planning alternative than having a detached garage that's then 5T cuz I think that's the setback. five
feet from the rear yard rear we're aligned. So So again, it we all try to design without variances, but maybe that's the maybe a slight variance for the garage and the rear yard setback >> is better than having a detached garage that otherwise fully conforms,
>> but yet is is this is this secondary structure that nobody really intends. I don't think you intended >> and we don't intend it. So, you know, with that, um, >> I'm not a detached garage fan. So, >> so noted. Okay. Um, could you ask, uh,
Mr. Angel had a question about the >> I was just curious about the center dormer on top. Is it is that for visual interest that it's either off? I can't tell. Maybe it's not offcentered. Is it Are you working around that chimney or is it just And also, is it Why does it
stick up a little bit higher? Oh, are you talking about the the roof structure itself? >> Yes. Yes. There's no there's no use in the you know that you get we give you the University Mr. Leader School. So we always get you know we give you the
adequate space stand by by right under >> if you wanted a fixed staircase you could take credit or you'd get free floor area essentially. >> But the height limit what's the height limit in the >> it's it's 7 feet or less for onethird. No, same for the overall height for the for the structure. 32, right? So, we're
at 32. So, there's no more >> No, no, no. We're talking about in >> being able to use this >> interior space in the >> access up to it to use up to a third of it. >> If you used the if you put a fixed staircase in, you could use a third of the attic space free. It doesn't count towards >> I don't think we would have the height and actually in order to do that in the
attic space for that reason. But, >> yeah. >> So, the question there is what is that kind of bump up? The bump up is when you look on the uh Laurel Drive elevation there, the width of the house is at two different dimensions. So you see this two peaks on the on the Laurel Drive.
>> This higher peak that you see in the back is actually this peak here. >> So it's just a function of the width of the house at that point. >> Okay. >> From this element, >> right, >> on the Laurel Avenue facade >> because it's it's not just one facade. It's it's it's two elements, if you
will. >> I see. the house widens out at that point. So, the roof naturally gets taller at that point. >> So, that's where you get that weird little >> Yeah, it does. It looks a little odd from the >> little jump. >> And what's the height of that peak? >> Height of that peak is at 31 foot 10 in
off the average grade. So, the rest of the roof is lower. >> Yeah, you're a foot lower, I guess. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. We never sought to make height an issue here. >> Yeah. >> So, Oh, sorry. And to your point about the dormer, the dormer in the front is
really just an aesthetic thing to kind of just fill in take your eye away from that little high spot, you know, and give you a little something attractive on the on the front. >> The dormer looks centered. It was just that roof part that >> Yeah, it's just a weird off center. >> It's just a weird you don't have any height in the attic to use the usual
space in the attic. >> Well, once you get the collet ties in the in the attic, you're you're probably going to have a attic that's like this, you know, it's not or, you know, say about four or five feet out. So functionally it's it'll be a good storage attic. >> Okay. Yeah. Visually it just looks taller than that. That's I'm curious.
>> Yeah. Because if you look at where this floor line is, these windows are only about a foot off that floor. So it's kind of a visual >> Yeah. We're tricking the eye on the uh on the front functionally on the inside. It's really just for natural light and and appearance.
So uh so with that chair and board members would ask that the matter be carried to the board's next meeting uh with the opportunity to present uh revised plan that open to public just in case. >> Sure. >> Anyone in the public have any questions of the applicant professionals?
>> Not yet. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Miss >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the application. >> Okay. Um so I know we have two in February. Who do we have for February shield? >> Uh February 12th.
>> Was Hagerty on that? >> Right. Rainey is supposed to come back. They have to boost event plans. >> They told me they're gone. >> Um and Fedoro >> Hagerty have withdrawn. Chairman >> Hagerty with Lesie. >> Um somebody else.
>> Oh, >> I did because I'm trying to think of who we have. >> Okay. Um >> so we have list. >> Yeah. Okay. I think we can I think we can accommodate February. >> We haven't gotten plans from rainy yet. >> Not yet. >> Okay. Then we can accommodate.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Make a motion to to wave wave carry the uh carol to the February 12th meeting without postponing notice. >> Thank you. Wave time. >> Wave time notice. I'll provide Miss
Olsson with a customary letter extending time for decision. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Dr. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you. >> Okay. Um everyone I I appreciate it. Happy New
Year for participating with us. You know, we appreciate it. Good evening. >> Good evening. So let's do minutes now and then just approval of minutes and will I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion approved for
January with the uh December minutes as submitted. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Let's discuss the hard road very quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Um >> I have some handouts for reference. I was trying to recall I had to go. >> Yeah, I looked at the back. There was the thing with the back. >> We got sidetrack.
And this this gave rise to the question about about the dead space. That's okay. >> So, this application was approved um February of 2025. It's 100 Harvard. It's a very small addition in the back. It's
about 60 square ft. Y >> but as you just heard, um I think we should probably spend more time talking about the pool and the patio in the back, right? >> Yeah. >> Um >> so long story short, um as part of the
approval, they agreed to put drywall, which most people do, and then since then, since the hearing, um as part of the resolution compliance, they submitted the plan, which I just sent to you, minus the color, so the black and white version of this showing the dry well and the roof litters that they're going to collect. um
yesterday, the day before, um the now they're in construction and they've realized that there actually is a dry well and it's really close to where they proposed it. That's what's shown in red here. And then they also added these red dots along the sides of the house showing which roof leaders they believe and would have to be verified, but they
believe go to that existing drywall. Um you'll see there's more roof leaders existing that go to the drywall than they actually proposed. So that sounds like a benefit. Um, the reason I bring it up to you, and I'm trying to get some some feedback, see if anyone has any strong opinions, is the um, the project
was proposing a zero increase in impervious coverage, so net zero, but they were over on impervious coverage by 3 and a half%. And a very small increase in building coverage, but they're compliant. So, uh, so with this
application, um, the dry well was probably or potentially intended to be a net benefit for storm water purposes. Um, the good news is one exists, but with that, I don't know that that, you know, perceived benefit for storm
water is actually in play here if one is existing and they're not providing anything new from current conditions. Um >> have they given you data on the existing drywall genome capacity? >> I don't it it can be verified to some
degree. >> I mean to the extent that it would be what you would have decide for this >> I I think I think it's that and a little more >> a little more. >> Yeah. >> Oh and it's functioning properly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean my take on it is yes. And I think uh correct me if I'm wrong, Jordan, that they
>> during the meeting they said that they would remove important burgers coverage if we needed to or >> and that's the second thing I gave you. Sorry. So that's conditioner or note eight in the resolution. I just printed the one page. Second line of number eight says that been agreed to the drywall or to removal of lot coverage.
Um I don't think they ever intended to do the lot coverage removal, but it was put in there and for reference that is 394 square feet. So it's it's pretty significant for them to do that. >> I mean my take on it is we wanted them
to put a drywall in thinking there was no drywall. The fact that there is a drywall now I think covers that. I don't think they have to remove the 400 ft of burn is an existing condition and and and to put a second drywall is is constant. So so that's my take. It
shouldn't >> I'm in agreement. If anyone feels that they voted yes because they thought they were getting additional storm water than was there today, then I just want to give you the opportunity. >> Well, I think it's silly actually have additional thought. >> That's what it sounds like.
>> Well, no, because there is a there's an impervious coverage condition. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Right. So, >> right. But I think it was and I >> but nothing changed from that. Right. >> Put the drywall in >> or >> or remove the coverage. There wasn't dry well there. Right. So, but it wasn't
going to be both. >> Yeah. >> And I think I I think not only the rest, but I think the minutes are clear on that. It was you have an option and to the extent now that they've found with drywall articulated correctly. You think it has a greater capacity than what we
probably than what you probably could have designed to address simply the addition. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So theoretically there still some some bleed over because it's it's greater than the size of what we're removing. It's 394. So maybe it's the
equivalent of should make up a number half of that. We don't know. But >> but we said put one in. They have one in. I think we just need to memorialize it so 10 years from now when somebody looks at again that they'll they'll say okay they comply. That's sort of >> I think that's I agree with that. M may mass that you authorize me to give you
like a one-page resolution addressing eight to and attach this to the existing resolution without requiring them to appear to allow Jordan then to say yes >> you're done done I give you your compliance on file >> I think this is the type thing that helps improve
>> yeah I mean they're in construction now so I think they want some level of comfort I think >> I'll go with that >> okay I mean for your partner attorney Mr. Still Mr. I don't want to I don't want to increase any cost. >> I don't think he's involved in that.
>> No, I mean if if they needed something today because the resolution obviously isn't going to be done. >> Yeah. >> Or I can I can I can prepare a letter to this effect too and we can you know take care of that. >> I guess that's the question. Does it have to be in a legal fashion to
>> I'd want to create the appropriate paper trail. >> Okay. >> So that so that no one's you know what I'm saying? No. But we not just cover this with resolution with a resolution compliance. We're saying yes, they comply with >> I mean that's already been issued at this point. That's all done. >> So does that cover us though? I mean,
you know, I want to only in light of the New Jersey new, you know, 400 ft code that we put in a couple of months ago. I'm just wondering if a letter from you would be sufficient. >> You're authorized. You would give him authorization to do that from the letter
for compliance. Do you issue letter compliance based upon recently discovered recently discovered such such regarding point A resolution >> attach this >> no further >> attach that >> what we require I'm good >> even better >> yeah let's do that >> better >> good guess
>> any oppose done >> thank you thank you Jordan appreciate it >> um that's it for us open the public the public have any questions tonight >> thank you any more anybody Where's your
motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> All favor. I thank you every first meeting of the year. Thank you. Good meeting. >> We'll be busier next month.