This is a regular meeting of the Fington Zoning Board of Adjust. Adequate notice of the meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings. At the time of the board reorganization in January this year, the board adopted its regular meeting scheduled for the year. Notice the schedule was sent to and published in the park press on January 31st, 2025 and
the two times on January 23rd, 2025. That notice was also posted on the bulletin board in Burough Hall and has remain continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file at the office of world claim. Copy of the notice has also been sent to the members of the public
as I've addressed such information in the port of the statute. Adequate notice having been given board secretary is direct to include the statement in minutes of the meeting. >> Mr. >> Sorry. Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I'd like to say a few
words to the applicants or experts in the audience about the role and authority to board of adjustment. The board is a separate independent mun municipal legal entity and it's limited authority and specifically set forth and bur ordinances for the New Jersey municipal land use law. It quasi judicial nature and the members of the
board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and council. Zoning board does not enact the burough land use laws and regulations council that the zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough fair haven. is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer. This
board deals with appeals for relief and will arm against the bureau zing laws or denials by the zoning officer. An applicant is never entitled to a variance. It's also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal landings law and the fairing ordinance by satisfying
certain required standards of proof. 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 specifically if 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 veterans
position in the plan. Varian is related to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or any personal situations. Roll call, please. >> Mr. >> Here, Mr. Ryan >> here. >> Mr. Forte here. >> Dr. Longer here. Mrs. Newman here. Mr.
Canella. Mr. >> Here, Mr. Le here. Okay. 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, liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. First matter is the Chevy matter. >> Yes, >> I do. Visual instruction. Please state your name. We're pointing to our testifying. Spell your last name. Your
permission council. I'd like to mark two exhibits. Like to mark the application and the checklist as one exhibit as A1. The architecture site plan from the port plan elevations August 6, 2025 on revised is A2.
Boundary and traffic survey insight survey dating January 6, 2023. Unreise. A3 firm denial dated August 25.25. A4 list variances undated. A5 statement
of legal basis for granting variances sought undated. A6 uh A7 are age covered images of the subject uh dwelling of adjacent properties undated. Uh ZB1 will be the CME report for the signature of
Jordan Rizzo prepared 105 2025. Do you have any other exhibits that you want to board? >> Um, I don't think so at this point. >> Okay. Your next one will be A7. I'm sorry, A8. A8. You have another exhibit.
>> Okay. Okay. I think I missed one then, but okay. Um, >> we'll figure it out. >> Okay. >> Real quick here. May I just run through the checklist? Thanks. Um, so you'll hear it from the testimony that this is a front porch, so
there's a little bit more than unusual, but there's a completed application checklist. Um, I printed it and completed myself, so that's not an issue. Uh, complete floor plans for existing and proposed. Again, this is a a front porch, so um, so long as there's no change to the floor area, I don't
take exception to that. Elevations of all sides of the structures, um, the front, partial left and partial right side were provided. So the rear wasn't divided because the front fork is is to in the front. Um calculation of the
floor area. Um so long as there's no net change, I don't take exception to that. Location and type of attic access. Again, so so long as there's no change, I don't take exception. And then a key map with the 200 foot boundary showing um which which is okay. You
>> recommended those waiverss be granted? >> Yes, I do. Okay. Okay. Any questions about those? >> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Rossky. On behalf of the applicants, Peter, Melissa, Mczznney. Application. The application before you
this evening pertains to the property located at 107 Park Lane. Uh it's a single family uh uh residential home about 75 years old, I believe. Um the uh
the the long and short of the application is a proposed front porch uh to rep uh designed to replace an existing small overhang in the front. Uh uh in connection with that application
um the applicant need seeks variance approval uh for front yard setback uh in as much as the approximate 7T by 23 foot front porch is set back um
19 ft from the property line in the front uh where approximately 22 exists and 25 ft is required in the zone. Um that's the only new variance associated with the application from setback. There
are a couple of um I would say dimminimous existing nonconformities. Not sure how but um the the rear yard setback of the home is been measured to be on this survey 29.9 ft or 30 is
required. and side setback on a shed is 9.9 ft where 10 feet are required. Both uh unrelated and unaffected by the application could be a surveying error could be a surveying
inconsistency. But in in any event, number one, dimminimus and number two unaffected by the application for this front yard porch. Um before I turn it over to um Mr. Shai if the architect I just wanted
to point out that with respect to the front uh setback that's proposed uh and I know it it it doesn't alleviate the necessity of the of of the uh uh requested variance. There is actually
about a 9 ft distance between uh uh the front the front property line and the curb uh within the rightway. So to the eye, um even though uh the front porch is set back and only the front porch is
set back 19 feet from the property line, there's another 9 ft or so to the curb line. So aesthetically um it's certainly much closer to that 30 foot uh required setback than um uh than the 19 feet
proposed put suggest. Um there are uh so the front porch if you will that exists today is about 46 square ft very small not really usable as a front porch more of a covering and as I said the 7 foot
by 23 foot um proposed front porch about60 square ft um 161 square ft is what's proposed as part of the application. Um there was a there was uh some discussion
as to perhaps you know for typically 8 ft would be or 8ft depth would be the typical uh fully functional front porch um depth or width that would be proposed. But the thought process behind
having it at 7 feet was twofold. Um, one was to not disturb the existing walkway uh on the property. And secondly, and probably more importantly, there's a nice big birch tree there that would uh come into play if it went to 8 ft, which
is why it was uh designed at 7 feet. No issues with building coverage, no issues with lot coverage, no change, no changes to the F. Um, and I think that is it. Having said that, unless the board has
any questions, what I'd like to do is uh ask the uh project arch architect, Mr. Shayas, who's been sworn in, to just walk the board through the plan. >> Mr. Rask, I just want to make sure I understand the numbers. So, I'm looking at the zone table and the report
>> and obviously focusing on the fund setback. Yeah. >> What I see here >> is a plus or minus 22 ft is the existing condition. >> Yes. >> And 25 foot is the requirement. >> Correct. >> The survey seems to show to the left
front corner of the house 26 ft. Is the house there is not a second measurement. So I assume the house is square to the property line. Is that right? >> I believe that's correct. Yes. >> So it's 26 all across. >> Yes. >> And so the front porch is showing right now the front scoop 21.2 2. Is that what
it is? To the front of the concrete. >> That's correct. >> So, Mr. Chair, my plus or minus 22 would be to either the the covered porch or the first sorry, face the second stair, >> which is how I which is how I would measure it.
>> Oh, okay. >> Well, what's the 21.2 on the survey measured? >> That looks like it's the face of the first stair. So, that's why mine plus or minus is a little bit larger. >> I see. out there. >> Okay. And and the proposal, just just
let me complete this. So So the proposal effectively is to put the front porch to protrude 7 ft from the front of the house from the 26. So you wind up at 19. And that's a real number. That's not a plus or minus number, right? >> That's correct. >> And with regard to how it shows on the
survey, effectively the porch would be inside of the existing walkway and extend horizontally across the front. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So on the So that the lot line ends here and then there's there's some
depth of space between here and the concrete curb >> about 9 ft. >> Yeah, you have to define here for council. >> Yeah, >> I think I know what he's talking about. >> Property line. >> That's right. So are you are you saying it would that would appear to someone
that doesn't know that that it it's a little bit deeper than it is because they they're unaware that it ends >> That's exactly right. That's exactly right. and and and we're unaware of any plans to widen uh the the park lane. >> Perfect. So, Mr. Rosski, when uh including the steps, how much closer to
the street is the proposed as opposed to the existing? >> Um, so let me have Al answer that to give you an exact number because I don't want to miss. >> Do you want me to uh do the name and everything or >> Yeah, I'd like you to spell your last name.
>> He was born. >> Yeah. Yep. So, Al Shaias, uh, last name SHI SSA, registered architect and landscape architect, state of New Jersey. >> Have you lost any certifications since your last uh acknowledgement?
>> No. >> Yes. Good job. >> Questions or comments? >> Good. Okay. >> Okay. Al, uh, first, if you could answer before you start, answer Dr. Wilder's question with regard to how much closer to the front property line let's say
>> y >> is the new porch going to be uh as opposed to existing. >> So right now to measure to the front step as Mr. Rizzo pointed out I think the measurement he had in his report is to the second step to the front step it's 4'8 in and a half existing we are
going to be to the front of the porch which also lines up with an inset uh step has 7 ft. So the difference would be uh 2T 3 and 1/2 in. So call it 2.3 2.3 ft closure. >> Yeah, that's if the protrusion is 2.3 ft
forward of where the forward step is currently and then extended either direction. >> That's also effectively the exacerbation that >> where you got left to right and then you got to fill again. >> So one of the one of the steps is inset into the porch.
>> Correct. That was done um primarily in this case actually because of the walkway. We're intruding just a little bit in the walkway width. Um but yeah, we didn't want to bump out further into that walkway. We didn't want to repave, but primarily there's also a tree that would be affected by that. >> So,
>> so we're talking about a little over two feet and then of course the width of the face of the >> 23 feet or whatever it is. Yeah. That net of whatever is covered. >> Yeah. The covered entry right now is 9 and a half ft wide. The proposed covered porch should be just shy of 23. >> Okay. It's 14 ft and then two is the
cage. >> I would bring the board's attention in Mr. Rizzo's report. If you can see through the Halloween decorations, you'll see the bird street and on the earlier page, you can see the proximity of the Birch Street to the walkway. And so all the construction being on the inside of that walkway, you know, that
tree is going to be pretty good distance from the uh the construction. >> Yes, it is. >> Yeah. So, so you mentioned that the second foot is designed because of partial because of tree >> tree and the walkway. Yeah. >> So, so 8 foot would be a concern, but
one foot less at 7 ft. >> Yeah. Um, yeah, I think seven's comfortable in this case. Uh, I wouldn't go less than that, but also because it's close to grade or probably it's less than a foot and a half out of grade, so we don't need a guard rail. So, it's not like when the homeowners um, you know,
are sitting there, they're looking at a rail. So, I think seven seven's plenty good. Um, but I I think that's comfortable. >> Okay, if we can just walk the board through. Um, we kind of hit some of it, but just >> um we know what's existing there now. Y
>> the small covered porch, I guess, if you would, or covering front door, covered entry. Yeah. >> And then what's proposed as part of the application? >> Yeah. So currently I don't have an existing elevation but if you have photos you can see right now it's it's it's a ranch structure. There's a
covered entry and then in the vicinity pretty similar to actually how we designed it. There is a kind of a gable decorative feature on the roof. We're proposing something similar. It's not the exact same location but this main gable you see up top that's actually going to the gable end wall will align
with the existing front facade. And then what we're going to do is have we're proposing to have a hip roof come out to actually cover the uh porch to create the covered porch portion and then also a small gable centered over the uh front door with equidistant uh narrow columns
on each side. Um and then overall the porch is positioned uh roughly equal on the main house if you take off the uh kind of side entry and garage. But uh this volume it's roughly centered. Part of the reason to do that is it it did feel more balanced. It's not going to
interfere with the tree that we mentioned. There's also a bunch of gas utilities there. And I think most importantly, this window on the right side is a living room and it would darken that. So that's how we came up with the location of the porch. >> Are there any other architectural changes planned for the facade of the
house? >> No, I don't I don't think we're proposing to do anything else. They are going to be redoing the roof. Uh I pro maybe siding. I don't think we're proposing to move any windows around, but nothing at least additionally, that's for sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> What's the total width of the porch? >> Uh, just shy of 23. >> So, it assumes the existing stoop. Does it project to the right or does it just hold the line on the stoop and then project entirely in left? >> Mostly on the left. It comes in maybe 6 in from the right just a little bit. You
can kind of see there's a dash line right there. Um, but basically it holds the right side and works its way left. >> And are you stepping up into the house off the porch or are you able to do the grade? >> Uh, I think I got it like four or six inches. >> Step.
>> Yeah, little sill. Yep. So, it'll be Yeah, just two risers down to the step and then no guardrail needed or anything like that. >> Have you looked at other houses on the street to see what their front yard setbacks are? >> Yeah, they are. They are. that the main
house itself is roughly comparable. We don't have those numbers surveyed. This home which would project beyond that, but the other houses, they're newer homes. They're twostory homes. Uh they kind of go in and out a little bit. Roughly, they're all equal with the main house. Uh so this porch would project
beyond that. Uh I I don't see this being a significant projection or intrusion. Uh it is one of probably the few ranches left on the street. I don't think it's going to feel out of character or out of scale. Um, but the other homes do seem to be, you know, roughly at the the
setback of the existing home. >> Does the right of way relative to the lot line exist on the other side of the street as well where it has that same feel? >> I I mean, it feels generally equal. I I don't have that information. >> So, I'm gonna ask the I think I'm gonna
ask the same question again, but I just want to make sure that I heard the answer correctly. Do we know the measurements of the front yard setbacks up the the house to the right and then I know the on the left there's a corner. Do we have any sense of what those are? I'm interested in whether or not if you look down the side whether this is going
to be in line or whether this is going to project forward at that. >> So we we did bring another exhibit for for this. Uh it's just an aerial. So if we could submit that. We didn't know if this was going to be something the board was interested >> to a general street would depict general
streets. >> This is just off what's there now. I don't know how often it is. It looks pretty pretty concurrent with what's actually built when that was taken. >> That's a Google shot. >> Yeah, it's a Google shot. It's probably
within the last couple years. >> Uh what I'm looking at here, it seems to show the new homes on the side of the street. Uh this is this is park along here. This is a subject property. Again, one-story ranch. Uh a lot of the other houses have been, you know, either torn down or
rebuilt and kind of more in the style that's more typical of the neighborhood. So you can see here, this is the front facade of the property. And you can kind of see if you go down the way, I'd say they're roughly equal. Looks like some project a
little further, a little backed in, but I don't think in my opinion doing a one-story open porch like this, I don't think is going to uh have any negative impact. >> So, I know the houses to the right as we're looking at it, both of those houses are remodel entirely new. This is
all within the same zone, right? This is our 10, >> I believe. So, >> kind. And so, I safe to assume that those houses are holding the setback line. Our house is actually set back a foot and so the net result is going to be we're going to be a full seven feet in front
of the ones on the right. >> I I would roughly agree with that. >> And what do we know about the one on the corner? >> Corner property looks it's hard to say exactly where this >> Well, we have a gap. It's technically 10B. Thank you. >> 10B.
>> So they would have had >> and that's the rear of that house. The corner faces um >> well it's second front basin park, right? So they would have had two front yard setbacks. That's also a brand in the house. >> Yeah. >> So, unless you tell me otherwise, I think I'm going to assume they're holding 25 as well.
>> I think that's pretty fair. >> That's right. >> Pretty consistent. >> Well, didn't come here, right? >> Yeah. >> I don't remember. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. >> So, of course, this is driven by the existing location obviously of the
existing home. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This is also a neighborhood, too, right? When you drive when you drive through, not only is a lot of it been turned over, as we're all well aware, but the houses are all, you know, it's very uh it's a very dense
facade kind of escape as you go down through this neighborhood because a lot of them have turned over. They're all >> generally you you would assume they're compliant. >> There's only two other Allen ranches left there. They're both on the other side of the street. >> Yep. One on the far corner on the lower
right there and one on the lower left directly is in the across the street from >> on the outside corner. The one all the way down on the right we did grant the variance for for that porch. That was the one that came in peace meal if you recall. >> But we did grant the variance for front yard on that right there. Is that one of
the ones you're talking about? >> Yeah. I'm I'm saying the general >> uh they're they're not tear down twotory, >> you know, maxed out, >> right? bulk. Well, >> they're they're the the skeleton is original Allen
>> Ranch >> and and not all two house twotory houses the same. >> The impression I have when I drive down this street is that you get a lot of bulk at the street because you've got the full two stories straight up. I don't know if it's all exactly at the 25, but they're imposed. Um, and so if
if you're sort of considering this in the context of that, there's already a sense of >> that's kind of what I was communicating. come down. It's kind of like a wall of facade. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> It's those that the opposite side is bookended by two of the closer to the
original Allen ranches. There's one in the middle there somewhere that's >> compared to the rest of the two stories on the block. It's almost, but it's still a twotory. >> There's like the orange one with handicap ramps and that kind of thing. It's lower. There's one that's newer and lower.
>> Yeah. And but we don't necessarily know what the uh front yard setback that's held across the street. The one in the center looks like it may project street. >> Yeah, that looks visually closer. >> This is not the scale. Um I mean I could
just roughly measure what it would be. So this Okay, this is like call 1.5 in across the street. It's about one and 58. >> What about the middle one? The next one to the right. Yeah. >> Next next one would be and this is from
the curve one and 3/4. >> Yeah. >> You go down the street here. This is one and a little little more than one and a quarter. So this one bumps out. I think I think that's a garage. That's actually same side of the street. Um yeah, these seem to be one and a
half. One and a half. I think these are all these look to be equal to this. This looks like it has a portion that bumps out a little bit. >> I'm going to guess that that road isn't square with regard to the way the right way was cut in. And I'm going to guess that it trends to the upside of that
picture. It does some towards that bend. >> It does because it's 30 wide on center, but then if you look at the dimensions here, it's actually 31.97 and the rightway is 50. Right. So that gives you that roughly nine change on each side. >> Yes. So the road while the road tech would be anywhere within that 50 and so if
>> so the perception might be that the other ones are slightly closer although they're probably holding 25 >> I think that's also the only thing saving that neighborhood from not looking like they're totally in on the ropes it's only 25 ft but if you have this eight or nine it visually gives you that depth otherwise they would feel
even >> I discount that I appreciate that Mr. brought it to our attention, but that's by by and large the the the most common scenario is most people have an area of approximately 10 ft. They don't realize it, but they do.
>> I'm sure. >> I don't know about all right. Anyway, nevertheless, >> I have a few questions just um from my letter. in your conversations with your client, um the survey from 2023 is accurate. There's been no changes made
to the property since that was completed. >> Uh I don't I don't believe there were any changes or appeared accurate to me. >> And then um there have been no drainage issues that that they're aware of that have been brought to your attention. Correct. >> No, we talked about that that based on
your your report and there there weren't any. >> Can I jump in and ask about that shed? So I understand the shed's 9.9 from the one sideline. Is the requirement 10 ft? >> Yes. >> All right. >> And that that could just be a simple survey issue.
>> Well, or it could be laid slightly off. >> As long as it's fine and it's 9.99. >> Yeah. >> Looks like it was intended to >> same situation with the nerve setback as well. >> Yeah. >> Just to be clear on this, the
application document showed an increase in floor area. I think that was just a typo probably left on there. >> Just can you just >> There definitely is no floor area increase. >> Yeah, Al will get you the accurate number, but there's no change to floor area. >> I saw that.
>> Do you know the height of the Porsche? >> Um >> not not on your plan on the application document. >> I just the records reflect. >> Oh, okay. I gota >> Yeah, there's definitely no interior uh thing. There's no increase for the height. So, the height from the front
grade, I have it from average grade, which is a little lower because the the slope down toward the drive uh garage. Uh I would say it's it's around 16 right now. 161 and 38 from average. Um >> yeah, 16 a little less from the grade in
front >> the porches. >> Yeah, that the peak of the porch roof. >> Peak. The top peak. >> Top peak. What about like um >> the actual elevation of the the decking or masonry? >> Probably I think it's about six 14 in or so. >> Two steps.
>> Two steps. So it's not going to be much more than that. >> Um and then existing landscaping. Is there any need to be removed? And then is there anything closed? >> So nothing major. There are some existing shrubs the homeowners are going to relocate. They they might install some new new foundation plantings but
generally going to stay the same field. Thank you. >> So, this is one of those where I'm looking at it and I'm wondering if it's big enough and I know they're counterintuitive because I'm talking about a bit larger deviation. I'm always concerned about the usability of the
front porch. One of the things that you've done is you've used small columns, which is obviously very smart. Um, you've also dropped the u the porch to where you can keep it at closer to grades and don't need to do the railings because the railings could take up to eight inches. But I do understand the interest in protecting the trees. I'm
not entirely sure about the walkway as to whether or not it it warrants it. But from your perspective, you think that there's going to have full utility for seven feet wide based on how it's designed and with those features? >> Yeah, I I feel like seven's a comfortable minimum even with the
railing because a rail's going to come in 8 n in more finish. I I I feel comfortable with this. I normally end up around seven and sometimes I push for more. I think as long as the homeowners aren't trying to do like a gathering of furniture and more like if they just
want to do an L-shape versus like a full corner of furniture, I think it's fine. >> What's the distance between the face of where it's going to be and that birch tree? >> You imagine if it was V upon the tree, but the tree looks like it's
>> got upon the problem sidewalk. >> I think that was part of that and sidewalk. Yeah, disturbing the area. Well, it's you're not building the porch from that direction. >> Uh, it would >> Yeah, that's >> that's the front. >> We didn't want to overlap the the
existing walk by that much. >> If I understand I It's hard to see through all these Molly decorations, but if I understand where that tree is, it's to the right of the window on the right. >> Correct. >> So, the porch, whether it came out 15 feet, wouldn't affect that tree >> except it would affect the walkway.
>> Affect the walkway. That's different. Then they push the walkway, >> right? And then if the walkway got pushed, then we'd bring the tree into play. >> Nice. >> You can see the the drip circle from the
tree is comes across the front of the existing suit there. So the >> Well, that that's a pretty big circle, but okay. But I mean, that's generally where the roots are going to be. I look, I'm not going to push any harder to say,
you know, make it any bigger, but I it just >> No, I appreciate that. >> I think they're okay with I think they're okay with seven. I don't think they need for more. >> I get concerned with like Rumpson has a five foot bonus. So, everyone does five feet and you can't really use them.
>> They're decorative. >> So, that's where I push I push for more varants for to get those extra couple feet, but I think seven pretty much at grade is >> with the with the no railings. No, particularly with the no rounds. >> Oh, >> yeah.
>> Inside you wanted to cover. >> I think we did. >> Is this? >> It's a front setback. you know how what various criteria you use if he wants you to >> well I think I think it's a little of both I think see one to the extent that
you know it's the uh location of the porch is driven by the location of the existing home um which is not proposed to be moved um and uh with respect to C2 uh the benefits the benefits here are
certainly to um special reasons would uh that would be come into play with w would would be um uh a variety of of proposed housing. Uh and uh we don't see any negative impact based on uh the fact
that it's a singlestory ranch. Um and um uh and we don't think that there's any negative impact to the zone plan, zoning ordinance and and and the neighbors in as much as um it's open. Uh
it's a it's a aesthetic improvement to the home. Uh and um you know uh it's something that is uh being retrofitted if you will uh to a
an existing 75 year old home uh and to try and modernize it a little bit in terms of functionality and usability by by the client. Anything else Al didn't see? I I think as far as architectural
porches always seem to scale down and and bring detail to a home. So I think from a massing perspective or anything like that, it normally tends to help. >> Definitely doesn't hurt. >> Yep. >> I think it's also material where this house sits in the street. The projection
that we're talking about is is not at a corner. You're not going to be affecting sightelines. You've got homes around you which are imposing in different ways, but they're imposing. Um, and I I think I'm leaning more towards C1 than a C2. I certainly recognize there's no movement
of the hats. It's possible here in order to find the full tree. >> I would agree with this. >> Okay. Anything else? >> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. If the board has any questions, the applicant is here as well. If the board has any questions, >> any board members have any questions?
Anybody else follow up? Are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments regarding the Nashes application? Okay. Like none. Anything in closing, Mr. Rosski? >> Um, I think we've covered it, Mr. Chair. Um, I think this is a modest uh
improvement to an existing home. Uh, fits in well with the uh uh in the particular neighborhood. And uh we think that the relief being s sought is moderate and uh is modest and I believe
um you know very compelling to maintain the existing structure. Uh this is not a a raise and rebuild situation. So we would ask that the board uh look favorably on that. >> Thank you. >> Anyone have problem the hallway
decorations? Yeah. Um I look I mean one of the things I'm looking at shed um you know I think that you know we've seen these issues all the time. I just don't feel as though the the nature of deviation is significant enough to to you know to make an issue
of it. Um I don't I don't even start. I just wanted to mention the issue about share. Oh, and the um there going to be a rain gutter on this
that ties back into the left. >> Oh, so you have you did have more questions. >> Sorry. Mr. S, you you understand the question? >> Yeah. Um I I don't recall exactly where the gutters are right now, the downspouts. Uh yeah, it would it would
certainly tie in the actual gutter system. Whether we need an extra downspout or not, I I don't I don't know. We could probably get away without it. But >> is there an existing drywall on the property? >> I don't believe so. >> What's the lock coverage based on the u the maximum of where these sit?
>> So maximum is 45%. Currently we're 40.6. Proposed is 41.5. So 41.5 out of the possible 45. >> Is that calculation based on the existing survey with all the existing improvements, the back patio, the shed, the walkways, the whole
>> correct? Yes. >> In the picture here in the engineered, it looks like there's a a gutter on the left side of the house and I don't see a down spout. So I'm assuming it's at the left corner of the house.
So, would you be able to tie into that and take it to the same place that the the runoff from the roof is currently going? >> You're saying it's over on this side? >> I'm assuming it because it's not on the right side. >> Yeah, I I would um just run how how long
to run the suit. >> What would be the advantage of that? I >> I don't know that concentrating the waterfall is necessarily good. If we're worried about law coverage or if the lawyer is out under their detention, I think that's different. I'd be worried. >> So, you're not putting it out the front, which is the only level of place to deal with it. Yeah.
>> I I would think that that's going to give it an opportunity to put on property versus even through whatever the current I I don't know. Just not clear to me. That would be areas if you know where >> I I would think I would think any of these front down spouts if they if they
just go to a splash clock will go out the front because the the grade slopes slightly toward the street. >> Okay. >> So >> yeah. So the way that that the photo shows it out, it looks as though the gutters that are on the existing overhang take the water flow to the
right towards the driveway. >> Yeah, I would agree. But I don't necessarily know that putting more water to the driveway would be great. I'd almost prefer to see it get dropped into the front yard and let it let it try and purge and move the lawn. >> Well, you know what? Probably the best thing to do, the more I'm thinking about it, is we would probably just tie in and
throw a new down spout to the left over here. >> And I I think there's plenty I think it's got enough >> that way. You don't trap it. >> I don't think it's too much. >> Yeah. So, I don't know if it could c I probably couldn't take all that that far because they have to slope it a little bit. So there's only so much you can do
without it looking wonky. >> Thanks. All right. >> Mr. Chair, I have one comment for you. Um you mentioned the the shed in the back. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's 102 square feet and when it's over 100 square feet, it is an accessory
structure. So it's a 10ft setback. If it was less than 100 square feet, there'd be a 5 foot setback farming. So it's it's two feet two square feet over the threshold of only needing to get to 102 square feet. What are the dimensions of
the shed? B 12 by 12.2 by 8.4. So, from from surveyors I've talked to about this, there's there's actually apparently there's certain legal legal amount of like wiggle room they have where like that 9.9 could be up to
a foot difference apparently from what I've heard >> what I've been told >> but not for this survey. No, that is not the official. >> So, I'm pretty sure that shed is square numbers, >> it probably is 100. >> But it's an interesting comment because
the what the comment says is that with it with its small deviation with regard to the size 5t close to the property boundary than it sits and I think that that's I think that's certainly something worthy of note. Okay, you ready to deliberate now?
All right, no more speaking to the applicant there discussion. I do buy this property and u you know looking looking at the property and looking at the bulk of the house and looking at all the neighboring houses uh
I think if you come 2.3 2 feet 3 in closer to the uh um you know to the roadway from this house. I think I think the I I think that's dimminimous and uh I I just don't see that that's going to be a
problem. >> I agree with Skip and I appreciate that it is uh an aesthetic improvement to the front of the house and the neighborhood. >> Okay. Yeah. what she said.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. No, I think it's uh that's all right. Listen, I also think it's like a visual relief being in this neighborhood, right? Because it's a block of just straight facade. It really is. None of those facads, all those twotory houses, not a lot of them are really stepped back. So, it's really I
mean, it really goes right up. Um I think it's kind of a visual relief. I think it's tasteful and uh and I think you can argue the C2 as well, right? I mean, we know it's scary, but everyone likes a porch. some kind of a a way of you know life you know a non-dramatic way right everyone's got them and it's a
big piece of the community and I think it'll be an improvement >> nothing out >> what's that >> any preferences to wear a trains >> not as opposed to >> I'm curious >> you know
>> as to what the applicants council said ding it to the sense between the two windows as I'm looking at to the left of the >> all all I only concern would be is if you moved it if you drained it to the right you'd be putting it between the
house and the walkway which would not be ideal. So just to take take it out on the left forward is fine to the side is fine. Um,
>> you know, visually for this, if you're coming down the street, there's a mature large hedge that comes, I think, all the way to the street on the >> right side, >> east side, the left, the left side, >> and on the right side, other side of the
driveway, there's a mature hedge that comes >> to within maybe six or eight feet of the street. Can't see the next house. next house can't see you >> walking down the street certainly from the east you can't see this house until
you're past the hedge I don't think that you'd notice uh this from the street as much um from either side um you know as far as fitting into the neighborhood this house
>> doesn't fit in >> used to they all used to be the same I I lived in the neighbor for a long time, but back when it was all still Allen Ranches. Um, you know, and everything else is just a
lot more bulk higher and and closer to the street than than this is ever going to appear. >> Yeah. I think when you compare what this is and what this is going to be to the neighboring houses, this is much more slight. I like any investment in a ranch that makes it more likely to stay there
versus being torn down at sometime in the future. Um, and with regard to the drainage specifically, I'm always inclined to talk about underground detention, but what I what I what I see this as is this very very slight
addition. The actual construction of underground detention would be so disruptive to the front. I just don't think that the net benefit warrants that level of attention. Of course, the numbers don't say that there's any problem with the lock coverage. So, that's just why I'm not leaning in the
direction of discussing that any further. >> Could also damage that tree location. >> Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we uh approve the uh the changes as proposed
as long as there's no other uh modifications to the uh the house or to the yard. >> Second, Mandela. >> Yes.
Mr. Ryan, >> yes. >> Mr. Forte, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman, >> yes. >> Mr. Shabetti, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the board, >> okay, next application is the
greateration. for a minute. >> I'm sorry. >> Thankful. Um >> no shall testimony. >> Yes. >> The truth nothing but the truth.
>> Yes. Both. Yes. Yes. Okay. Same directions before you uh prior to your testimony. Do you want to state your name for the record here? U follow directions of your council looking for
excuse me my place as to where we were >> I had my last one. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh the additional exhibits um A8 10 20 25 um double-sided writing from
the applicant talking about revisions um this general general square footage lot size information that needed by way of research. A9 will be the revised architectural submissions three sheets.
Uh October 27, 2025. Um the plot plan uh first second floor plan is elevations on those three sheets. A10 uh variance what I would characterize as variance justification from council. And we have a new
engineering report ZB3 from CME engineering for the future of Mr. Rizzo uh the date is 11 11.5 in addition we have an exhibit A1
which is the certification from our board member since it's board member D'Angelo that she has read the transcript to the audio authority and the view zoom video examined the exhibits and she is up to date so far
and as I said we will mark that at 11. Do you have any other additional exhibits that I haven't already referenced? >> Uh I I do, but just before is my cover letter submitting um uh whatever the date was when I
submitted the revised plans and um >> I didn't part of but part of the record >> has a summary on it too. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I think it's more than just what they're submitting. It actually has language on what the changes were. We you had is that in addition to the separate writing that you sent later on
in the day concerning various justification for C1C? >> It it was earlier uh I think I sent submitted the exhibit on 101 12 11 >> November 3rd letter. >> Yes. >> Okay. We will mark that as A12 >> reference the proposed addition the
additional plantings and previous coverage. >> Correct. Um, okay. And then we have some additional exhibits. You ready for them? >> Sure. >> Uh, colorize. Well, Joe, why don't you
go through them and then we'll mark them as we go and put the uh top corner. >> Okay. We have the updated amended site plan that has u reduced size for the addition. Okay. >> So, that's a colorized version of the first sheet of the device submission.
Right. Right. Uh second sheet is the reduced size plan again um a change to the profile of the addition. So that's A13, A14, right?
>> A13 and A14 revised elevation sheets showing changes the change to the building >> and also the the plantings. >> So also I'm up to A15. What are you up to? >> Yes. And that's this was part of A9.
That's the third sheet of A9. And then this is additional, right? Yes. >> This is this is a new graphic just showing the comparison in the outline of the building previously submitted uh 2
ft narrower and with the uh uh roof line lowered. >> Parish and graphic. What is the date? >> Uh we could give it uh any date. November the the 12th, I guess. >> November 12th.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I'd say 16th. >> There there's individual. This is all mounted on the same board. So you have three uh four separate pictures. >> Okay. We'll put that as a comparison
graphic and four. >> Right. Okay. And that would be it. A7 >> lower A16. That would be part of that. Okay. All right. Thankfully, that's it. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um so, uh and before we get started, just uh just if we can do that, are there any additional issues you need to address, Mr. Wizo, as a result of your >> Nothing else. Nothing else for me, but I think you probably want to put his uh the actual someone else.
>> Yep, that's where I was going. >> Thanks. >> Um, so James Dailyaly, uh, Architects and Associates, that's who prepared the plans. Jim Daly signed the plans. Um, and was here last time, as was Mr.
Sacko. Mr. Sacko, can you describe your role and employment with Mr. Dely's firm? >> Uh, yes. I was just >> credentials haven't changed. None of your none of your conventions have changed since your last testified. >> No, >> but Mr. S is not an architect. Is that
right? >> I'm not a registered architect. >> And is Mr. Daily here? >> Mr. D testimony tonight. >> Misto, right? >> Yeah. >> So, um we have plans submitted under um under the seal of the license architect.
>> Right. >> And the discussion that we're going to have is related to the changes that have been made. Mr. Sako, you're fully familiar Yes. with the changes, the process, and so there may there may come a time where Mr. Dailyy not being here may be something we want to sort of
pause on and what have you, but you're looking to proceed with Mr. Sako's description of what's going on and allow us to try to get through this without Mr. Daily being here. >> Correct. And I would submit that his experience in the field of 40 years um and working for architecture firms the
entire time um may qualify him as an expert in architecture. However, for the purposes of what we're doing here right now, I don't think we're going to get into too much detail where that's a germanine issue. Um he has familiarity with the plan. >> Mr. What exactly is and I'm sorry for
interrupting. What exactly is your professional capacity? If you're not an architect, what do you do, Mr. Davis, for >> I do design and drafting, right? >> I meet with clients. I do site visits, zoning reviews. >> Just to cover the record, can you and I don't know if we did last time, you
spread your credentials on the record this point in time as to education type of work you do as following up with >> Sure. >> question. >> Sure. I I studied uh architecture and fine arts at Syracuse University and I
have a degree in fine arts at Syracuse and I have 40 years working for New Jersey licensed architects. >> So for those that aren't familiar, the way a lot of these firms work is the draftsman actually do the drawings and the architect is the one that eventually certified them. So Mr. Sak, I would
imagine I'm not gonna ask whether you actually prepared these or not, but you could prepare these drawings. Correct. You couldn't seal them as a licensed architect. No. >> So, Mr. Sh, as long as it's okay with you, I I would prefer not to go into whether or not we can accept Mr. Saka as a
whatever it is, let's go through the plans. Let's see what we can do. If not the issue, we'll flag it at that point. >> Perfect. That's what I was intending to do anyway. >> Um, so with that out of the way, um, just we
were here last month. We got feedback from the board. Obviously, we've come back revised plans. Um, and we are going to spend uh a few moments here walking through what those changes were, and I'll ask Mr. Zacko to point those out on the plans.
>> Okay. Uh, starting with the site plan, we'll uh we have several changes, but I'll start with the building. Uh, we have um moved the building in 2 feet. So instead of being uh an addition out at 22, we're at 20.
Uh that increases the sard setback uh to 13.37 ft where it was 11 and change uh improves the distance to the neighbor to 32 uh 32.1.
Uh we uh so we now we have a 500 square f foot addition instead of 550 uh the we added uh now we also lowered the um the roof line down. Now whereas
we had a 17 17 foot 8 in high building from break. Uh we now have 14.9. Uh we added of course this shows the
plantings as well. Um so what are the dimensions of the bloom? It's 20 wide and >> 20 by 25. >> 20 by 25. And in terms of the reduction of the pitch on or the sorry the ridge height, was that driven by a desire to
make it less bulky? Was that driven by the change in dimensions? >> Both. >> Both. >> Yeah. Yeah. We uh it what it did was it eliminated the 165 uh square feet that we were accounting for for the the fact that it was above
the second floor line. Um >> Oh, I hate that. No, I I really that really bothered me because it's not it wasn't intended to catch you up, but we sort of addressed it, right? I I want you to keep going, but I I want to I want to understand
whether or not the reduction in the height is something that the applicant prefers or whether or not it's something that they're sort of throwing out there as a potential and whether or not it can go back, I personally want to understand that, >> right? >> No, I think I can respond. We just gave
you that technical reason, right? we wanted to remove that additional square footage because we understood that you know part of the calculation and the overall number was our problem. So in in one way that technically addressed it um I think obviously the applicant's preference is to have what was
originally proposed. However um I think part of the variance we're seeking deals with massing. It's not just with the floor area number. It's the volume of the house and by bringing the roof line down you somewhat address massing. >> All right. So, I'm I'm not going to tell
you how to persuade this board to grant the variance, but what I'm going to ask you is whether or not, and we can do it at the end, but what I'm eventually going to ask you is whether or not if the board saw fit to grant the variance at the greater height, whether the applicant would prefer the greater height or whether you prefer it exactly as proposed. So, just just keep that in
mind and we'll circle back. >> Okay. All right. >> Just I have the old plan, the old elevations in front of me comparing and I actually think the reduced height looks better. I think it looks more balanced and less obtusing than the the other, but >> I don't want to jump the gun. Let's let
it play out and that's fine. If that's what it is, that's what it is. I I have a sensitivity to that particular thing because I worked on that ordinance. It's creating problems that weren't intended. We do need to fix it and it just it's very technical. So, it's also hard to
calculate. I I why did you uh why did you go with a the crawl space rather than a seller underneath the additional part of the uh additional underneath the addition because that's not going to count
against your your square footage. We recognize that uh but there was comments during the last year and you know there was questions how much of the the seller is used right now what portion's finished um something to the effect that that's a lot of area and you're adding
to it um it's it's anonymous that was a comment from the last >> No I understand that but it was a comment that you have a lot and you're adding to it and on the balance if that's not an essential port portion of the application and that's something that was a comment we addressed it and
removed it. Um, and that's that's the thought process behind that. >> So, we may well ask you the same question as to that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, it doesn't count. And we went through the calculations of average grade and the fact that the floor was uh
less than 30 in above the average grade. >> Yeah. No, all of it. all the >> entire house because it seems to it seems that that's the way it's being enforced now is that it instead of it being for new houses, it's being applied to every house that does any kind of
work. >> Uh correct. >> Yeah, >> that is correct. It's under review though. >> Well, well, hold on a second. with regard to this particular maybe we could talk offline about some of your experiences with the ordinances because
the intent is to improve the aesthetics across town not to make life impossible nor to ask for the impossible which would be to change something that's already exist with regard to this application however this house has a first floor elevation that's 30 in or lower >> right
>> and the addition is it 30 in or lower >> right >> and does that tie into the question with regard to the crawl space of the basement or the cellar oven. >> It It can because what it would do, we we actually to get this height, we actually lowered the floor a little bit
um to make it like massive. And so what it does >> stepping down into that room. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So it goes to the whole trying to address the cathedral. >> Oh, so it's like a subgroup. >> Yes. And what it does is it forces now the what we would want to be say a seven
to 8 in 8 foot ceiling he pipe down into what could be a a water table issue you just drop the floor know >> no no no we have no we haven't done that yet. >> You just presume on balance you're like you know what thinking possibility of it
and then also there were comments at the hearing about >> how much usable space was down there. So what's the step down now? >> Um, >> yeah. How many inches? >> Oh, it's 12 inches. It's so it's like two risers. >> Oh, is it that much? That step down
existed on the original, right? >> Yeah. >> What's the depth of the base though? You wouldn't have had a water kit unless you the existing house. >> We may not have uh you know, it doesn't necessarily >> force that. We're just saying that it's a possibility. >> I think you're just raising it as a
potential issue. Um I don't think there's been that experience. >> Okay. >> So those were those are continuing an on I guess with some of the changes we've made.
>> 20 by 25. The original was 22 by 25. Right. >> Right. >> You had a basement. Now you're proposing a crawl space. Right. >> The ridge height originally was what? >> 17 foot8. >> 178. And you brought it down to >> 149. 149. Any other changes?
>> Uh the additional plantings to to screen it here. >> Um along the the the front facade and the corner that's facing the closest neighbor, >> right? >> Um you want to point out that there's added a dry well to to capture all the storm water from the addition.
>> Um that's in the back behind it. >> Yeah. We put a a drywall behind the uh >> So in your in your letter you stated that there's two existing drywalls. >> Um so this would just be just to capture the addition of the >> for the addition. Yeah,
>> there's two on site now. >> Um >> the Yeah, they the lead they run down to uh >> into the ground. Which which corner of the house were they at? >> They're in the back. >> They're in the back. >> Yeah. Into the backyard. You have to
>> do we know that you have a dry well or do we know where it goes? >> I know that the area was set up and the water drains through the roof down the pipes and into the yard and it's held in this area. >> Yeah, it has a pop out, right? It has a pop out. >> Like so in the yard there's like the circle. So if if it's getting totally
inundated, there's the little pop out. >> How long? Did you install it? >> We did. >> Oh, you did. Okay. All right. So you know it's a drywall. >> I mean I don't know if can I sit here and say it's definitively called a drywall? I don't know. what I know it's it's exactly what we're talking about. >> It's underground attention cuz the pop-up valve is fairly new. That's 30
years old. >> We did this with the project I think it was back in 2017. >> You did that when you did the prior renovation? >> We did. >> And you put in two >> two into the backyard that runs off the top and out the back of the house. >> And and how much of your roof run off right now do you capture in those drywalls? 100% of it.
>> I think all but the garage. I >> think that's right. The garage is not captured. The main house roof would be okay. these four corners. >> Well, not the four cuz the front ones from now the front ones goes right from the >> Can you not just tie the run off from
the proposed addition to one of the other tune or is that not how it works? >> That's not how it works. >> It was probably calculated because it was done in conjunction with revation. Somebody somebody like Jordan probably calculated it for what they needed.
>> Probably slight bit larger what they needed. >> Oh, yeah. >> What's the height of the massage >> compared to the height of the addition? >> Uh, okay. Good question. Um, 156
>> is the garage. >> Yeah. and and the addition 14 million >> 149. >> What would you say from the street? It's probably imperceptible. >> Yeah. >> Way back. So why are you stepping down?
Why are you stepping down and going to the family room? >> Well, it's because of that that rule now that uh I you know we felt somewhat compelled to to comply with. uh we don't want the additional square footage
caused by the attic space. >> Skip, do you remember the the the complication comes in the calculation of where the additional square footage in a vault actually counts as part of the square footage period. There was 160 or so square feet, >> 167 square feet.
>> So they removed it so as because on the plans and on the numbers they want to not have that 160. They also said that they wanted to reduce the bold in order to make sure the board understood that they were effectively trying to accommodate the concerns and keep the addition as small feeling as possible.
So, so that was the purpose of what they did >> while still maintaining having the nice ceiling. >> Yeah, that was important. >> When we get the utility by stepping down 12 in, >> right? >> Is that that resolve your question? Al, you had something on drainage again? No, I I just did when they mentioned the
renovations in 2017, I was just curious how we got to 250 square feet above the cap already >> in 2017. >> In 2017, >> didn't we determine that that was in three season room porch and how it's
calculated today versus what? >> I don't remember what the result of it was last time. >> They didn't get there was no prior relief given on this property. So I'm guessing that at the time it came in >> I think that's correct in 2017 it was not reviewed. It was approved and when we talked about it last time
>> it's how that preseason been back then which let's face it it's not that long ago but we all sat on the board at that time. So >> well and so there have been some modifications to that room. In fact I even think there was discussion about adding heating and air conditioning to that room and they added windows.
>> So so that so we vetted that last time. >> Yeah. No. Okay. And but we didn't end up with a copy of the the file from 2017 as far as what was the bill? >> No, I approved to to what we see in
this. >> The application includes a question and a signature and it asks whether or not there was a prior approval. >> Um do you know Mr. Sardo for sure that in 2017 there was no variance granted for the modification? I >> I know that there was no variance. um
saw or granted >> but zoning approval if they did >> there were there was a zoning approval and I would say also that um you know our application variance relief we're requesting is uh inclusive of everything over the gap
>> that's that's nice but yeah okay >> we're measuring that space differently than we did in 2017 >> and I've been before this board I've been before this board as well on other >> 2017 that's point. >> What was the fair point?
>> He said >> that it's different space than was proposed in 2017 >> 2017. It looked different than it does now. Now it's more >> it's just >> I'm sorry. I forgot that we had gotten more into that last time around and it's come back to me now and thanks for the
clarification. >> What did you say to start? >> Um I I've been before this board on other applications where um you know I didn't I didn't file it. the applicant filed on their own, but where uh like a similar situation existed and the application was filed, you know, by
parallel comparison. Like in instances, if we just had the variances for an extra 500 square ft, then you know, there was a whole discussion about, well, it's not 500, it's really 700 plus because of the existing improvement. So, we just jumped the gun, addressed that
right off the get-go instead of you're asking for >> correctly. What you're saying is we're not hiding the fact that that square footage been calculated that way. We're presenting it to you that way. >> And to Al's point, the modifications to it and how it's calculated today, at least in part, relate to how things
changed after 17 outside of the way it should have been done. >> Correct. >> All right. We're good. >> Did we talk about the lock coverage? Because I I thought I read that you were going to move the hot tub. >> We did. >> Yes. So, you want to point that out? There there was like a projection off
the rear of the existing patio like a new new area to put it to move it on which >> yeah we had this little bump out here. We're just trying to create a little more seating area and so uh we shipped we were a little closer on the on the cap than we thought and so we moved it
back in >> and eliminated the uh >> relo. Yeah, the hot tub moved on paper but is it essentially staying in the exact same location it is today? >> Yeah, pretty much. Yes, that's that's about where it is. >> Are you shifting it with the the stairs
out of the addition or is it really is okay where it is? >> I think it's okay there. I mean, the stairs are there and uh there's there's space to get out. >> So, the reduction in that little extra pad there plus the reduction in the addition.
>> Yes. >> Is what got you and you were compliant but you were close now. A little bit breathing. Right. Yes. >> Right. So, I think we went are our you know we added 2.55%
coverage and we're um the impervious coverage only goes up slightly more slightly less than the addition not saying that very clearly apologize >> but we're up 2.5% from the existing but we're still under the 40%.
>> Mr. Sorry, I'm going to ask you to start at the top in terms of what you originally requested by way of variances, what the numbers were, and then bring us to today in terms of just from the top to the bottom what you're proposing and how it's different. >> Yeah, I can do that.
>> Um, so the floor area, what the only variance we have is the floor area variance. >> I mean, so I'll start with that. >> Okay. But other numbers change too, but I'll I'll focus on floor area. Um, it
was 4,198 square feet as submitted um when we appeared before you last meeting. >> At this point, it is now 3,981. So that's a reduction of 217 square ft.
>> Hold on one second. And the way you accomplish that is by bringing the roof down. So you manually reduced it by the 160 and then you reduced the width by two by.5 that dropped to fit. >> Yes. Correct. >> And those are the only two changes on the portfolio. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Um and well I guess as it relates to that as well the u the setback the setback was compliant from the sideyard right 10 is required. It was 11.6 six I want to say and now it's 13.37 13.37 so that that went up about two
feet so there's an increased step back to the neighbor >> what zone are we in >> the R10A >> R10A and so we need exactly what on both sides what what what's the requirement >> it's a 10 minimum single side and then combined is 25 and we're far exceeded
>> well over 15 on the far side so your short side needs to be 10 >> you comply with that complied originally by now, but you're you're right. You'd get another capture probably two feet, >> right? So to our closest neighbor, they're seeing that two foot additional
checkback >> um there. >> So that two feet multiplied by the five is 50. Outside of that, the only other difference in your removal of 167, which is the vaulted space, right? So if you take out the vault space, the only other
difference is just moving it in two feet across 25. That's how you're getting to 50. Is that right? that that's on the square footage, but I would say if you're looking at massing in volume, like we dropped down the height and shrunk it and now we put plantings in front of it. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So, we're effectively trying to minimize
that space as much as we can. >> Okay. What's the frontage? Do we have an extra frontage requirement or because I know the lot's significantly larger than the 10 lot. >> We're we're beyond what's required. >> They're they're 4.55 ft longer than the
frontage. So, so it wasn't >> there's no additional setback requirement. >> That's kind of question. >> So, I wanted to go through the variance. There's only one variant. >> It's exceeding square footage. It's not far. It's it's not C. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, you've you've explained
how the sideyard setback is improved with the addition. Is there anything else that you wanted to explain to us? Um well I I mentioned the plantings and the the attempt to minimize the the massing and volume of it as much as we we could.
Um and and that's as far as the changes go that that's kind of the summary of it >> and then the reduction in building coverage block coverage and the addition of the drywall. >> Well so but but you didn't exceed before so you've reduced it overall based on the context of our discussion last time.
>> Yes. So, so what's the requirement? Where were you and where where are you? >> Sure. And I can go over that too. Um and this is for for coverage. Now um the existing coverage today is 37.4.
uh proposed today at this hearing is 38.9. Um and and last time we were here we were we had put on our plans 39.5 and Mr. Rizzo questioned if it was slightly higher than that but still conforming.
>> And what's the cap? 40. >> 40. Yes. >> Okay. And with a a footprint of 500 ft is the addition. >> We only that only nudges up that 1%. It's It's increased to two. It's from >> It's uh
>> Well, it's a couple >> Well, it's double size. >> No, it's a good observation. I'm I'm going 37.4 off Jordan's letter. Our plan says 36.4 existing. So, you're more on point with the 2% increase. >> Okay.
>> Which >> But you didn't reduce anything per se. This is um you're not taking anything out that's already there. You you asked for less because you're not expanding where you were going to move the hot tub to. So you retained it inside of its existing.
>> Correct. We didn't remove any existing uh coverage areas, right? You know, sidewalk, pavement, >> what have you. >> Okay. >> That was going to be an additional deck construction, right? 65 ft is more. >> Yes.
>> Are you removing any trees? >> Um, no. I don't believe so. >> Um and and you know in addition to the plant things that are shown on the plan I mean if if uh the applicants has a willingness to
work on buffering or additional plant things to what's existing there uh next to you know the property owned by um Mr. Olson lot 14 at the closest neighbor. So no push. I think the answer is no. It'll
be more green. >> I mean, there's a pretty generous amount of landscaping already. There's some evergreens and uh there's a a pretty good sized tree in the front yard as well as a holly. I mean, it's >> all this look pretty good. I was wondering if you were taking anything
out. >> No. >> Can you Can you hold that up again, please? The sort of mass and detail. So So that is from the side. >> That's from the front. That's from the front.
It's significant. >> Yeah. Imagine a calculation of that as as compared to the original where like 80% of what was the high point. >> So, would you mind? >> Sorry. You want
>> I'll give you I'll give you a copy. So what I would mention to the board >> is years ago when we were trying to figure out how to control mats, >> we had a 35 foot ridge height limitation in our town. >> And I thought it was going to be easy to
bring that down. >> And we did bring it down. I brought it down to 32. And what happened was when I saw houses being built at the 32 versus the 35, I was really surprised that it didn't really impact this the feeling of bulk
of the houses. But what was clear to me was that the steeper roof pitches were nicer. And and I'm not racing to say that I think it looks better pushed down. And to me, that was never really the issue. It was really kind of the
total square footage. it was kind of all of it alto together. I I would I'm just throwing that out there. If the applicant's happy with it, then then that's fine. >> Um but I just don't want to for the sake of accommodating the conversation last time see changes that may in the end,
you know, lead you with a development that may not look as nice. Um I just I just present that very considered day one the applicant goes through calculation and seems to indicate that if it would be additional
setback required it should be different than your numbers I need to make sure using the right numbers and I'm assuming that you have gone through this so that your number >> um there's also some to see on the left
side >> it's right here Jordan >> so if numbers are correct and I would just ask that that gets cleaned up subject any uh removal I >> mean I I certainly feel confident in my numbers I don't know what the
discrepancies are do you know >> which was a lot >> I don't think there's any discrepancy, it's it's that we we took the lot with problems a 30 foot setback line and it was 126 ft. >> And so then there's a little calculation. There's a ratio of, you
know, you have for every foot and a half. Yeah. Uh, every five feet you have to add a foot and a half. But it all went to the driveway side, not to the >> You you were calling the lot with 104.5 and you're saying you need five extra feet to add on to the So you stayed at
25 and you were calling it a wider lot >> because it's it's set to. >> Yeah. It's on the frontage though. It's not the lot goes like that. >> Yes. >> So the the extra 5T is only on the frontage on the street. Right. That 105. >> But the ordinance works if the lot is
wider. The ordinance works to require a greater total setback. Doesn't change the minimum on the one side, does it? >> No. >> Okay. So, the total setback that we have here is 13 on the new side as proposed. 13 change. >> Yes. >> And how much do you have on the other
side? >> Uh it's well it's 42.75. >> The the total is 60 over 69 ft. >> Allowable is >> right. So what I want to highlight is whether you've added additional or whether you haven't they far exceed what would be required even if the lot were
substantially larger than it is. >> So it's a non-issue. The number should be right >> right and the lot depth is is different between the two between and the applicant as well. So I just want to write and get cleaned up. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. I I have been keeping a note at the end through the end that just says that um all discrepancies should be handled for finalizing the plan. Um >> thank you. >> In this case, I think it's compliant either way, but we can make sure >> final plan flexes.
>> Yep. And I I've made notations and um you know was prepared to stipulate that we're going to address to that point. >> Thank you. >> Have we been through it all? >> The the changes. Yes. Did you also add an AC unit? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then but the setback actually
increased because it's next to the house. >> Yes. But if you take the if you look at it from the standpoint of the 10-ft setback, it it kind of lines up. It's the same with the corner of the house.
>> We're talking about whether or not the sideyard setback's going to be measured to the structure or the AC units. Is that already? >> No. So, it looks like the AC units are increased in the setback, but there was a second one added. I just wanted to point that out. >> Okay.
>> They're not supposed to be within the set. >> No, the accessory >> I'm answering a whisper over here. >> There's an accessory setback to the AC units. So, it's 10 feet and they are they we added one but we increased the setback from last time they are now
um about 14 and a half ft side property line. >> No, because they're set back in the closest corner. >> Yeah. >> Is that generator existing or is that going to be new? >> Just being moved >> and there's no penetration on that side of the family room. There's no problem
there. Um, no there's there's some uh blank wall space on that facade. >> I'm just saying is that you know there's >> there is code question. >> You got these two windows. Here's the generate.
>> So I mean we're good to open window. >> We don't have gener. >> Oh but there was okay. >> So that's an generator. So, we're we're not part of the plan anymore. >> Okay. Okay. >> I saw what looked like we're not
>> I see it on the serving unit. >> I don't know. Says two AC units and then it says generating >> on the server >> plot generator. >> Generator. I promise you and
>> not proposing. Okay. Okay. Okay. >> No problem. So there's a power outage. >> Any further? >> Um none of I mean I don't have to go through it. I I will rely on the uh the
variance support we've submitted. Um just to kind of the sum and substance of which is I think that um we meet the positive we're focused more so on a safe I think than a C1 a C2 rather than a C1
the flexible um and that we have significantly um improved the existing conditions based on the uh the screening of the existing patio and you've heard that testimony by the neighbors. Five neighbors showed up,
all in support, three of which have contiguous properties. Um, I'm happy to talk about that more if there's desire to do so, but we don't have anything further about what what the changes are or um, >> well, let's let's get into the nuts and
bolts of legal arguments. So, it's C2, that's what we're working with. All right. So, walk us through the legal argument on C2. >> So, there's several prompts, right? to relate to a specific piece of property. Subject property is one an oversized lot
irregularly shaped. We advance the purposes of the MLUL. Several of them um I've highlighted CI, G and M in my outline. Um and I will try to just quickly summarize
the positive criteria that uh you've heard testimony from our architect. Um, and I think you heard it echoed by some of the board members of EOS here that the addition balances out the masking of the existing residents. Um, and this contributes to a more
attractive structure and advances for purposes um of 2C and I promotes good design and desirable visual environment. Um, we'll note that the height of the home addition is less than permitted by the zone and it achieves an appearance of
less massing than um and less volume than might otherwise be indicated if the house was at a full height that was allowed. Um, so in that regard, we think it provides for adequate light and air. Um, as I noted before, this addition is
going to be really limited um, in visibility to only a limited number of the neighbors or those walking through the neighborhood. And it creates a screening of the existing patio, um, the hot tub, the fireplace accessory, um,
and the activities that go on out there. Um, and that's not only a benefit that's personal to the homeowner, but you heard in testimony from the neighbors that they were in support of that. They thought it was a benefit to them, too, that they're not seeing that someone get out of a hot tub in the middle of the
afternoon. Um, the proposal meets otherwise meets setbacks and lot coverage. um any alternative to um kind of add area or accommodate what we're trying to achieve here would require demolition of
substantial portions of the existing structure. Um and the reconfiguration of which would be more more expensive and lead to more disruption in construction time disruptive to neighbors. Um so that's that's our positive criteria. uh
see to the benefits outweigh the detriment. Um I think we've just talked about some of the balancing I mean sorry some of the benefits um whether it be the balancing of the massing the screening of the uh back accessory
structures and use of the patio the additional plantings the enhanced aesthetics that outweighs any detriment related to this construction this addition. Um and you know as with all variance applications you have to meet the
negative criteria that you can't that no variance can be granted without um showing that it won't substantially detriment the public good or detriment or repair the zone or the zone ordinance plan or the zone ordinance. Um,
so we've talked about that this lot is nearly doubled the size for the zone that's required. Um, and that the property can accommodate the addition proposed and it's not going to substantially impair the zoning
ordinance. Um, you know, we do note or point out by reference, we did talk about the upzoning and how that works, but I think it's also important um to recognize that based on we're only 2% shy of having a double lot as far as lot area goes. And if you were looking at it
from that perspective, you could have up to 5,483 square feet of >> you have the farm. I'm respectfully I'm just going to keep going. Um and that's why I specified that it was
related to just the lot area but that exceeds what's being proposed by approximately 1500 square ft. Um I think this is relevant to the evaluation that the reasonleness of the variance sought and that the property can accommodate
um a structure of this size. Um the the variance itself's not inconsistent with nearby development. Um there's several properties nearby of smaller size or similar size which we've noted previously. The 19 River Lawn at 3612
ft, 34 River Lawn at 4418 and 66 River Lawn at 4104. So there's a pattern or consistency that would be compatible and fit in with the neighborhood. And and again, we think just this particular site, the way the
house is oriented and where it sits in the neighborhood that it's despite what the number looks like, it's not going to actually have that feel or be as massive of an impact as the number might look at on on the page. Um,
I've already touched upon that the homeowners appeared and spoke in support of the application. Um, John Qualter, who's directly across the culdesac, was in favor, he notably said that the addition would screen their use of their backyard and he'd be the one impacted by
that. Mr. son also spoke favorably and he's the in nearest adjacent homeowner on the the culde-sac as the sun room the two it's 251 square ft is it is existing it's improved um it is within the setback it does not
impair the zone plan it's modification um or or removal of it reconfiguration would be a financial hardship now understand a financial hardship not something that might be cognizable necessarily under the C1, but under C2,
it can weigh into the considerations as long as you still meet the benefit detriment test. It can be something the board can consider. I think the board should consider it here. Um, I'm going to keep going. The we've talked about the the minimization of our our roof height of the addition. It's
now 14.75 ft. We've made efforts to minimize the massing and the visual impacts. We've also added the plantings to try to you know enhance the greenery and also give some screening to the additional massing. Um the applicants offered even to go beyond that and and
would be amenable to plant in um additional plants in that area of the setback or in the sideyard setback adjacent to the neighbor if it was the board and board professionals um recommendation or desire to do so. Um the impervious coverage complies with
the standards and we've added a dry well to manage this the storm water from the addition. Um the materials and design are consistent with the existing residence and will enhance and visual appearance of the residents and the neighborhood and that
the design is consistent with the neighborhood and the development. Um so again in conclusion of all this the board's grant of the application will not be a detriment to the public. In fact the public with an interest in this application appeared at the hearing and
spoke in favor of the application and the grant of this variance would benefit the community. Uh nor will grant of the relief requested impair the zone plan of the zone ordinance. So that's your argument as written >> with I probably saved about 45 seconds
if I read it verbatim but >> um but I didn't want to leave anything out. >> Okay. You have anything further? >> I do not. >> Mr. Greer, could you come closer? Can we talk?
So before we wrap up the the testimony with regard to what you're proposing, I'm interested in hearing from you with regard to the changes that you made from last time. You've heard my commentary with regard to the the ridge height. So
that's number one. The basement or the cellar rather versus the crawl space. That's number two. >> You've got a step down at 12 in. That is part of the new design. That's number three. Anything else?
>> Seven. >> I don't think there's anything else. >> Did you say it was seven? >> Yeah, they did. So, believe it or not, we understand how hard this is and we really appreciate I can speak for everybody because I know they feel this way that you made an
effort to listen to what we've said and to modify the proposal in order to accommodate the concerns so you can get >> at the same time. This was really close last time in my view. And so what would be a disservice to your family in the
neighborhood would be for you to wind up with something that isn't really what you want if what you're doing is making an adjustment based on stuff that we talked about, but that may not have actually won the day with regard to an approval. So with regard to the ridge
height and specifically the the basis for that being the removal of the 160 ft, are you comfortable with the aesthetic look that you've achieved with the modifications in terms of the overall design? You prefer the old design? Is there
something about the utility of the house as you originally designed it versus the way you have it today just as to the ridge height that you might want us to understand as we weigh the current proposal versus the alternative of maybe considering whether or not that ridge height doesn't really swing somebody,
you know, to a no and they would still be a yes. I'd like to isolate the issue. >> Sure. and and and I want to do it specifically because I'm recognizing something here that I don't normally see and that is sort of effort to sort of do some things that I'm not exactly sure.
>> Go ahead. >> Um so I think you're right. I think what I tried to do is think board member by board member what he spoke about and tried to think about how we could fix this to make it amendable and and kind of move forward with the variance. So I know Mr. Ryan talked about the the
drywalls and we went that direction. I know Dr. law firer had talked about the basement and we kind of eliminated that. We always struggled, my wife and I, with the 167 square footage with the ceiling because we didn't quite understand why we were being dinged for it to begin with. The ordinance, I know, is is kind
of a moving target. So, I know we've kind of talked about it back and forth. If you're asking what our preference is, our preference would obviously be to keep it with the original design that we had and avoid the step down altogether. And that would be, you know, the best alternative that we can. But if we need
to actually change it and make it look less bulky, looks less massive to accommodate what the board likes, we're amendable on that on this end to make that work as well. >> So I think that answers the question about the ridge height. With regard to the seller versus the crawl space, your
your family would prefer to have a settlement and you're prepared to construct a seller, but the design as proposed tonight intends to accommodate those concerns. And so, but is it correct that you prefer to have a seller?
>> I I'd say that's of the two. If we isolate the two, what's more important? I think the the original height and the vaulted ceilings are more important than the seller itself. So if I have to choose between the two, I would take the original plan on what the ceiling looked like. In regards to the seller, I mean, we do take into considerations with
water table. I know Dr. Lawer had also talked about total usage of that area down there as well. So it's something we can live without. I think what we're really trying to get our hands on as a family is to get that extra 500 square ft of family living space. If we had a additional basement, that's great, but I wouldn't put that as a priority. um the
way we kind of look at the ceiling situation. >> I I think that the biggest concern last time was the collective impact of the additional finish space which is the had been the threeseason room plus this and
then what you wind up with in total and when that number has four in front of it in a zone that's supposed to have a three in front of it, everybody kind of slows down a little bit and looks at a little bit more closely. Um and with regard to the design, uh Mr. Sako, is that right? >> Yes.
>> Um the the drop down of a foot just notoriously trip hazard, awkward, um is there short the issue of the height in the room itself? >> Yeah. >> If if that was no if you weren't constrained with regard to where you
were, would that come back up again? And >> most likely most likely. Um um Mrs. Greer kind of wanted the I I think she she preferred to have it down so it was closer to the patio level so she didn't have to like walk down steps
to get to the uh the patio but uh that didn't seem to be something that she was uh you know that concerned about. She seemed more interested in the the ceiling height now. >> So you either have to step down into the family room or step down in patio family room. >> Yeah. One or the other.
>> Couldn't we? Yeah. Okay. But I think she would prefer to have it raised if she could get that feeling back. >> To have the step in the house. That's >> I I think too we we host a lot of holidays too and I know it said this the last time my mom's getting older. Vanessa's parents are getting older. Like I worry about that step down
personally in the house. >> Um >> I think having that step down in the house is a plan. >> I I agree completely. We we were just trying to comply with the >> me I would keep the floor level lowering the original and I understand Mr. leaders uh comments about the ridge
height, but remember we're coming in two feet. So if you hold that original, the pitch would have to change if you're coming in two feet. It would leave be steer, right? It would be different. Different height different heights still, right? >> So I mean, personally, I said it before, I like the way the new one looks. I
would bring bring a floor up to be level with the floor in the house and then let the ridge height land where it is. As it is, I think we're what do we say 9 in shy of the left side of the house. the garage. >> The garage. So now you're going to be three inches proud of it. I think that
if it were me, I would make the floor in the house level, have your steps down out to outside and they would probably look even closer to to the other soul. >> So So let's do this. I I don't want to get into an awkward discussion and deliberation while we're directly talking to you. We should close out the
testimony. But is there anything else that you want the board to know with regard to what we're doing uh and what we're looking at and what we're about to deliver about? No, I appreciate all your time and your considerations. We tried to be thoughtful talking about the C2 and C1. I know John talked about C2 um
firsthand and my testimony as well. I'm also an equity trader. It deals with overseas markets. I take international calls sometimes very early in the morning when I'm working from home. Uh forces my hand to kind of scurry around the house and not wake my uh my children now. So to have this extra space
actually helps in that situation, too. So I guess that kind of plays into a C1 hardship situation too. Um to to be fair, I think anybody in Fair Haven declaring a hardship for C1 is is is is very hard. But based on the line of work that I have, this this is something
that's very real. Like the office I work in right now is right next to the kids bedrooms, and there's plenty of mornings I'm taking calls at 4:30 in the morning. >> This is a family room office, right? >> Correct. >> There's nothing labeled office here at all, is there? No, there's no office,
but it gives me another open space to take a call as opposed to the open house that can, you know, whether it be next door to the kids or in a kitchen that trans transfers upstairs pretty quickly. >> Okay, Mr. Sh, anything further before we go to the public? >> Nope. >> Just want I just want to ask one
question, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Greer, with the dry well they're proposing, >> um, do you know you'll need to do an engineered plan with soil testing and capacity analysis? Okay. >> So, if you were to get it, it would be a comment that would extend to resolution compliance.
>> Got it. So, that's a contingency of any approval, this would need to be done a certain way. >> Yeah. >> And that most builders in this area are familiar with this process and can be run through that or is it >> they know that they need an engineer most likely? >> It's routine. I'm I'm not I'm not overly
concerned that you're going to find that your soil is not going to work for this. Um, >> so we've done it before, but it goes >> the water table. >> It's to make sure that it actually can infiltrate down into the ground and to make sure that whatever size pit you're digging is actually big enough to hold the water that's being sent to it.
>> Gotcha. >> And this would just be a dry well for the addition, right? The the 500 square. >> That's what you're proposing. >> Correct. >> Understood. >> Good, Jordan. >> I'm good. I just want to make sure he's aware. Thanks. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Leader. Is there anything else that
I did not answer that you were looking for in us returning tonight? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And nothing further. All right. Are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments with
regard to the uh application? >> Okay. Mr. Sh, anything close? >> Um, nothing further to add. Go ahead. >> Sure. The there's been a lot of cross
talk back and forth as to your numbers, their numbers. What do you want to see from the applicant as conditional approved by way of >> Yeah, I have it in my my uh letter. Um >> it's all covered there. >> It's covered here. It's it's it's letter
5A. So basically it says that um numbers in my letters are accurate as far as I'm concerned and should be considered accurate by the board. Um any discrepancies the applicant you know should contact me ahead of time but short of that a final plan should reflect the numbers that are in my
letter except for the board result in the one. >> Yes. If there are ambiguities, could you just spell out what those are for us? What do we have? >> We're good. >> We're good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We would submit the plans for your
review. >> It's a Yes. And it'll be worked out. >> Yeah. >> And I don't have any concern that we're going to have an issue with any of the cops. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we're going to deliberate. I'm
going to make the suggestion um as we have our discussion that we view this as effectively a three-dimensional space that you don't consider the dropping of the floor nor the crawl space versus the
seller unless anybody feels strongly that they wouldn't want to see a seller over a crawl space or what have you. there is a groundwater issue and that is that you know just like putting a cup into a a thing of water you push the
water out. So it is a fact that if there is a seller versus a crawl space there is an impact on the the water table. However, the the dropping of the 12 ines we've certainly talked about and it doesn't at the end of the day come into
any of the numbers and so I don't know that anybody would feel strongly enough to want to dictate whether it's a crawl space or a seller and if if no one disagrees with me then I would suggest that you look at the proposal for the addition as it sits and then maybe have some discussion about whether or not the
ridge height was important and then if there is a feeling that the latitude ude is is not going to sway your decision one way or the other relative to the variance, then it could be presented with latitude as opposed to redesigning it or changing anything with regard to
what the the final design looks like. I've made this an issue tonight. >> Um, and so I apologize for confusing it, but as I said, Mr. Greer, I I don't I don't want the burden of feeling as though the accommodations were misargeted. It's clear to me that what
we have is square footage that's far in excess of what's required in the zone. It's always what it was. And so it wasn't about bulk the structure to begin with. Although I do appreciate the reduction in size. It's a little bit more modest and it's off of the sideline and and when I opened the plans when
they came in, I I I noted it. It was it was obvious that there was efforts to try to bring it back a little bit. So with that as a leaping off point, anxious to hear what people think. >> Yeah. I I've stated what I said before. I do like I appreciate the reduction in size. I appreciate the I think the ridge
height looks better now than it did before. Just my personal take. And coming in the two feet, if we hold the old height, it would be extremely steep. >> I would like I I don't like the step down in the house. I think it would be
better having that a level plane from the And I think you get more. I really do. I think it gets very awkward. And then hold on, hold on, hold on. The the the proposal to drop it down was in order to create a similar volume of
space on the interior. You're not suggesting you're you're commenting with regard to the design, but you're not suggesting that we should dictate one way or the other, right? >> I don't dictate one way or the other. I'm just saying I don't think it's I don't think it was necessary to drop it down to get the same result. You came in
two feet, you you flattened the ridge. Well, what they did was they dropped the ridge by almost 2 feet. They dropped the floor by 12 in to capture a similar level of volume. They made that design call. So, if you bring the height down, this is the way that they decided to go
in order to get that same. >> There's definitely a difference in pitch though from the old roof to the new roof, isn't there? >> Yes. >> Well, it has to be because it's less wid, >> but but they purposely brought it down. I all all I'm saying is I I just want it
to be clear. If what you're saying is I don't want it drop 12 in then what you're saying is I I I want to restrain at 12 in. Here's the question. Maybe somebody's going to answer this orient. If you don't drop at 12 in,
what are we counting for the ball space now? I'm confused by the 12in drop and what what where that 167 came out. Did we lose the 167 because of the roof or did we lose the 167 because we got the flip book.
You lost the 160. We're ready for you Jordan. We lost the 160 because the total height in the interior is less than the trigger point where you actually start measuring it a second time. And so it's measuring it from the
radio because >> is that because of the drop down or is it because of a lower >> if there was no drop down and everything was lifted a foot then there would be vaulted space out of town towards >> there would be about be about 50 square feet at least. >> Yeah. >> If there was no drop down if we didn't
drop the floor by 12 in Jordan saying correct me if I'm wrong we raise it back up to grade and we're recap then we're recounting that space. But is that if the whole thing shifts like this? >> Yes. Then if if it moves >> if the ridge height goes up. >> Sorry. I'm thinking the whole thing is shifted. You're saying if the roof stays
exactly where it is, >> right? >> Yeah. Then now >> it's a non-issue. They put it in either place. It doesn't change that square footage calculation. >> They just they just simply dropped it because they wanted the feel the aesthetic. >> They might want it dropped. >> They they do that. That's what they're
asking for. Well, I think it wasn't clear as to whether they necessar I mean that was a proposal, but they could go either way because was there was discussion about perhaps a step down to the patio versus step down into the >> very start fundamentally hasn't changed.
The only thing there's some oy stuff with the ridge that's now come out but it's only 50 square. No, I know what you're saying. If you raise the ridge height in order to level the floor, >> do you have to then count the 160?
>> And the answer seems to be yes to some degree. He's saying about 50 square feet. >> Yeah, it would be a little bit better because of where we're measuring the height from >> it would be less than last time because it's less width, it's less peak. So start there. >> Okay. But but I want to make this point, Mr. B, I'm going to come back to you,
but only for the purpose of answering this question. Yeah. You did not originally propose a drop down of 12 in. You proposed it as part of this. What I have assumed the whole time is that when you decided to drop the ridge height in order to make it appear smaller so as to accommodate the board's concerns, you
then dropped the floor by 12 in. Your wife may have decided she likes it that way, but I thought it was a consequence of dropping the ridge height. Again, I'll answer this and say that I think we dropped the floor to accommodate and trying to comply with with what you guys had from a ridge line and and a maximum
situation. If if we have a preference in the matter, I agree with Mr. Neznney and I definitely would not want to step indoors and I'd rather have a flat >> but there there's nothing about now that you dropped the ridge height, >> there's nothing about the 12 in up or
down that affects that excess square footage. Am I correct in that? >> The if if we I'm sorry, can you just rephrase how how you're saying that >> now that you've dropped the ridge height >> to now 14 and change. Yeah. >> Right. Right.
>> You you've whether the 12 in is dropped or whether it is level with the rest of the first floor elevation. It has no consequence on the measurement of that small area in the vault as to square footage. Correct. >> If you hold it there, >> right? If you hold it. Yeah. Right.
>> It does not matter. They can do either one. Holding the ridge height exactly as it is. They could keep it level. They've decided to drop it because in in response to the ridge height coming down, they'd want to capture more volume and that's the only way to do it. >> Agreed. I'm looking at a number here. 12 foot7. Okay. So that's the elevation
from the floor. That's the measurement from the floor to the peak to the interior. >> Yeah. >> What was the old number? >> That's what you're >> Okay. What was the old number? I don't see it. I see 178 on the I have the old plan in front as well, but I don't know what that number was from the floor to
the >> 178 is not measured from measured from the grade. >> No, it was um enough. >> Okay. It was It was 14. Well, it's seven. >> 147. Yeah. >> So, two feet. >> Yeah. So you've gained two feet. So if
we bring I my personal thing is keep the new plan and just shift the whole shift the whole box up by one foot. Make it level in the in the house. Have your step down to the patio. I like the new plan with the two feet in. I think I appreciate the the reduction in size and
I think it will look well balanced with the other side of that. >> I don't think we make that call. I don't think that that's up for for our discussion. I think what I was getting at is if the volume is is an issue for them and you permit them to increase the ridge height, they will not need to drop
it by the 12 in. They can make it flat and they can still have the vault that they want. I don't think you need to dictate whether they drop it or not. I I think you can you can evaluate this and grant an approval based on the outside box and where they set the floor is where they set the floor. Okay.
>> Square footage will not change. >> No. And and I'll go one further. When we designed the new ordinance, what we said was 30 in where the where the height is 30 in or greater counts as square footage. The
idea was on a level. We wanted the point that we started to capture what the square footage of the second level was. What we always had was a a measurement that was basically intended to capture a traditional 8-ft floor with an
additional space in a wall until the point where that second space above could be finished and have the minimum UCCC requirement of head of seven 7 ft. What's happened is that in reading it plain language the the old rule of how
high you go on a ball has been complicated by the measurement that was not intended to be changed by the ordinance in this case and it is fixable should be fixed it's wrong the impact isn't supposed to hit this applicant and
the the 160 I would say we could complete that that's well within our discretion >> and under the intent of the ordinance, they're being caught up in it. And it was never intended to have caused them to feel as though they can't have a 16 foot ball.
Let me articulate it this way. We got to write it. Should it be expressed as that the in that the square footage remains the same at a ridge height not to exceed.
We give a we give a value there measured from existing credit. So that's the flexibility I'm looking for them to have. >> I think that may be the way you want to go if you if you're if that's where you want to live. I I don't want to make the call.
>> I don't want to make the call as to whether they drop the 12 in. >> I'm suggesting that the two feet that they've taken off the bridge and I don't see it as material to give them the opportunity to stay that they want. Not that I would make it size, but I didn't mind it. But that wasn't
the issue. It was the total square footage. That was that was more >> than the reduction of everything. >> Look, I thought I thought this was super close last because a 4,000t house in this demo is is large, but the context
of the neighborhood is that there are larger homes. This addition is in a location on this lot where you will not be able to see it. Even if you go all the way down, you're only going to see a little bit of it. And the numbers don't lie. at almost twice the size of lot. They're still at just over two.20
in terms of floor area ratio. So the problem with this is that our ordinance is not flexible. It doesn't allow you more square footage just because you have a bit lot. But in terms of evaluating how to modernize homes and allow people to have spaces that they
can use, while we cannot take into account the personal situation with regard to working, the real question for us is whether or not a >> plus orus 4,000 foot home on a plus or minus 20,000 foot lot in this neighborhood
>> is is contrary to the zoning plan. At least that's where I'm at and that's what I think we're being asked. And so the slighted the slight change to it and if it's close last time I think it's clear that I I support it as it stands. Um
that's how I see. >> Well said enough. >> Well my my feeling is you know not to drop not to drop the floor. You know you don't need to step within your house. Uh but that's up to you guys. Right. I have no problem with that.
>> I agree with you. and and and if uh I I think it's a beautiful plan in a beautiful area of the of our town and uh I I don't I don't see I don't see this as being out of scale with the rest of
the houses, you know, in that area. Uh the whether or not you do a crawl space or a seller, that's up to you guys as far as I'm as far as I'm concerned. And if the ridge height has to go up a foot so that you don't have to uh so that you
don't have to to do the step down within the house, I'm okay with all right that that's that's up to your discretion. >> I appreciate it. Thank you. So, so I I just want >> Well, I I I want to point out that
>> the issue as to whether or not the slight increase of the ridge height I I think what you're saying, Skip, is that even if that triggers some small slice of extra square footage and the way it's calculated, you're indifferent as to that. >> I don't have a thought. Okay. >> Right. Right. Thank you.
>> Let's keep going. You're next. I I agree with Pete that I think that the second plan um I prefer with less mass and I really like this to get under 4,000 square ft rather than have any additional
space packed coming on to 4,000 plus just for president even on I really think that this is uh is better. I don't care about what they do on the inside of the house. I don't care a crawl space or seller, but I I think I
like the last minute and I I would feel better less than 4,000. >> Got it. Okay. >> Who else on the right? >> Maybe all >> you have any thoughts? I mean, remember when you're approving
this 500 foot room that you're also approving the additional 250 square ft above the cap that was arrived at by getting a permit in 2017 for a, you know, three season covered porch for
which is now got walls and windows and is a conditioned space that is going from that to in the elevations that were given to us, smaller windows, more walls, and still
going to be a conditioned space that you're approving that as well. That creep that happened between 2017 and now. How? We don't know. We decided we wanted more room, so we heated it and we put
windows. And you know, um the idea that this is fine because we could almost subdivide it based on the area of the lot when you don't have even
the frontage to to subdivide it is disingenuous. It's It's It's not dimminimous. It's almost 25% above the cap. Um
uh the you know h how it looks and whether the neighbors like it or not and whether it's going to affect the water table are all considerations to some degree or another. But I I don't see
that having an oversized lot supports exceeding the cap, which is there blind of the size of any lot. The cap is the cap is the cap. It's not a ratio. It
doesn't matter how big the lot is. The cap is the cap. Um, so I I There's plenty of you here to vote. I'm in an alternate capacity right now. So, I'm just laying out for you how how I
feel about it, my opinion on it. I also have some questions. >> Um, you know, if if Jordan here didn't have PE and CME after his name, we wouldn't be able to use him as our professional. Um, you know, if the
attorney, we we rely on professionals because we're volunteers. Some of us are attorneys, engineers, but I also have a problem with and and not to denigrate your 40 years of experience. I've been doing this for 15 years. I'd be I' I'd love to sit on that side of the table
and get paid for it, frankly. But we're relying on something we can't certify. The plans are certified, but he's over here scaling things. You >> He asked me a question. No, he asked me a question.
>> It's closed. But that's not getting certified to us. >> And and I can only recall one instance in the 15 years that I've been
volunteering here when that has happened before and it didn't make any sense to me then either. So that's all. Okay. >> To add to the first half of Al's
argument, I have I'm a little split on this project because one side is kind of from the outside. It does balance the home. It's in keeping of the neighborhood. It does add privacy to their backyard. um and there isn't a lot
of public passing by. But on the other hand, it's hard to ignore the fact that they're already over tap. They enclosed their sun room that wasn't um permitted and they seem to already have
a lot of usable space between an enclosed sun room, an existing sitting area, an existing living room, a separate dining room, and a full uh basement, finished basement that isn't
in the plan, so no one's mentioning it. Um that just seems like a lot of space. Um, so I'm kind of split between um going with the cap and going with the
outside and neighborhood aesthetics. >> But I got to tell you, I I agree with the first half of Al's argument, too. Nothing against your credentials. I I don't find to be uh, you know, at risk of anything here. But I think, listen, I think we've never relied on the size of a lot. And not to diminish, you know,
know, you know, not to diminish the oversized nature of your lot, but we've never relied on that here, right? At least in the time I've been here. And that's an argument that's very easy to make for anyone who has an oversized lot, right? You know, I live in uh R5. My lot's oversized. You know, does that
mean I should put 3,000 square feet on my lot? No. Right? And that's why the cap's there. So, uh I think I struggle with it. I think although this is a very nice analysis here, I think there's plenty of houses on this block here, eight or 10 of them I can count just by eyeballing that are around a half an
acre and are sub 3,000 square feet. Um I don't know and I'm very conflicted to to Jackie's point because I know you have tall children. I'm sure that's why you went to the vault. Like I get I get it all. Um I just feel like it would be difficult given how we treat other
applications. So, I'm very split. >> I um I I I feel I'm also torn on the precedent, which we're not actually setting a precedent, but the number. Um,
so I am curious as to what the number would be with the dropping of the I I mean is the number not changing? We're going to keep whatever they're saying. So it's going to be under four.
>> So it's the number that they've proposed because by reducing the ridge height, they've taken out the penalty square footage that came from the mall. So that is not an issue as proposed tonight. Whether the floor is dropped 12 in or
flush makes no difference and the total number is what you see at the 391. >> Okay. >> Um that does make me feel more comfortable comfortable about it. um especially given the extenduating circumstances in some
regard with the fact that the location in on this street where they are um the neighbors are supportive. There are lots of other houses that are also u oversized. >> There are a lot that aren't like that.
>> Many that are not. Yeah. >> Right. But there are also many that are. Um, and so I I I tend to I just think that I appreciate that they are working with their existing home.
Um, that they are making improvements. Um, I appreciate the way that they are screening. I also like the fact that it does somewhat privatize um that area of
their backyard. I think there are benefits to it and I would support it. >> So I don't really understand the screening argument because part of the reason why you could argue that this is not offensive is because of where it is.
And I mean I I just don't really understand the screening argument. I have to say that that the struggle that I had last time that I think is still here relates to the finishing of the threeseason room. If this application were 3750 on a 20,000t lot and this were
the addition, I think it would be a lot easier. I think the reason that it's become complicated is because the collective change feels larger and in fact it is. I kind of wish the proposal was that we will take out the finish
finished finishes and we will make this now a threeseason room in the back the way it always should have been. Um but that isn't the proposal. What I what challenges me about that feeling is that no one will ever know. It will make zero
difference. And the only place that makes a difference in the way that you evaluate this potential house relative to the neighbors and whether or not the neighborhood is a neighborhood that can sustain a almost 4,000t house. And so I've always struggled with that kind of
slippery slope. Um, okay. It's not going to look to million to that point. I it doesn't look any different to me whether that's an open sun room. >> Agree. an open porch or an enclosed space. Nobody from the street will ever know the difference.
>> I totally agree. I understand that. >> Except when except when people come in and why you look at the numbers, okay, when you look at the I mean you look at the plans come on base >> struggle isn't your particular hole, right? And I hope you understand that. It's that people come in and make this argument all the time and it creeps right and it gets worse.
and we didn't have the standard >> that that >> but we push back all the people and the more it happens the the worse it gets and then we begin to be biased that we retrieve one application different although they're all >> every application >> well I but there are bigger houses in
this neighborhood >> a few yeah >> I think I think you have to think about the neighborhood too though I think you're talking about a street that's a little bit unique in town where the only reason you're going to go on that street is if you live there's no pass There's no way you're going down river one drive.
And having driven on that street many times, I choose not to drive because you can farther. >> So there's the other thing which is that this is not a tear down. This is not start over again. This is not a proposal to build a 4,000t house on the existing footprint. What this is a proposal for
is an addition to a structure that has historical significance, but it's more of a traditional house that's been there for a while. And so what you could do if you wanted to rip the whole thing out is make the first floor more usable by changing the layout al together. And so
other than the fact that it's an incremental um ask from the same family had this if this were a different then not the family that developed it in 17 I think that would also be easier because what you'd be looking at is well this is an
addition that's intending to make this house more usable in modern times. Fresh fresh looking fresh at the out. >> Okay. Anybody want to try and convince anybody else to change their mind? >> I just like to recognize that the make a
considered effort to come in with less mass that I think it did make a big difference to the addition. I also appreciate the effort to put the drywall in. I do think the planning has mattered to kind of scream off that back patio area. They took the hot tub back off
that notch and put back on the existing patio if I understand correctly. Um I think the effort to at least not have that seller I to your point Mr. Leader is the you know the cup in the water you know whether or not they choose to do it or not I guess that needs to be seen.
But I think there was an effort to try to listen to what we put on the record at last month's meeting and that matters to me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're at the point in the deliberation where somebody needs to put forth a a motion. That motion has to be
either to approve or deny the application. Um, and I think based on the opinions that have been circulated, I think I've got um, does anybody want to make a motion?
>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the application, the revised application. I don't think there's any conditions >> the correction of the all the numbers. Yeah, whatever that is >> that and the dry well design
calciderations. But I'll second >> Mr. Nzni. >> Yes. >> Mrs. D'Angelo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Forcer. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Newman. >> Abstain. Mr. Le, >> what what's total vote count for? Born >> born in favor. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm the only one that gets to abstain up here. They voteain. >> That's have a word about that.
>> So, I'm going to note that um I I I certainly could vote in favor. I am going to abstain because it's easy for me to abstain. I choose to abstain when I can't. I want you to understand that I recognize all the things that have been discussed are true. you've made a tremendous effort to try and figure out a way to make this work. I know the
board appreciated that this was close in the beginning, it's close in the end. Um, and this board struggles of trying to preserve your neighborhood to be the place that you really want to live. And I know that sometimes people don't perceive what we perceive with regard to what's too much. The lines are always
fine. Um, but there's nobody in town that cares more about your neighborhood than us. So, I'm going to abstain. And, and with that abstension, you have four affirmative votes. together. >> Congrats. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thanks, guys.
>> Thank you. >> Hold on. I want to make that comment while we're still on the record. The motion to approve it as proposed was sort of qualified through the discussion. We are not committed to the reduction of the of floor height by the
12 in. They can raise that floor by 12 in. It makes no difference either way. It doesn't change the calculations. It's just it's good, >> right? Everybody agrees with that. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Well, good. Um uh minutes October 9th meeting. Um I don't think there were any changes. Make a motion group. I'm sure >> yes >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes, >> Mr. Dr. Walker.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> The only other thing is the the calendar for next year. Um We circulated it before last meeting. I think anybody who wasn't here has had a chance to look at it. We won't be voting on until the
reorg meeting in January. So, I don't really think there's anything. >> It's not clear what the dates like the definite dates are because it discusses the alternative dates as a question. >> No, it's Yeah. So, the question mark is if you
accept it, that's what B. So if I'm composing anything as an alternate bonus, there's a conflict. >> Any conflict as a question mark, but the composable will take the proposed dates are in parenthesis. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So that would be the proposed date. So as long as you're okay
with the proposed date, you don't see any additional conflicts. That's what >> But again, we'll we'll memorialize it in January. And I think I think we might be actually good with this. So, it stays a question mark until January.
>> Well, it's unofficial until January. >> Well, it's if you see a reason that you don't like that number or that date, >> call it out now. >> Because it does go to print in a in a burrow calendar,
>> but it's made official in January. >> And we've been extra diligent this year about school holidays and >> religious and everything else. Are we going then 212 416 79 112 just to be clear?
>> So one more comment on the record before we go anywhere and then we'll open to the public. I don't know if you have anything >> um Doug brought to our attention earlier this week that there are some um people that have been taking our letterhead um
and not not specific in Fair Haven. No no it's not happened in Fair Haven but it's going on. Okay. >> Inhale debate about it. >> So out so out there there are people that are trying to um create bills for
boards and sending information to applicants and professionals about paying boards with wire instructions or something. >> What's happening is there's a scam to use a burrow's logo. They have the information as to what
who's on there because they can access your agendas and then they directly contact the applicant and say, "Oh, by the way, your escro is low. Please wire money to us. Please don't call because this is how we do things.
We do things by wire transfer. If you do want to speak to someone, then they give them their number to speak to." So that it it completely cuts the burrow out of it. But because this is happening,
wanted to attention. We It's not prevalent here in M County, but but happening. >> I'm I'm seeing it, too. And not only is it on the burrow's letterhead, but it's also obviously signed by someone in the in the burrow. They could say she'll listen. >> It's a little sophisticated. If you
really read it closely and you were experienced in this, you would probably pick it up. But realize many of our applicants it's, you know, it's the first time they've ever had anything like this. First time they're seeing it. They might I'm not saying they're not sophisticated. This is a very sophisticated. >> Actually, some don't even realize,
right? Because they probably don't track how much is at that they lost. >> So, here's what everyone wants to know, and I'm also putting this on the record because I want anyone who's reviewing the record to have an opportunity to hear this. The bureau doesn't work via wires. We only take checks. And so the
checks have to be brought directly to Burough Hall. And that's the way we've processed these things. That's the way we will always process these things. I understand the council is going to add some language to some of the uh public facing materials. >> We've already taken care of that.
>> That's terrific. >> Yeah. The applications have been updated. It's been posted on the website. Um Doug gave us some verbiage that we could use, put it on the website, sent out a blast. >> So So what a world. what a world we live in. But but beyond that, this isn't
about somebody getting scammed out of a couple of thousand dollars or whatever it is. It's about how it feels when it happens. And I don't know if you know anybody that's been scammed out of things, but >> well, especially from a burrow. It's like dirty. It's like a government thing. Like you trust it, you know, show them in the >> It's just It's just terrible. So everybody be aware of it. Um be vigilant
on your own about these sorts of things. And if anybody ever asks or if you have an opportunity to help somebody understand how this works, check to the bureau. No other way. >> Yeah. The bureau actually sent an email about it yesterday. So, anybody that's on the contact got a very succinct email basically saying this is how it works.
So, they're on top of it. >> I don't know how many people read them, but I do. >> Okay. Uh any any comments from the public? >> I was just going to mention the scams and banking. >> Got it. Nothing further.
Uh motion to close. All in favor? Hi >> here.