okay this is a regular are we on yes All right this is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven Zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board reorganization in January this year the board adopted into regular meeting scheduled for the year notice the schedule was sent to and published
in the Asbury Park Press on January 31st 2025 and the two River times on January 23rd 2025 that notice was also posted on the bulletin board in burough Hall and 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 with the office of
the B clerk copy of the notice has also been sent to the members of the public has have requested such information in accordance to the statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minutes of the meeting [Music]
spech the agenda no the other okay for proceeding with a for meeting tonight I'd like to say a few words to the applicants or experts in the audience about the role and authority of the pr and Zoning Board of adjustment this board is a separate independent Municipal legal entity and its limited authori specifically set
forth in B ordinances and the New Jersey municipal L use law it is quaide judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and Council the zon board does not enact the burough land use laws and regulations the bur ccel does that the zoning board does not enforce the land use laws the bur fa
them this is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the bur's land use laws board denials by the zoning officer an applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to PR regulations but must meet specific
criteria required by the New Jersey municipal luse law and the fa ordinances by satisfying certain required standards of proof the board has no authority to wave these requirements the burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to the specifically 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 in the detriment of his own plan variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situ
situations roll call Please Mr here Mr here Mr here here here Mr Mr here Mr pres please
join alance to the flag the United States of America okay uh Mr aens and Mr Brodsky um I am considering moving the forward matter and the car matter and switching so Mr bradsky would go first does that create a problem for either one of you no
problem okay so then uh with that being said we're going to call the car matter please thank you think for anybody or do I you may oh somebody else is they' have to give you permission swear all your Witnesses in
anybody that will testify might testify have something to say just step forward please just raise your right hand you Solly sare testimony give truth all truth about the truth answer that question is yes yes yes yes okay then my
general ction to you is before you start testifying dat your name spell your last name for purpose of the record so that if we have to have a record made we'll know who was speaking at that point okay um Mr Ros if I may with regard to this
application we Mark the land use development checklist list of variances and statement of legal basis together with the uh Zoning Board of adjustment application is A1 A2 will be the architectural site
plans floor plans elevations a buyer architect I think it's revised to November 11 uh 2024 yes A3 will be the location survey prepared by Trinidad dated june3rd 2024
unrevised that A3 A4 will be the zoning permit denial uh prepared by Officer dated July 17 2024 uh color photographs of the subject property looks like we have seven images
we also have the mark of zb1 the CME engineering report over Mr rzo signature of September 30th 2024 also CB2 the engine report over the Rizo November 11
2024 those are all the exhibits I have so far any other exhibits that any wants to Mark at this point in time uh no I don't have any Mr Mr I have three letters get all three I may have but I may not have updated my marking what
what is the date of your other c number one is September 30th 2024 got that one number oh here's the confusion number two is November 11th 2024 and I think I ised a third L of the same date
after a very oh okay that may be why we mark two and three are both same date we Mark that 24 PS then run through the checklist waivers yeah but I'm just going to ask you hold on a second I was remiss in not
mentioning old business if anyone came to see or hear or speak on the Gil matter at 125 Harvard Road that matter has been withdrawn uh the board is uh taking no further action with regard to that appication now you may thanks so there's
two uh checklist waivers being requested the first one is elevations of the structure so two elevations are propos are shown um they are the what you'll hear to be the subject side of the project the elevations at the front and the other side are not provided but
photo photos are provided um and the second one is location and type of attic access um I'll ask that through testimony tonight um if we discuss what the attic axis is I was previously told it was a pull down ladder so we just get that on
the record and then it's part of f we get to that point you can just identify the location what what elevations do we not have the front and one side because you can't see the addition from the front you can only see the addition from two sides of the building we'll get there we need we need
okay all right so let's go subject to the board making a decision with regard to whether or not those waivers are appropriate on thank you Mr chair members board Rick Ry on behalf of the applicant n car the application before you this evening pertains to the property that's located at 100 Harvard
Road um in the r10 uh in the r10 zone uh the application seeks approval to construct uh um a 61 square foot uh addition into the rear of the property uh in a
location that is uh currently is uh is there there exists a a rear Des yes in that location where the uh sto the the one story Edition is proposed um the purpose as you'll hear from Mr goris as
we go through of sort of wearing it off hole in the donut however you want to P it it's kind of is really being driven by internal Renovations that are being done to the home uh and it's to facilitate you
know a more useful uh usable uh modern kitchen uh as you'll see when Mr koris walks you through the current layout um we're not really sure how the kitchen ended up the way it did um but
you know it to do it right we required this little 61 square foot enclosure so to speak or addition um the the reason we are here there are a number of existing non-conformities with respect
to uh this this property um the applican purchased the property about 16 years ago um has never done anything to the other than some in interior Renovations um but since that time uh
there have been changes in the zoning uh ordinance here in in Fair Haven in terms of how floor area is calculated uh right with respect the but basement um is is what we think has happened here but um
which but that kind of tells the story I think as to why um the the numbers for the floor area um seem to be larger than uh you know significantly larger than what's currently permitted in the zone and
that's by virtue of primarily right the calculation the additional footage that is now counted uh with respect to the basement and also attic calculations right area under the attic first first floor atct so that's that's kind of just
a little backdrop and so so we're here because we are increasing uh the coverage that's already uh exceeds that which is what permitted by the 61 square feet okay so Mr koras how long's that house been there I believe it was since like 2007
or 2008 did you design the house originally I did not where did all the measurements come that are on your plan we had some uh some PDFs that were given to us that we that we was okay so you you effectively have done a full as built and you have signed these plans
and you have actually certified as to the measurements with regard to the existing structure uh yes okay and are there Mr rodsky any variances that were granted for the original construction of the home not that I'm aware okay and so can Mr kandor can you help us understand
where you're asking for 61 square foot Edition right that's all we're coming in for today yes correct and yet the total square footage if approved would be what um 376 5520 5520 yes okay so let's remove the
basement from that what would the the first and second floor calculations uh well if you remove the basement and remove the uh 96 Square ft of that little narrow area that we have to count now over first floor if there's an attic over a first floor exclusive of a garage
um you have to count anything above 30 inches so there's 96 s feet came from that and then there's 1667 ft from the basement so it's a total so without those two numbers the floor area would be 3757 okay which is also well in acccess of what the requirement is so
where did that 500 ft come from uh I believe it came and again I did not do the plans but I believe when this was calculated um whoever the architect was did not count the two-story um areas in the house ceiling ceilings yeah and I don't
know if that predated when when I don't know when that started to count I actually tried to get an answer from way before 2006 way I I think so too but I I I wasn't sure with the so I'm not sure how that happened do we have a first floor elevation number on this I'm just trying to figure out what the basement look first floor
fla a basement I measured it on site and I I it's definitely more than 30 Ines I took I took the concern approach yeah okay so look so the basement's understandable seller whatever it is get it that's changed got it with regard to the space
above the I'm not sure where these spaces are but understand that changes the vaulted ceilings never change um but you're measuring the house now at 3700 sare fet plus or minus now we're talking about 61 sare F feet
correct so if you would Tony if you could just walk the board through the house as it exists today uh from fled and then propos as part this addition yeah so if you look at sheet
V2 um you'll see on the top of the page here first floor plan the back of the house is the kitchen and I have showing in dash lines the existing kitchen and I also showed the existing wall of the exterior in the back here so you see it's kind of a very odd
shaped uh room here that would be very difficult to expand the kitchen at all um so you can see there's a tiny Island that's that's what the Das are showing so squaring off this back area allows us to put a a Long Island a longer Island
that's uh more in keeping with today's standards and of course more C counter space and more entertaining space overall for uh and then Tony with regard to um uh any other changes to the FL plan that
had any effect on this right okay and um with regard to the we we talked about Jord had asked about the access to the attic oh yes there's a full down stair up in the hallway I think right over here okay and and then
with regard the variance that we're seeking now um Tony is with respect to an increase there's no increase in lot coverage right because this this this addition is going basically where they
already have debt that's correct canel in the cover yes yes so but we do have an increase we do have an increase um in the floor area yes right going from uh what is it
0485 Rao 496 adding the9 square feet Yes 0496 okay and and then the total floor area you had said earlier uh 5,520 and then when we back but then we calculated backing out backing out
brings us if we take out the two newer ordinance changes uh 3757 okay and you have an elevation in your plan right the board just giv them visual as to where this addition is going right so this is
the rear elevation of the house and and the the the area that we're squaring off is right here so you you can't see it from the front of the house uh and this is the side view of that which you can only see from the right
side questions for Mr kandor does anyone know why the um the height is exceeded at 32 feet I don't know um I didn't the house was already there um we did not measure the height I took these off of the PLS
that we were given so and and what was data on those plan the original plans that you built off of you said the house went in in 2007 right yeah I'm sorry I don't know the exact 200 I think it was sold in 2008 2009 2009 it sat for a year or so
and it was new it was purchased as new construction by by the applican in 2009 and she never did anything so the the height changed and it it may well have changed very soon after this house was
built it had been 35 it went down to 32 I don't know when it was but it was around this time and if you didn't have 3750 or whatever you've got I don't think it would be standing out to me but it it certainly it certainly presents like we've got problems that are invented but I wish I knew the actual
dates of that yes Mr how much is the attic space making up of that 37 something do you have a number on it the the the one story The Attic one 90 96 ft I'm just trying to figure out how it got the
3700 there's a half Story Attic or it's a pull down l so we're not counting any like real attic space in the square footage this is on the second floor I guess you want to call an attic to the first floor it's really second floor floor area there's uh areas where the
roof the roof between the first floor and the second floor is greater than 30 in yeah yeah this this area right here which is above the kitchen actually counts now you have to count anything above 30 in that's in that at but but does that explain away
the whole 500 foot difference no it does not I think it's it's it's the vaulted ceilings that were originally in the house that probably weren't counted they were counted 2006 yeah well I don't know maybe the other person the ordinance
require that they be counted but would be an explanation of where the 500 ft comes from and does do those measurements line up um I don't have that number you do you have the original plans with
you no what did it show as the square footage it has at that ton it didn't show 3750 yeah sorry don't no it did not show uh no it did not Zillow it shows
3150 Mr Condor was the was the pool present at the time that the house was purchased by the car uh no how' you get the pool so close to the property line oh no I I didn't put the pool what's the St skip I don't know
what it is yeah is it not in compliance Jordan do you know the answer to it yeah there's existing condition for that side yard setep back of 8 ft rear yard setep back of 10 ft um the rear yards aboutt the
Pao we not 3204 on the tax record so it's a 10 foot setep back and it it it breaches that by 7 fet and when did the pool go in pool was put in by well Nancy when did when did you put the pool
in I don't remember exactly sorry Nancy um I don't remember it was probably 2011 2012 but we got permits for did you get permits for the pool at the same time as you got permits for the surrounding patio and area around the
pool I believe so yeah we don't have any of that paperwork here I I don't okay look the issue is obvious right so it's an incremental change to the house which presented in isolation is very straightforward the design of the house
clearly in 2007 8 n whatever it was was based on current standards it's got an odd kitchen the argument with regard to the expansion is one you're prepared to make the problem is is we're stumbling over very basic issues with regard to the properties confined if the property were currently confined and I don't
think that there's any penalty for the fact that the ordinance has changed but that alone doesn't explain the problem um and and I I think what would be good to know is that yes counting those vaulted ceilings explains the 500 square fet obviously the area where it's above
the 30 inches that's different the basement counted that's new got it but with regard to not knowing exactly why because the other things that were happening is people were finishing spaces that they weren't telling us that they were finishing um people have done
things without permits and with regard to the pool to the extent that you got a permit and they gave you the permit in error that's not your fault but without having that information it's just presenting another question which relates to what we're doing so it it's difficult to not have that information
okay get that I'm sure You' got those record what happened with this matter you were on in November uh we didn't touch we didn't touch any testimony it just carried no new [Music] notice and did we carry or did the
African carry it you carried it Mr brki yes yes we did I don't remember the reason but it was us all right so you're here in February not because of us that's correct okay but I want to understand yes so do we have those files around
like now so you know one of the things that happens with pools and I'm not saying this is occurred here but that pools are approved for the pool and then the decking is put in afterwards without permits not saying you did that but if the permit says it was a 10 feet and the
actual pool is at three then it would be worth the board understanding but if we can find that out Nish well the other possibility is for acation that's the denial for this one
seller generator fence and AC i' go so far as to say if you have a permit to build the pool exactly where it is this board will fix it okay we can we can we can explain it we can put it in a resolution so you don't have to worry about it no I do
okay it's amazing you have all that stuff right there looking for a plan were August 2010 you can make yourself comfortable and have to se than we're not that strict we want your architect to be
standing the hold you know if it means anything I never spelled my name before you want me to got it you see a pool permit but no PL I don't see like if you look here you'll see design permits listed down here I do see
grading for a pool but I don't see Zing kerit all right Mr why don't you complete your testimony with regard to the proposal and then we'll try and figure out and it could be in paper files in those archives it just
might not be are those accessible to you right now thank you all right Mr gor yes um I have nothing further to explain the floor plans um can you can you show us the existing decking um and how that interrelates with the proposed addition
does it is it lining up exactly with um yes the existing deck uh is flushed with the rear of the house and we are sitting right on top of it if if you look at the site plan on page V1 you can see the the hatched area there is right on top of the deck are you putting in a foundation
underneath it yes there's no Foundation now uh there's probably a deck Foundation which would not be adequate for the house so we'd have to put an actual foundation wall so we'd have to cut away some of the deck and either patch it and repair it or so there's pilasters in place or something with
gravel or something underneath it is that what we're saying probably yeah probably posts on on um either peers or sbes you're saying probably don't you have the as conditions right there it does it doesn't show the deck the deck Foundation but didn't you survey it I mean haven't you looked at
it touched it well I make it's fair to assume that a deck does not have a full foundation so I know when we when we get into the construction plans we will have to address the foundation of the U all right would you confirm would you confirm that
the that the the kitchen addition is not going further than the existing deck yes yes I will confir um sorry the the location
generator on your site plan there it seems like it's in line with the of building almost the exterior side of the generator is almost in line with the side of the building the 131 the survey
it looks like the generators outside of that line um I was wondering what the setback was the generator are you saying that I'm saying I'm looking at the survey the generator
appears to be entirely to the right of that bump out there so um you're comparing this survey to the actual I'm comparing your site plan to the actual survey oh and when I look at the survey it looks like the generator
is the answer is 10 it's 10t the requirement is is eight all right thank you I didn't understand question for some reason the generator closer
yeah kind of strange this right so we have Rob Adler's plans here these are the original plans these plans show the total square footage of the house is 3145 are any plans that you reviewed yes now they're they're paper PL so we don't have electronic copies of them so
we do our best to you scan them in put them in CAD and you adopt the numbers and certify them yes are they accurate what do you mean by ACC what what do I mean by accurate are they real I mean Mr koris you obviously have
not done a full as built of the house and that's okay for efficiency but we're looking at numbers that are all out of and I'm asking you whether or not we can rely on your numbers under your signature and if what you're telling me is that sometimes not exactly right which is what we seem to be intimating I want to understand
it they are from from my uh analysis of those plans I determined with whatever computer I have and abilities that I have that those that the square footage is exceeding appears to be exceeding or
is actually the uh the maximum yeah no I understand that much I understand that one so as I'm looking at this Foundation plan there is a block wall that runs on the rear of the house and that deck all appears to be up on plasters so you are
proposing then to effectively sever this small section of the house you would create what slab under it uh foot footings and and a and a block wall are you talking about under the addition yes yeah there'd be a footing and uh
probably a little crawl space and slab block wall no not not a slab I mean there'd be a rat slab inside of the Crossways but not are you going to be expanding the basement by the same 61 no no okay I'm particularly interested in knowing whether or not the house was
constructed in accordance with plans and I'm not exactly sure that under this intense pressure of a board meeting that I can figure that out as I'm looking at it I would like to just know the answer do you know the answer I we did not measure the actual house we have you
been inside the house yes okay um are there any areas above the garage that are finished no there rooms the yeah there rooms there are rooms above thear but again there's this attic that
you have to count that's for the new ordinance which is the remainder of the roof of the garage that's contributing to that extra square footage yes and that's not on you that's not on you I I I I would have liked I'm sure everybody would have liked had you created a plan
showing us with color where the spaces are now being counted that were not counted before so that we could just dispose of the issue and what I think I'm getting caught up in I don't know what everybody else is thinking is do we have a situation where there was
additional square footage added beyond what was approved or do we have a house that was fully compliant and are we simply adding 61 feet and if we knew that we'd probably be done already yeah the only answer to that would be for me to actually physically go to the house and and do a do a measurement which I
could well I'm not asking you to spend the applicant's money I'm asking you to take the plans that you have adopted in your own and make sure that we know that those plans as shown are consistent with this and that we have reconciled the 3145 with the 37 whatever and that we
know that all of that square footage is part of the change in ordinance and nothing further that's that's all I'm asking I think I think what it seems like to me is if you net out the changes from the ordinance over the years there's still a Delta and that's that's what we're all
trying my suspicion was that some things wer encountered than we should have what what are you showing for your second floor square footage some existing 2029 okay okay but again I'm counting
all the I'm including the vaulted ceiling area I know I'm trying to help you cuz these plans say that the second story is 159 right right so that would yes so the vaulted ceilings that he apparently
didn't count and apparently got through zoning explains 500 ft right there right correct and then you got about 100 somewhere else 100 on the the area above the garage it's over 30 in that's the 100 yeah above the garage and there's
two areas actually and you can see it is highight I mean it's not in color but it's highlighted on the plan are 96 right there 600 that's the difference there's one here and there's one over here and that number was three short of whatever that round number is right so
that get you been one square foot taller right close very close Mr Adler really knows what he's doing and likes to press it exactly to the Limit and I'm wondering whether or not he was fully in compliance and whether or not the new measurements
wrong how how tall are the vaulted spaces um they well this one here has a has an angle to it the one over the family room and the one the other one was two story go through this what do we count it's got to be
over it's got to be capable of having two stories including the ra after inside of it and I think the number is like 17t it's it's a pretty big number and Adler knows it really well and he would press right up to it and so my guess is that you are probably in
compliance and that in in your caution which which we appreciate um that you might have Incorporated it and maybe it doesn't need to be incorporated under the Adler theory of if you can't sandwich 28 foot foot stor along with the with the floor joist of 18 in
whatever that is 12 in right um that that's what he did he pulled it right down below that but isn't it 30 in now for the new ordinance 30 in for what talk about different things that's the V the talking whether you count the V
ceing not look so so I'd like to know the answer with regard to the pool because i' like to be able to help you clean it up because I assume it's done right and I assume that you would like it to be cleaned up the other problem we've got is if we proceed based on what you've given us you're going to show gillo is going to read
3750 and you're going to pay taxes on 3750 whether you're 3750 or not um it might be a mistake to proceed based on the numbers you have if in fact just suspicion okay um but that that that it's fully compliant as sits
subject to the changes in the OR understood we did not change that vaultage ceing we didn't touch that that that was what it was it is what it is no change the 30 in we Chang okay all right so why don't we'll
get that Ino we'll get do you want to talk to your client because you know you've been at this for a little while I I I am reasonably comfortable I don't know if the other board members are as well but I'm reasonably comfortable on seeing these plans that I know how you got to where you are but I I I do believe it's possible that you've got
more square footage in here than you should have but I leave that to you it talk about lock coverage yeah sure all you want to know coverage first floor 1636 garage 683 covered porch 394 driveway walkways 1020
deck 290 it'd be nice if you totaled it but I don't see that you did you want to take a look at this short is there so I assume when the Co went in because there was a permit F that lock coverage calculated and it conformed do you see it conforming
today um I'm showing obviously no change to lot coverage but that that it really isn't the question the question is whether or not it's in conformance today or not you show it not being in conformance shows it's not in how far out is it required is 45% and then
calculating 48 so what's the square footage how many square feet are over best shy 4394 really I think the pool was there well that's that's true no they were not done so
no no that's starting the question is right this was the starting point and it did not comply with the starting point yet the pool permit was issued well we know what the starting point was with regard to the original permit we
understand that there was a pool permit fold that we don't have um that was um authorized by the zoning officer without a variance and so that suggests that what was shown was in compliance and so the addition of those two things should put us in compliance today I'm going to something else happen and I don't know
what else might happen but but once again it's not we're not pointing fingers if there we should fix it right if if there were mistakes made and it's not the applicant's fault then we should fix it and if there's mistakes that were made that that that are on the applicant then we should consider
it meaning if we could verify that we have the log l coverage exceeding then apply to the bar yeah well we can fix it for you if it was done by accident and and the applicant isn't their fault and there was a permit issued we're not going to put that on the applicant we'll
fix it in the resolution understood yeah I mean these plans certainly don't include any obviously pool or or any uh Pao area po pool came later what about the deck was the deck
original yeah 290 Square F feet for a deck is on I thought it's 393 covered GG is 394 [Music] there's I we add the and and stone and is that was the deck was there
correct the deck on the house is what was there yeah correct but with regard to the pool did you apply for the pool and the decking around the pool and everything that's there today all at one time the pool and the stone around the pool and is that what's there now cor okay it looks like the patio is is
greater on current land than than this pool PL is is there a retaining wall behind the pool oh that was the pool PL well wall between the pool and the property line
your oh yeah did you put that in when you put the fulls you have the the grading plan in there the pool yeah it's up there now but it shows the pool and it shows a small Val around
it does it show that they put in a wall behind it so this isn't sh that would have to be like engineered or that wall that was there um that patio seems to track all of that and all of that seems to line up generally there's nothing
else back here [Music] I uh Mr Bry do you have what what do you want to do do you want us to consider the proposal as it s i i I think that we should go forward and consider the proposal as it exists
and um you know now understanding that the the footage the square footage that's shown is going to be um somewhat off right in terms of Zillow and tax well we don't we don't put any Credence in Zillow but we do have
other's PL so we know that that 3145 whatever that was seems to come from those PS and it usually does yeah it's also 3204 in the tax record which is another comical thing this is more of sure but it's new construction or was
Point time all right so let me suggest this let's finish okay you get us to where you're ready for us to deliberate and they'll decide whether or not they want these answers before proceed or if it's important to them to know that everything's Square that's fair okay that's fair okay so Tony original file
back we have thank you thank you boony with respect to hold them all together I'll give those back to that's being sought um with respect to the 61 s
cot addition um you know we you talked about you talked about some of the benefits in terms of the utilization of your home do you see any negative impact at all I do know it's in the back of the house it's it's a one it's one
story it's not really add any extend it's not it's not extending the footprint of the house from a perimeter standpoint anyway so and you're comfortable with respect to the accuracy of your planing
the the yes I am other than the definition ceing is but to you that seems to be a plausible explanation for the differential that
[Music] we Tony I want to understand how the original kitchen was laid down um because this was a topof the market home when it was built this house created at
1314 in 07 um and so the kitchen wasn't substandard at that time at least it wasn't viewed that way what is it about this 61 I mean I understand it's bigger so it's easier but how does it not work as it is well again if you look at the shape
of the of this if you eliminate the addition that we did if you can kind of look through that and look at the dash lines that we have here you can see it's a the shape of this whole area is like these two overlapping because the back left corner set up is a breakfast now and the kitchen is actually the square in front of it and
it it's it's a approximately anyone have a scale by that's little 14 by 14 but the kitchen extends all the way back to where the stairs are is that's still the way it's configured and then it goes all the way
to the back wall all the way to the right wall and then all the way to the to the stud one second yeah I want to know what that what that square is 14 by
14 the island on the plans is three and A2 fet by 3et which in a two plus or whatever $3 million own you would never see that as far as I can even 14 by 14 is a
little little short for well it's not really 14 by 14 because you got to walk through it at an angle in order to get to that back breakfast nook so you have to you have to use it the way it was intended in order for it to really feel like 14 by 14 right limits the size of
the yes it does it does all right just Mr chair one second just just to to confirm since you've own the house you've never added any any you haven't added to the height of the build the home you haven't added to the
footprint of the home you have been the only things you've done externally are is the food right correct everything else um is as it was when we purchased other than interior renovation other than interior and well there's an
outside generator too right you put that in correct that yeah she she listed that so the the uh full application or whatever this is shows a pool and concrete
coverage of 580 Square fet the plans for us today show Pool and Patio coverage of 1210 squ ft and and this is just a pool with like a two foot wide piece concrete around it and what's there now but but
but look at the first sheet the first sheet shows the it shows the the lines the way it is now with the angle I think it's just uh what's that last sheet you're seeing that has that has the proposed
men on it yeah sence yeah I agree that's just a grading difference it's not a patio yeah that's the thing just this is a grading change not a not a patio if you put the next
page right that gives you your Dimensions with regard to your lower left hand Corners yeah that you read to the record full and cont full and concrete 58 sare fet there's no patio I agree just a th
margin show me the first sheet again that line arounded in the shape that became a patio that dotted line there very it's not exactly where Theo so the patio is twice as large as what what
was yeah there wasn't really a p just that border dramtically inreased that's the differ okay Mr Bry I'd like you to look at this yeah so this is um this appears to be from the original file this
appears to be the review and the approval with regard to the pool okay and shetti says that the square footage permitted with regard to the additional loot coverage is well what was evaluated we don't know what was pered well right
so so so this appears to show that the pool is approved as a rectangle and that there was grading that was done and stares down from the deck in the direction of the pool and your current survey shows that all the
area that was changed in grade is now all pattered and it blushes and it's does not it does not show on this permit that all of that was to be impervious and it is 600 ft plus or minus look and see compare the
second second sheet because it wasn't built second sheet gives you your proposed dimensions of concrete concrete and F but you now have the as Bill indicating b a larg area development
retaining walls on two sides and the patio on two sides three four sides yeah they had to close the permit if they closed the permit they were going to observe what was done relative to the original but the has testified on road
that she installed the pool and the patio at the same time for the per correct [Music] corre they've got a coverage percentage calculated on that 5 is that the is that the Delta between
conformance and non-conformance that 600 feet 394 yeah4 but um I don't know if it m matters we don't know what the requirement was for sure then and cover do change how
much as to what's bu there now is what we're over by 394 what was the lck coverage when the original House was built did we figure that out uh I didn't do the total it's conformed and and the fact that they pulled the permit meant that they they
had access room and and they got the permit the question whether or not they built what they submitted so even if they went around to 45% 48 half now which was 394 the plan the plans are also clearly different from what's existing today
right irrespective of the coverage issue right I think the Board needs to view this as a brand new variance if you wish to approve it you're we're improving it's not existant condition okay
well but we're not going to treat it as the new bar well going back to what I said Mr Bry if there was a mistake made at the burrow and the applicant um submitted for permits and got them that we could fix it but that is not evident
based on what we're looking at and so I I I think it it it clearly seems to be out of line I don't know why it's out of line but one could one could surmise that it was built in Access of what permit was intended
to but again you I understand the issues with the house because the ordinance has changed and and I I get that and and how you presented that to us tonight that's a matter of personal taste so I I don't fure for that but I think when I hit this I might have been like well why are
we olded because the house is too new um and and I guess that I I don't again I don't know how the board feels that could be that could be the answer right may I over calculated because I didn't
yeah well no you calculated exactly is it is are we properly understanding what's patio right now does it does it sit 30t away from the pool and Meander like that go all the way to the bottom of the stairs or is
that a grading onek yeah yeah now that's the outline of the patio what you see there yeah there there's photos yes admittedly differs from what I was just
so all right have we have we gotten your testimony yes all right let us let us yeah yes and then I can respond proce right all right so the question for the board is whether or not based on what
you've been presented with you have enough information to make a decision on the variance one way or another or whether the um the things that have been raised with regard to the numbers as they say and the permits that we've seen caus you to wonder and want to have further information about how we got to
where we are because it's material and it relates to your um your thoughts about proceeding with the proposed varant I think that's the question separate out request evening and what we found what concerns I think you got the
seconding of what concerns you the applicant let me AR yeah go ahead the applicant came in this evening and said look I've got to get I'd like to have a 61q foot addition over an area that's already developed if you will I'm not I'm not increasing the rear
yard setbacks or those types of things I'm simply putting something on an area that was decking and now you have you have found that the numbers don't necessarily Drive they're think you're probably at the point where you understand why some of the Interior
numbers were not presented at the time of the original construction now you're counting in areas of a half story or sorry an attic space over over a small area together together with the
elevations inside with the vaed ceilings that may account for a portion of it but that doesn't account for all the portion of the I guess lot coverage and potentially impervious coverage that that seems to explain the situation with regard to the square footage but it doesn't address the lock coverage
there's still not an answer as to why the lock cover doesn't line up yes nor is there actually the pool permit is that correct well I I I wouldn't want to say there is there is clearly language in
which the buau is aware and they reference that a permit is going to be for the pool is going to be pulled there is a permit for grading there is appropriate references those things we don't see the physical permit in these documents no but there are but there is
reference to the all the that would be needed to construct what is existing today there's also existing lot of coverage that was not built to that that's but that's not clear from the document that have it may be clear if you have an opportunity to
investigate here's a problem I'm having and then I'm going to let you guys talk because I want to know what you think um I don't see a correlation between the problem with the pool and the decking and the proposal it troubles me but I don't see a correlation because there's no additional law coverage being
proposed and so I'm having trouble reconciling my problem with the patio um and the the modest nature of the proposal to expand the house by S so what does every it creates a minor
problem when you produce your resolution when I list what's existing conditions what is new variants relief we've heard the chair's comments with regard to what we can fix or what we can't fix but if you if you actually
technically do need a new variant for coverage or a lot coverage you probably should address that and we should have some idea what that is it it may just be an investigation and you've already got it well we're in no position to to to REM that yeah you can't speculate
because we don't know what happened right right but I don't see to to Doug's Point what how would the resolution read because the resolution I'm going to say in certain things existing conditions and right now I can't tell you whether or not that's that was an exist
condition that was right usually when you're talking about an existing conditions it's because it was approved yeah or grandfather because of the this construction we know it's not grandfather it was either approved or something wasn't built properly or it
was built properly and we already know about I just don't know what that answer is I the resolution can't speak to it I mean the resolution has to actually say that we were on aable to determine that the existing um improvements are all built in accordance with Perman um but that it it's it's a problem independent
of the request do that right you can put that in what it's going to do is it's going to create a problem for the property owner or the homeowner down the line and again that's that's not this board's concern but there's going to be some
representation and Mr Brodsky knows this and can explain this better to his client when they say you know I'm getting ready to sell this property every all the improvements can form or have been provided for you can't you're not going to be able to do that off of this resolution can you
bifurcate it haven't we done that before it would require them to come back on and have ask for another VAR for the lock coverage yeah sure but that's that like Mr uh K said it's going to exist until I mean that way they have decision
on the you know and and sometimes you do that sometimes you say to the applicant let's make let's take this example off the table make it easier applicant comes in and says on a commercial development I don't know what my signage is going to be because I don't know what my clients
are going to be and we say in the resolution no relief has been granted for variances for signage you know if it's not conforming they're going to have to come back and you you know that simply creates but this is a bur Enforcement issue and whether or not the
the applicant in selling the house is willing to make a representation which I wouldn't as a seller that everything's in conform performance or not is an independent issue it doesn't have anything to do with us the proposal is for the 61 s ft it's just it's just important that any resolution of
approval clearly read to not Grant some backd door approval to the lack cover there there's going to be an independent paragraph and says this this is an issue that was discovered unresolved and if the applicant want to come at a later point at a later time and say I need want to gu law which
exists now obviously that's a different and that's probably the best way to go forward or reduce the size or reduce the size of locks to come to to to compon not necessarily for the P you want take space somewhere else right that's where I struggle with it is the the the 61 s
feet is di Minimus especially because you're not you know creating new new new laot coverage but if we can memorialize the resolution as you say then then that's way to go and I'm I want to say no offense to Mr koras
Doug ad's plans are I think he hasn't measured correctly as far as the the second floors because Rob Rob ad sorry I think it would have would have triggered it back even back in 06 just because that number was scary the
one it can't be that much we were I surprised too when I saw it yeah cuz we were measuring voled ceilings back in 01 when I came the sport so so what spare footage are we actually considering well that's a that's a better question did we
take it off the original plan that that gives me pause that we consider again the 61 square feet is not not the issue I think it's very reasonable and senseful Edition but we're talking about approving 5,520 Square F
feet we're not going to address that you don't have the information for you the applic can't provide that information to you as I said the way you address it h that that that that basement calculation is different you're just going to say in the resolution Doug we're approving 61t addition and leave it at that and this
issue was raised unresolved we have nothing we I can't no no no it has to have a square footage number on it has to be 61 equals something and right now what we have is Mr candor's plans that were taken off of Rob ader's plans and the number is 37 something that's the
number exclude the basement yeah yeah the the basement we've treated the basement different already right because that it is 5500 ft now it just is what it is because of the way we treat the basement but we're not we're not penalizing the applicant because we know that it was already there do we make a
note of that we've done this in the past I believe recently where we've made note that the basement is in we did that to decide what you're well look the reason it has to be separately identified in the resolution is because if we get somebody that wants to go down
the street and say there's 5500 ft there 5500t there that's been clearly identified as a seller basement issue and and then no harm no foul but the square footage is square foot of D and so I do think there's a question as to whether or not it's 3145 to start or 37
to start and we got that there half hour but if we're going forward tonight it's based on Mr Kor not the applicant's problem but with the re ordinance the cell space 552 it's not the same as 552 in other house that's why I call out in the resolution
I don't know how to Yeah question until we quote fix unfix that we're going to have to call that out every time we do a resolution says no as per new you know measurement of the basement it is this and I think dou we've done that in other
yeah because we you know we we've got a new set of ordinances we transition and again that's not that's not difficult to to highlight as to why because that that that's going to be something that I'm going to put into either positive and
negative criteria in the balancing as to why you are or aren't entitled to Rel that's I I think that has to be articulated but we're also possibly adding 500 square feet for the BT of ceiling M yeah we recently had we recently had
that with that smaller old development where we identified here's the reason why they need this relief it's not because they're right building something new I think you may recall that right it's just kind of crazy as 61 problem yeah well it would say that
due to the changes in the ordinance that the the house currently measures at um based on the changes in the be an interesting [Music] resolution skip what's your what's your point I I don't have a problem with the uh with with the kitchen
Edition taking taken as an isolated add but what I do have a problem with is the compliance issue on the pool and uh I would really like to know i' like more information on the total lot coverage a
so you feel as though the U the lack of information with regard to that H is your ability to make a decision with regard to expanding I want to know what the lot coverage is okay and I want to know exactly what the lot coverage is I want everything measured as it exists today
we have that as it exists today we have the exist so I think scenarios are the board grants the variance for the current measur and B coverage they can L point provide a permit showing that they actually got approval for the current
design what what number do you have do you have do you have the you have the rectangular pool or do you have the no the survey survey show lar yeah it shows 4 the plan that was circulating was from 201 10 or 2011 when the gr plan came in
yeah but the plans tonight show the current ver they're showing and it's at 48 and and change 48 and change over over the 45 which is the limit they just don't have an explanation of how they got their leing that that's really what the
issue is you're either getting a variance for it or it actually is permitted we just don't have that proof right now well no we're not going to a variance for it no that's that's that's an option well I suppose it's an option not one in favor how can we give a
Varian for it you know if we if be B here's here's the issue SK the issue is that the six 1 squ foot addition is separate and apart from that problem that problem is or isn't a problem we don't really know if it's a problem but it's an Enforcement issue regardless and
so since we're not being asked to do anything that's increasing lack coverage then it is it is not directly connected to the decision of the 61 s ft you don't have to be comfortable proceeding or voting in favor and you can encourage us to ask the applicant to go get the information come back that's really
that's really the issue right now is whether or not we want to make a decision on the 61 ft and leave all the rest of it to the side and not deal with it or whether or not we want to say not enough people not four out of seven are comfortable proceeding without the all that's the
question but then Todd what exactly are we coming back with what is the information we're coming back to to see if it's permitted or or they can which I don't necessarily recommend but they can agree to you're going to see if you can find we were given we were given permits to
build a pool and either concrete area as to XYZ which resulted in the following impervious or lot coverage what exists today is XYZ and it either is or isn't
what was well well so present the question straight on so let's say that there's no permit for this 600 square feet and that's what they find out and they come back does that or does that not give us a basis to not agree to the 61 foot addition to the house no I don't I don't I see I see them as
separate distinct but other board members may say look this is this is creeping along okay okay did so just overb too much density connecting it that way all right look we we've done we've done a
number on all this I I I personally feel like the 61t addition is not unreasonable in light of all of it the house is big the lock coverage is a lot and all of that is true but I don't think that it is specifically presented to us tonight makes it difficult um but
I think I I think we can stay in our lane if we approve the 61 square feet and ask Mr Conor to clarify the Vault and ceiling issue and then give that number to Doug put in the resolution and add a 161 square foot of that so at least we get the vaulted ceiling oh
vaulted SE ceiling in half story what that what that right I I guess what I would say is that the the applicant hired an architect came in with plans they took the information they've given it to you it's built and so actually when you look at it and you didn't you didn't look at the plans but the second story built above
the garage it's all shown on the plans there there's no there's no evidence based on what I'm looking at here that they finished a 500t area above the ground understood right and so it's conservative if nothing else it may be it may be bat by 500 sare F feet but but
again putting extra footage into a revolution it's and not withstanding the the seller our space and everything else it's something else another app can down the road and point to that over here in the street you approve here's why I'm not bothered by that
because Mr condor's assessment is that it wasn't counted it is counted now and so it's 500 square 500 feet more the resolution should amplify that and nobody's going to convince me that the neighbor should have 3700 ft this one is
um but I understand your point in terms of the lack of accuracy I'm more concerned about her taxes and you know Flagg that some bit ago I was just trying to figure out a way to get that you know right or wrong into the resolution the W and ceiling but that that I think you can take care of
relative and straight forward okay okay I'm Comfort I'm comfortable with that the Bas and there's testimony there's testimony under under pull out the basement silver thing any that's that is
um and the big question like to say is does the 61 does the lot coverage matter for the 61 script I know I feel on it no because it's covered already it's lck covered it's lck covered so I'm sorry go ahead go ahead Mr Brodsky um your
client's doing a lot of Renovations at the home internal yeah so they're going to be in the back digging putting in a New Foundation right Mr Gondor correct would the applicant be willing to install a dryw a drywell
yes it's an underground retention system for water for your gutters so at the end of the day guys requ testing and make sure every understand the Dr yeah needs a test so if the applicant came in and
wanted 48 and it wasn't built yet and she was at 45 one of the things that we consider to mitigate that problem would be to install a drivew if the applicant was willing to install a drywall and we can talk about what's practical given the gutters and all the rest that could
perhaps um soften the concern with regard to lock coverage how do you memorialize it going forward so a future application if this comes up says oh the lot coverage is I would still be neutral with regard to lck coverage Make No statement I I would
demand they they show us what the lot coverage was before the was there and what the lot we SP about not being able to figure it out okay I I just wanted to see if if that was something the applicant consider I I
suppose the applicant could also propose to remove some of the patio yeah you would do that yeah or um there I mean or that's not aesthetically feasible or doable I don't know if this and forgive me I just don't
know the rules I have a wraparound porch in the front of my house there's a portion of that I'm happy to rip out no and for the board there are other ways to potentially free up to to to reduce the lot coverage that
I'm happy to explore I mean 393 Square F feet it's it's a good amount but it's possible to reduce it so there's a way we could maybe make a condition that they either as condition provide proof that the pool was permitted at the current s
l coverage or remove it to be a compant condition look I I this is too much I I don't think personally um I I don't have any strong feeling about how this happened I have a strong feeling about
61 ft that you're proposing and the situation that you're in is just hiier we do dry Wells all the time I would be comfortable doing a dry well I want to understand Jordan what doable without going crazy but getting some of that water underground would make me feel
better the idea of ripping out these improvements as they sit I don't know they've been there 15 years it just seems that she seems very wasteful um this condition was not flagged by anybody else in enforcement and I just it's it's unfortunate that we're being
presented with it but I'd rather I'd rather find a work around I think the storm drain issue is more than Jordan give me a number on the dryw do we know so so so the issues I have with drywells all the all the leaders need to run into a spot and then
you're going to get them into into the ground I guess maybe what it would be would be they show a design of of what they can do in in some way without spending too much I don't want them to reroute their DS but I assume they can probably grab the back of the house I
agree and then dump it yep and and I you're already in the ground you've got all the Machinery there and and you're already if you weren't to surveying the ground I I I wouldn't even I wouldn't even want to put this on the table but you're there right right but I I always ask for soil testing ahead of time so they'll
have to dig the pit before they get to construction really they got a pool so they they shouldn't have a ground water I don't think they have too many groundwater problems high and it's also infiltration rates well some something's better than
nothing we're not this is a profer by the applicant to offset what it is so we're going to take the best we can get it's not a matter of it not working it's going to be the best we can do under the circumstances your decision disagree with you think it's a bad one I mean it's it's state
requirements or state um recommendations to always do tting oh I I don't whatever you think by way of testing because I don't want to create something that doesn't work but I guess my point is that if the testing say say that you know it can only be so deep it can only do so much then that's the best we can
do I guess that's the point I'll make okay and we have no problem doing the testing anybody want to stop me before I make a resolution or propose a resolution no anyone on that sir no no okay I'm going to propose to
approve the car application um I I don't have the tax it's the it's for the addition of the 61 one square feet it would be based on the truth and accuracy of the record ex we have an accurate record um it would be
conditioned on um two things uh Mr kandor is providing um a fresh analysis of the existing structure I encourage you to look at Mr Adler's plans I may be giving him too much credit all right he may have been 18 feet here he's supposed to be 17 it doesn't count it doesn't
count please don't tell us it it does um but we're we're looking for your certification signature stamp we know where you live um as to the square footage of the house and then the second thing would be on submission of a proposal for a drywell system um to be
installed in the rear yard um which um provides the the most feasible way of getting um water underground from the roof leaders wherever there's there's a place to grab it um and I just don't know Jordan it's just going to have to
be reasonable and um we will um evaluate it to make sure that we're going to offset the lck coverage problem anything else okay I got a first and second any discuss on the motion just want to I mean we've kind of
discussed this but let's just make sure the resolution really states that the basement is x square feet we'll talk the resolution will include a statement that the to square footage of the house regardless of what Anthony comes up with includes what was formerly a basement and is now a seller a seller
and then a basement and it will clearly identify that inside of the resolution so nobody misunderstands that this is a 6,000 foot house um and it will also explain um that whatever you come up with it's going to be larger than the 3145 and it's going to explain that the
change in the ordinances cause the recalculation of the numbers um and that it that is the reason um that the original PL showed 3145 and the new plan show whatever like that reduce to a writing e either in an email between
you all right we just need a roll call please Mr yes D'Angelo yes Mr Ryan yes Mr Forte yes drer no yes Mr leer yes
thank you m I'm sorry that was so hard all right next application board matter no no we'll see you problem I have the basement thing is people are going to get trash we need to look we need to look at
thanks Marty well take okay bring all of your folks upy every going to testify step forward please welcome there's your right hand so where the testimony give before the board will be the truth hope nothing but
the truth yes yes okay same instruction I gave before if you were here before you start testifying state your name spell your last name for purpose of elected welcome Mr aens can we Mark the application is A1 A1 A1 can we Mark the
zoning permit denial is A2 we Mark the architectural submissions like them revised to June 7 2024 yeah that eight Mark those is 83 83 some nine some nine sheets
A4 will be the images it looks like there are two images existing street view and proposed street view with some hand together with a hand drawing or is a hand drawing A5 topographic survey dated October 15 looks like 2014 A6 is
the area map A7 is the Fair Haven historic preservation commission memorandum of action it's like it is March 2nd 2015 um AA is zoning board
resolution number 15-9 mine had a missing page it looks like appear to be a missing page you have a complete one that would be good1 will be the April 10 2024 CME review for the signature of Jordan Rizo zb2 will be
the August 2024 C me review the signature of Jordan Rizzo I think those are all the ones that I have and I don't know if there are any initial La that oh I'm sorry do you have any other exhibit that you want to Mark we'll mark them as we go and I think the
U I think we have a more current one than 2015 we have a historic preservation resolution that um confirms memorandum of action on a meeting taken uh 12 2123 historic preservation yes we will
Mark that as9 although curiously enough at the end of this memo it's dated November 29 2023 but clearly the meeting was held on the 21st of december3 all right okay 'll Mark other so you're up here your next exhibit will
be A10 81 okay terrific and we have have any waiver issues the four checklist waivers um I don't take any exceptions to these it's Mammoth County planning board three old SCD Mammoth County Health Department so
those three applications and then a copy of any easements covenants and beeds so typical and take extion thank you ready chairman yes good evening ladies and gentlemen mark aens on behalf of the
applicant Beth foryd um by way of brief history and introduction ladies and gentlemen this is Circa 1970s split level style home with attached garage this property previously received Fair Haven zoning board approval for an F variance at .26 in
2015 however the applicant did not act the applicant the owner then and the owner now did not act on that approval in 20 5 the F currently is non-conforming at the property at 0208 uh where 0.18 is the maximum the
2015 resolution noted the following significant points um a this is a unique site and a Confluence of three zones here in the burrow the R20 the r10a and the R30 the property would otherwise comply with r10a requirements B the
board found in 2015 that this house is quote a complete outlier in the neighborhood close quote and this is especially so considering it is regulated by the HPC see the board further found in 2015 that the requested bul variances could be granted given
these facts along with the fact that there is an active boat yard to the east true in 2015 true in 2025 since the two indeed since the 2015 approval the burrow has acquired the private residents to the north and
intends to develop for public recreational purposes that's my comat not the 2015 resolution uh the current application proposed to increase the F slightly from the0 26 that was approved in 2015 to 0277 right so
1700s and to add a home office for Miss Ford who owns her own business and operates her own business uh from home and has done so since the covid times um and her business is fully homebased at this time the buroughs HPC as I said
before is given an approval to this not only previously but to what's before you this evening uh with regard to the architectural plans um prepared by Mr seagull um a number of existing non-conformities exist at this site uh not surprisingly and they're largely due
to lot size and lot configuration first and foremost we have an undersized lot of less than 15,000 square ft where 20,000 ft is required in this Zone secondly we've got lot depth that has had less than 143 feet where 150 ft is requ required in the R20 Zone the rear
yard setback is presently 29.17 ft or 30 ft as required we're going proposed to slightly increase that by about a foot and a half to 27.7 feet on the setback the side yard setback is 8.86 feet where 14 ft is required the combined sidey
guard setback is 28.820934 years comply okay so to my right is the property owner Beth Ford she's been sworn uh Miss Ford I'm wondering if you can tell the board a little bit about what brings you here from 2000 your journey from 2015 to now
10 years later 2025 good evening hi thank you um Mr chairman board I just want to thank you for your service and appreciate your commitment to our town making sure it's good standing in our neighborhood um I'm very Um passion about obviously this project so I've
made some notes just to make sure I didn't miss anything that I wanted to share with all of you um I am Beth Ford F day formally get Goods which is which shows up on my previous plans since I changed my name at 23 Fair Heaven Road um as I testified back in 2015 in front
of the zoning board some of you have familiar faces uh I purchased my home in 2014 after relocating my three children and myself from little silver to uh obviously this lovely town of Fair Haven it was the best decision we love Fair Haven we are truly in love with our
neighborhood and the community and the historic district on Fair Haven Road that being said in 2015 I was thrilled when the zoning board unanimously voted to approve all the requests made to the plans to update our house back then however and sadly due to circumstances
out of my control I did not follow through with the project most concerning at that point was the abandoned property adjacent to me which sits on the nink river I felt very uneasy justifying the financial commitment of renovating with so much uncertainty on what was going to happen with that
property fast forward almost a decade life has surely changed as um my attorney Mark had just stated I started an advertising agency five years ago all the employees including myself all work out of our homes really a remote company um also
within the past number of years I joined families with Peter G also from Fair Haven in July 2023 we were married on the Fair Haven dock and celebrated with our friends and family under a beautiful tent in my front yard at 23 Fair Haven Road and now we have a blended family of
seven finally last year the borrow of Fair Haven purchased the abandoned property that was causing me so much grief in my North with a resolution of conate into a public park with all of that being said we are excited to be here before you and
present these plans tonight in hopes of an approval not just for the future and foundations of our families and future Generations for grandparent celebrations God willing in this home but also to finally bring the dated and not very attractive structure up to par on our lovely Fair Haven Road per the historic
preservation commission memorandum of action recently submitted in this current matter quote commission was unanimous that the proposed Renovations would not further detract from the overall Street skap for Fair Haven Road instead the flow and design of what is proposed is more aesthetically pleasing
and serves to balance out the overall structure and I thank my architect F that's a great design thank you question Mr aens I have a question um and I do recall the 2015 application but I don't recall all the variances
that were granted we did the far which was 26 obviously but were there any setback um variances granted in the 2015 let take a look so I'm looking at the resolution ZB 1509 is that sound right
B you have it P so page it's F area depth rear yard and side so the rear and side they were granted in 2015 okay what was the original application I
also was on the board and I remember the application but I don't remember whether the original plan or former plan was tear it down and start over again renovation was a renovation renov it looked somewhat similar to to this final elevation that we're seeing the Jo right
and the architect will distinguish chairman the uh differences between 2015 and today so so um what I understand A lot's changed over 10 years but um if the house is similar the numbers are similar maybe they're a little larger
well why not just come back and ask us it's expired stale but why not just ask us to approve the original again it's just the lifestyle of what's happened we have different needs now we're a family of seven I run my company out of my home went an office and um which actually we
are not going as high with the house which the architect and explained um he tried to keep in with the style of the house a little bit more and not do such extensive work on them I don't know they all the things that pop out on the bottom the can leevers can yeah we can have the the architect you know identify
the particular changes and then yeah I think that's good I'm interested to understand the Delta between where we were and what we approved and what's proposed tonight terrific thank you um any further questions of Miss Ford Noe thank you chairman thank you board members thank you M
for applicant now calls Brian seagull registered architect in state of New Jersey who's been sworn um May I qualify him councel was Mr seagull the designer of the original house yes you qualify an expert at that time yes you lost any of your licenses all all in good stay with
you good I think we can stipulate us your very good thank you very much good evening mrle can you Orient the board to um the Ford residents and talk about the existing conditions and then we'll talk a little bit about what's proposed with your plans thank
you discussed already we have need sorry could you just show them back on the location plan just be Haven Road and where the water is and the Boatyard and all that good stuffen
road Haven Road here to the west of the house which is since c corner of the property it ends down here at the at the Waters Edge the property that M talking about to the north is this piece right here and the boat yard is all across the
back here so you have she is this unique piece of property surrounded by the these two of the L we got the road we got thead the the Fair Haven acquired property and the boat and to the South there's a residence correct do we have a topo where is the hill and where does it
start so the hill starts in the upper Northern corner of the property in an elevation of roughly 89 ft and comes up to where the main house sits currently today it's basically 100 so it comes up almost 11 ft so you are part of that drop off and and what is the elevation
down at the um at at the park level where the where the houses in front on the river it's got to be below 89 because our toos don't go beyond that but it drops off incredibly it's 20 or 30 feet right
20 they're not in the fem Zone you know they're in the X in the X Z as discussed before this is a renovation to an existing home that family have actually simply lived in it for so long i' kind of come to
appreciate the design um it is a by level by modern standards and people say split level I say by level only because you walk in at a main level and either go down half a flighter stairs or go up half a flight of stairs the second floor is can levered over a portion of the
existing home and this existing floor plan which is the we called the lower level floor plan of the is relatively is proposed to be relatively unchanged in this design so we are renovating and looking to remodel the existing home in
its context but keeping the same elements of the house as it exists now so downstairs there are three bedrooms there are two bathrooms there's a half bath at the entry level there's a lower level family room and there's an existing two-car garage on the upper
level of the house existing existing right Mr seagull you have basically a partially open living room with dining room and a kitchen and a master bedroom with a bathroom and a half bathroom adjacent to that that make up the core of the second
this upper level there is nothing over the existing entry foer or existing garage isn't exist there is an angular deck here that we're going to talk about rebuilding as well back that so on the first floor or
the lower level spaces that I described before stay the same there is a proposed increase in adding an exp expanded bedroom back here to make this one bedroom slightly bigger it's an addition of roughly 6 ft by 13 ft we are talking
about rebuilding the deck area with a patio below it it's more of a rectangular feature that comes straight off the back of the house the hot tub and the deck area that are existing would stay the same and everything with regard to the front entry we and the second and the twocc car garage stay the
same on the first floor lower on the upper level basically what's happened is the kitchen has been remodeled and expanded by consuming part of the master bedroom suite to do that and they proposed master bedroom suite has been proposed over the existing one
car Rock so that's where the bulk of this variance is and we'll come back to that in some some drawings to look at that as you heard earlier Beth works from home remotely so we have proposed a small Bice the Same 6t by 13t dimension on top of that b expansion down below
one and then you have a an upper level deck I have called it a roof deck because it is impervious so it is Count counted in the building coverage calculations that we are looking at tonight you look at the exterior of the home and I stack these elevations over
each other I know they're two dimensional so we look at the perspectives as well but the original bil home has double panel on the front Remains the Same we are proposing to remove the roof and reframe the roof
using stronger conventional Lumber members the original house is Fred basically in 2x4 trusses that I wouldn't want to put up to a hurricane standard these days really yeah they're pretty it's wow it's a pretty unique house um
Mid Century Modern yeah we' proposed basically just rebuilding that roof line at 9 ft versus an 8ot ceiling and then reframing that roof at roughly about a six 6 on 12 7 on 12 pitch and I thought it on Dr as you can see it where the
line of the existing roof is and where the line of the existing garage roof is right here because that's where again we're both where the bulk is when you look at the front of this house I'll use maybe the same you already
have sh sort of preservation and this is the existing condition this the existing condition I mean the house itself the landscape really everything you see in the front yard Remains the Same what we've done here is we've talked about rebuilding a good chunk of this roof line here to create something that has a
little different massing and balances out the house honestly my you're showing what's proposed this is the proposed run um it was submitted to the historic preservation commission there's a black and white drawing I colorized it just so you could see it
better but we're also talking about maintaining the same colors of the house as it exists now kind of learn to love work10 we've learned to love ocean blue actually kind of sedate know it's not a white house doesn't jump out at you so
that one comment it has black windows in it that that changed out some of the windows already we intend to keep the same detail involved in that and and just manipulate the massive here on the front what was the comment Jordan that one of the historic comments or maybe the only comment is that you're going to
maintain the same colors and materials yes and you age to do that right yes Mr SE if I recall correctly from 2015 2016 we had discussion about that tree in the front yard is that remain absolutely no no interest in
taking that down can you go back to the floor PL again go ahead Frank what is the exterior material is that wood yes it's a t111 t111 yeah vertical side you going to use that again midcentury monitor mid century monor love it so the
so the death that's shown on the existing front elevation yes you're you're calling it roof deck but what's Happ you have a twole deck but the one deck is beneath the existing deck I'm calling it a roof deck only
because most decking situations water drains through you're going to Fi we're going to we're going to put a membrane underneath it to catch the water the are below stays dry it counts in building coverage equation it's reflect as imperious but but but between what's there now and it's going to be there
later the proposal is effectively to have a second level underneath it not a second level above it yes you are actually if aesthetically it's not going to change from what no it's just impervious instead of draining we got we got another a 11
could you describe that for the board so a11 is basically if you were standing on the western edge of the property looking back at the house it's where this deck that we're talking about uh exists or
would exist and it basically shows the fact that it is an upper level deck with an imperious membrane roof underneath it so there's a patio space down below it Mr ra is there a lot coverage variant here there is not a lot coverage VAR so so this is all conforming corre lot
building coverage comply and so but but that view shows what we're sitting way down on the hill right that that shows flat it's not like that it is flat it is flat on death's property and then it starts to tail off on the um the site plan the architectural PL you see the
Contours you can he's going to get you to the Contour Mr so the the area that you're talking about German is this area underneath the roof deck that was in this in this
picture 99 is right here and basically runs like this so in 100 is basically where the patio is so this area in here which is foreground drawing here is relatively flat that that is right up to Beth's
property then after her property I think it's is it still pretty ratty and we I think it is basically the edge of where this rendering is is rifle for drops that's the last that's a fair fa comment yes rough whatever so so for purposes of the
record if I'm looking at your doc from the from the upper corner of the new patio you have a dimension at 21.5 21 and a half 21.5 and it starts Midway through there
at 90 99 98 97 96 to the property line so all you approximate the distance that's flat from that corner it's about halfway through about 10 yeah 10t 10 11 ft I would
say Mr Rens what what are the variances triggered by the application you've got a FL are ratio you got a FL area ratio that exceeds the .26 that was granted in 2015 uh by 17 month00 so from 26 to
277 what's the square footage Delta on that square footage Delta on a how many additional 15,000 sare foot lot is 165 is that 165 square feet that be
117 that's 11 right yeah that's sound right yes so about 160 more square feet than last about 160 more square feet just you know lawyer math chair it is it is pretty easy for me to explain where that is okay it is simply
the expanded bedroom downstairs the existing bedroom which was only like 10 by 13 we're proposing to make it basically 13 by 16 so that additional square footage down here which is roughly 78 square ft is what's 6 by 13 area correct right also best office
above which is facing the Boatyard so that by two is where the that's more or less where the difference is the total square footage between this application what was presented before that's also the rear yard setback too I was going to say what's the the rear yard that that that that triggers the
re it does trigger rear previously slightly by about a foot and a half okay but but not to that same location so the different Corner was was 29.17 correct now this new location which is close to it is 27.7 27 and what about the combine
your the uh the one side that's triggered now what was the I'm sorry I don't have front what was the old the 2015 resolution on that the one side is 8.86 on the South Side that's existing resolution or existing no the combined side is oh the combined side was 28 and
change one second 28.820934 [Music] [Music] what else you got anything else uh just the combined side yard the side yard and the rear yard that that's it existing conditions are undersized lot and lot depth and there's one more ex were
granted in 2015 one more existing addition is the setep back to the adjacent property structure existing condition that's to the one uh one story garage the Southside and their second floor Edition is inside of that so it's
not a new variance we we purposely held that corner right here that's one of the reasons we did not choose to build a whole the garage entirely also just aesthetically breaking it up and leaving that one section and actually splitting the roof here with a shed roof and some
lower play Heights just lowers the bottom of the half completely what's the topography to the east is there are there steep slopes to the it's the Boatyard it is her her property is almost 100% flat goes this entire backyard is 100 ft it's 101 over
here that her fence is on the property line and then it's a cliff goes right down it's almost an outcropping overlooking the NV sink if you if I don't if you walk the property or walk the site walk for Haven Road but it's an outcropping then it breaks to the to the north and it breaks to the
east go ahead sorry the a single side yard you have at 8.86 you're showing another one on the other side it's 17 and change but doesn't the deck come within 5T of the property line
on that side the deck is at 4.78 right so isn't that deficient also and isn't isn't the combined deficient combined is deficient okay but you're showing 17 well the combin is
I side was the principal build no no it's just the set okay can I read my version a little quick um sidey yard setbacks on the North side the existing is 4.1 that's to the deck
that's right and that's that's going to be the the limit there the sorry it's the existing the proposed is 4.78 that's the new deck so that's that's going to be a variance 4.78 yes
on the south side again just one side yard um existing is a .86 and the on story 8.86 is existing and then the house which is the second Second Story proposed is 15.79%
it's 1.64 ft that would be a barrance um so we're improving the one side where the deck is is that true I wouldn't say we're improving it because it's going to remain does that make sense yes yeah part of the challenge with this property is always yeah because it's
skewed in their the orientation of the house is skewed to the dimensions of the lot which obviously can't be changed I'm I'm interested understanding what it's going to look like from the park so I wonder if you could put that elevation back up and if we can try and picture what that's going to be like I want to
understand what's there now and then what the what the proposed renovation adds to that and then I'm also interested in any water mitigation because I'm worried about those slopes so I do have pictures of what it looks like now chairman so we mark this I think we're up to
812 Council how how many images uh just one image of the rear of the property okay so that's effectively there you're adding a a um a roof line to get that vault in the direction of the water
correct but that's not there the rest of the house this has added and then the bump out to the east that's that's the extra and the the rest of the house is already there and the proposal for the deck is to rebuild it as it sits or
you're expanding it making it larg I'm expanding it making it larger and squaring it off the Trap is a little shape right now it's not very effective useful so the picture you just circulated uh Mr aens this is taken from what direction this is from the edge of the cliff Where The Boat Yard is from
the northeast corner of the property it looks looking in a South in a South excuse me looking in a northwesterly direction sorry so the so the park is behind the house room here the park is over here right Tod to your point about
concern with vision from the park to the deck there is a lot of tree coverage and that's all on the slope I don't know how much of that is going to wind up being developed and I doubt that everyone's going to want to knock down all those
streets so I think that there's a fair amount of coverage yeah buffer those are on this property or on the on the burrow property on the bur property on the like all like a lot
of this another image so I'm going to Mark pardon me I'm going to Mark a 14 which is a packet of photos showing the uh burrow property to the north I'm sorry 813 is there any screening Landscaping plan for that side
of the house on on the owners on the the home we really don't have that much room no it's fine just the view from the park doesn't doesn't really significantly shame with the addition that you're proposing No No in fact the photos that
are circulating right now that's husband Peter effectively standing in this Northerly corner right here where the patio is proposed and he put them was a series of photos one two three four and you can see the abandoned house and then
you can see the abandoned house and part of the water and it continues to pan around to the Boatyard and that is that is the view as you see today in this corner so where's the property vound here are the leaves effectively where the where the applicant lawn Stu so the property
ends yes so all this scrub brushing stuff is um part of either either the Burrow's property or the um is it all the bur's property probably property well on the last page you could see the fence like beond
that chman it's fair to say all the leaves are brown I think oh jeez thank you Mr the sky's green I do any fence PL area between the new park and the
house um we did show in the server that we were going to put you know privacy thing just to define the property the property what what if you move the portion of the deck that has the uh the
hot tub in it through the back of the house uh moved it moved it to the back of the house in a um I guess in a Southern direction would
that would that get rid of some of the the uh uh the need for variance on the uh on the Northern side clearly it would it's an expense of something that's been there since Beth bought the house so you know something
she wasn't planning on moving again that's an existing condition an existing condition it's been there before she are you talking about moving it back like in that knock yes yeah talking about putting it back bring I also think it's fair to say that
the tub overlook the river right there's like a fence around it now that's coming down right um there is a fence around it now this rendering is probably not 100% accurate to whether or not that should stay it's
more of a privacy screen right now so if you're in the hot tub you cannot see it um I think as a condition of this application if you know if it would please the board to keep that fence for privacy reasons we leave so the original um application
included an addition above the single story house in the same way yes the Deb proposal was what relative to this very similar the biggest change in this application from what was shown before to you see now is stylistically we've
embraced the 1970s bilevel house and try to maintain that image or that look the prior application had much steeper roof lines 12 on 12 roof pitches it was almost 2 and a half stories high with a group launch top of it you may recall it even had a a an attic level balcony it
was almost a third story um and the whole structure was like white shingle shakes Etc it was quite the transformation but at the same time as you heard earlier it was something that you know when you kind of put pencil to paper and you look at
where things were at that time in life it just didn't make sense to go forward with it this is this is a similar application but I would say a one that's and the other change is the office square footage for the office square footage for the office and it's you know
it's a more subdued application I like the roof just yeah that that gave a land over the the um thank you over the the deck I like and the HPC did too what's the ridge height existing and what's the rid height is proposed
um he is uh 23 existing 26.94 proposed wor 35 is the max the well below the max we had a number of 26.94 proposed 23 in distant correct and that's driven by two factors
one theion is a 9 foot play height on the proposed upper 11 story a slightly different roof pitch that's about six or seven on 12 pitch which brings it up a little bit higher but we do not have any half spaces up above one of the questions
that was asked what was you know building there are a couple areas within the house where propos vaulted ceilings but the only ad accessible Bas that we're proposing for mechanical use
there's a pull down stair here in the laundry space that would give us access to Mechanical system what we would need to heat and cool the this new upper level floor routine service yes not that it's relevant is there a basement or is it on this house this
house slab on gra underneath this entire section right here in the front entryway and then the area underneath the lower level first floor of the Tre 12 can you show me the sheet again which has the deck area and just kind of show
us what is going to be the expanded part of the deck like like show us what's existing and what's going to be larger yeah so if you look at if you look at the existing hot tub in deck space and this trapezoidal deck we're effectively just
doing this represent unting [Music] [Music] reflected in his bag sign questions the survey submitted was from 2014 can you just represent that the
conditions on that surve I believe 5 A3 if you want to follow along yeah yeah thank you couple these already the front trees said you're not moving is there any trees at all that there in
all there is a back here where we're proposing the two story there is an ornamental I don't know if it's Beed yes thank you is AES okay St for the record please Peter okay
thank you the has we're not going to remove but the main one that's in the front yard you see this is this one for sure Mr aens i'
asked about water mitigation you probably head interrupt six times before you had a chance to answer but is there any proposed water mitigation systems in part of the plan I don't believe there is but I don't I also don't believe that we'd have any objection to it is there a room to put one
effectively and where would you put it especially with the gradient the rear yard is open it would either yard or have to be someplace in your front yard it's challenge what the front yard is you close to the tree roots issue I don't think that's an
accurate I don't think that's a Worthy tradeoff I'm not also what about that top right portion of the uh up is that drop off well this is fairly level here and then yes everything up along this property line is a cliff down probably the only
place you could go is up there we could certainly work with Mr Rizzo with regard to you know selecting a location like the southeast corner of the existing property for that you're just Excavating and destroying whatever Integrity that still left there yeah so
to the extent that more erosion probably the extent that we're adding um and to the extent that we're trying to um rehabilitate this house for 100 years to come it seems to me that the biggest issue is is what happens underneath it and I think it's really important that
the gutters be designed in a way that we're getting that water into a safe place so you don't have erosion and problems like that um I would think that that would be very valuable I don't disagree with that how do your how do your u how do your roots pitch can you
get all that water to the east um you're going to have to have some leaders that come down in the front where they do now and still pitch out onto the yard I don't think they go can you get them can you get them moving south and take them out you know to the property to the South and then hopefully
out to faen road so they don't go to the north stay away from the river I'm I'm I'm trying to get it from coming down the slope I understand we we could certainly submit a supplemental grading and drainage plan chairman and work with Mr rzo on that I think it's a gutter design and I you know you can
usually make a decision you're going left you're going right I'm just talking about going away from the there's probably way to do it it depends on the depth of the drywall here because the gray is going from 100 to 101 to 102 this way so you're going uphill so if you're going to take water from someplace up in the front corner here
and bring it around to a drywall either this way or this way you got to be deep yeah I think your dryw probably would be located there I think you're going to have an easy run to get the east side of the house to go there with regard to what doesn't go there I'm just thinking take it to the
extent feasible and I'm not talking about adding any cost I'm just talking about intentionally designing it to take it to the South or the East to the maximum extent and to the drywall to the maximum extent yeah again supplemental grading and drainage plan satisfactory to Mr
Rizzo we're happy to stipulate to that no issue yeah I'm on gutter design too Jordan sorry I'm on gutter design including gutters leaders that's fine so if this lot were the proper size
this house would be under the cap and it would be under far and your problems would merely be the side yard setbacks the configurations the classic bulk variant c1s and those are um viewed in
light of the fact that to the east you have a commercial property and you sit above it and to the north you have a public park and you sit above it and what what I mean to say is you've got buffers you've got natural buffers
on two sides that are problematic um that are not going to be built cor hopefully um in your rear the house on the Eastern side you have two doors are you closing any walkways or
anything outside of the stors no they would stay the same only that they would be changed out and the white far black I only point it out because you're somewhat close to the impervious coverage requirement y so if you decide at a later date to start building walkways that might put you
over thank you the intention is not to exceed the impervious coverage requirment the chimney I believe you're modifying that to some degree that is correct there's an ordinance ordinance requirement not to exceed four height
above the highest gr 30 in so can you just Dimension that in the plan too sure you know later date typically to be below four feet by the dimension and then the last question I have actually um
outside educ standpoint really think D is is in Factor here proximity to the river so can you go through the proper Channels with d to either get permits or um your letter of no interest or jurisdictional determination to
deter which permits would be required yes we'll stipulate to any sub subject to cord jurisdiction as as applicable and also with regard to your comment H Mr Rizzo again this is in the X zone so flood Hazard this is not in the flood Hazard area flood Hazard permit is not
needed from the D on this and then I had a couple Technic comments can you just address those was typic to address any technical comments as well thank you no further questions chairman Mr
seagull no looks like no I know if anyone from the public has any questions we'll do it all yeah very good thank you okay okay app now calls Christine Kon licensed professional planner in New Jersey good evening Miss Kone good evening Mr aens
uh chairman would you like me to place Miss kon's credentials on the record no not again we'll thank you thank you very much sir coax gives us Specific Instructions so it's Kone c f NE uh good evening chairman and members of the board nice to see you again it's been a
decade I hope your intervening decade on this application has been well I did have the pleasure testifying originally on this application in 2015 and I know it's been a long night and you've heard a lot of testimony already and I think the Varian need has been well established so I will get
right to the statutory proofs such required for the board to Grant the Varian when you heard this case back in 2015 you approved the bulk relief under both the C1 and C2 section of the statute and what that means is that the C1 is a hardship criteria right and
lawful pre-existing structures as well as the sh shape and size of the piece of property are well accepted statutory criteria for a C1 basis certainly that's still prevails today and I do think the bulks can be granted under the C1 in the absence of any c any any hardships the
board can still Grant under C2 the flexible C if you find that one or more purposes of the municipal land use law when we were here last time of course we talked about the Aesthetics and the curve appeal of the application that would be increased um by the um by the improvements to the structure and I
think that that still prevails today so the board can certainly rely on criteria I that's the bul Rel the C Varian we do continue to need the D variance relief and that's for the F and when you're hearing D variances this board sometimes hears I'm sure D1 use variances or you
hear expansion of a nonconforming use you hear things that particular suitability um on a D4 variance what you have to reconcile is can the site handle the additional F associated with the increase Beyond which that is contemplated by the ordinance and the
prevailing case on D4 variances in New Jersey is the Randol Town Center case and I testified to that last time I was here and I will testify again that it is my opinion that even with a DI minimist increase to accommodate the um making it a more livable bedroom for the expanded
family that this U blended family has had household restructuring together with um bath working at home and running her business uh and needing the space so we created a little bit more livable space here I do think that the site can still accommodate any problems
associated with the F and the reason I say that is because when you look at the standards for the R20 Zone the lot coverage permissible is 35% we're at 33.7 the building coverage permissible is 25% we're at
22.5 the height permissible in the R20 zone is 35 this structure is below 28 it's actually uh just under 27 and then when you look at the maximum habitable floor area in this Zone it's 44140 where what's being proposed is about
3,964 so in all instances where you're looking at the the bulk and the massing of the structure and the coverage we are at or below what was contemplated in the R20 zone so I think the board can comfortably conclude that the site continues to be able to support the f I
would also submit in testimony that the applicant couldn't put a birdhouse on this on this site or Pro it in any way without seeking a d variance for f unless they demolish the house the existing house already is non conforming so the F in this Z is 0.8 the existing f
is um is non-conforming I believe it's uh2 or 28228 yeah 208 so it's not conforming today so we know that the site can handle and not nonconforming F because it's common doing it and I think that
here statutorily the board can look to and be guided by what he've contemplated for intensity in this Zone and come to the conclusion that you know there is a change circumstance in this area since 2015 when the applicant bought um had what the case pering the last time you
know if you look at the zoning map the um the land immediately adjacent is now reflected on the zoning map as public land public use lands so I think for all those reasons um it's my opinion that the bulk variant relief can be granted under the C1 and C2 section of the statute and the applicant substantiates
its burden of proof with respect to the D4 variants and that there will be no substantial detriment to the public good or the Zone plan um here in Fair Haven if the board were to move favorably on this Varan relief very
concise the questions of Miss Gon Work on M gone I have a question about the the multiple references to the home office um because I just don't think about the use of the structure U by the applicant or
the subsequent owner as being relevant to the decision-making board you mentioned it in your testimony can you tie that up I understand why and I I don't disagree with you the how the applicant tends to use the space inside doesn't matter right on the proofs it matters what's around it what matters
what is the how the buffering looks how it's going to function it's just I think sometimes important for the board to understand what motivated the applicant to come back with a new design so statutorily and textbook land use it should have no no basis on your on your
decision but just to help the board understands it's always nice to understand the motivation behind why an applicant comes before a board you said the C2 previously was based on the upgrade and change to the outside of the
house um but this is a significant change from that previous application which would have been I guess more in line with the the neighborhood and this is sticking with the t111 siding the the 70s look at the
house currently yes is that do you feel that that still supports the C2 I do feel it still supports the C2 and I think that you can also look to the fact that the Architectural Review Committee unanimously approved this design so I think that it was put before
the board here the Architectural Review Board and endorsed by the board it's not it's not just my opinion but the Architectural Review board's opinion as well anything further Mr no not for me right back at you no further questions M phone applicant rest at this
time chairman board members thank you let's let's try the novel idea of opening to the public um any members of the public have any questions or comments with regard to the for application chairman MERS my name is Steve Cayman k a i m you the testimony
before the board be the truth all truth yes thank you yes uh my wife and I and our two children live at 50 Fair Waters Lane just to the uh to the west of of the applicant's house um we we've known
that them for for 20 years um we're very good friends we we believe in what they believe in um we are confident that anything that they do will be in best interest of their neighborhood
aesthetically and we believe in their commitment to the neighborhood and we have no problems with anything that they can propose thank you Mr no no questions of him Mr no questions chairman anyone
else movement you doing Adam schlisman 25 Road good evening you saw testimony G before the bo be the truth whole truth talking about the truth yes thank you so 25 Road uh the neor to the South that's
been referenced a few times uh moved in in 2020 I'm sorry you're immediately adjacent to the s yes okay um so um we moved in 2020 for wife and two kids um you know we love our neighbors they're great um I think what they plan
to do when they or told us was very exciting for us as well aesthetically you know definitely is a a huge help um our vetom faces their house so what they plan to do is definitely to be uh much
more appealing than what it is now so uh po doents that they have us thank you cool thank you no questions chairman thank you Mr anyone else 60 way you saw spre the testimony
give before the bo of the truth talk about the truth um I am directly across on the neighbor directly across street from now um and I'm 100% on board what they doing it's going to make a better view for us looking at the house from the front side for the roof line change andove the
garage and that's it get record we're you no questions that would be the hatrick anyone El rapael 27
road truth you saw we swear that the testimony you before the board will be the truth for truth nothing but the truth yes did you spell last for the board r a p h a l thank you our family moved in in 2012
two doors two houses south of the applicant so we've known uh the applicant for quite a while and we fully approve of everything that they plan to do I think it'll enhance the street the neighborhood and the
town so we fully support what they're doing thank you thank you thank you Miss Raphael no questions anyone else direct n okay uh anything closing nothing in closing other than to thank the board for their consideration of
this update from the 2015 prior B was approval thank you ladies and gentlemen thanks discussion very nice presentation and nice looking house I like it in 2015 I like this one better than the one we approved in 2015 as a
matter of fact um I don't think the city the side yards are a problem given the side of the house the boat yard and especially with the park now and um support I agree with both of you nothing further at
9:35 nope nothing looks great and huge Improvement and uh yeah no it's going to be it's going to be very nice any further no anyone want to make a motion
I'll make I'll make a motion to approve the board application has presented based upon the accuracy of the record and based on sucessful uming yeah water drainage issue plan
with Mr Mr rizle leaders design drw yeah I just want to clarify so I think the concept is to um to create a drywell design to um take as much water as possible to the east where it isn't possible to take it to the east
to the drywell take it to the South um and the gutter design should be incorporated into that to the extent that the roof pitches and gutters can be run that direction they should and I think that should be submitted to you um and for you to sign off
is that good yeah anything else no Mr yesel yes yes yes yes no
yes good job thank you very much ladies and gentlemen good evening about time get it going all right it is 9:3 not really 9:37 got you again Mr aens BR
let's yes running start the board want to take a break at all hours any all right yeah we take comfort break Mr yes here all right Mr Akens we are
hearing the M of matter chairman board members again good evening mark aens on behalf of the applicant at this time I would just ask that please confirm that my service by publication and by certified
order bring your Witnesses up thank you Witnesses come on up right hands as well testimony truth yes I do before you start testifying state your name for the record spelling your last
name marks exhibit so uh we've got yes thank you we've got A1 the plans prepared by Matthew Cronin last was revised I believe for January 18th 20205 does that sound
right yes it is yeah okay revision date January 18 2025 um we have we're going to have a supplemental package of photo color photographs consisting of one to three pages depicting the
existing conditions of the property inside and out A2 uh we're also going to have a supplemental schedule uh entitled a story description prepared by the architect uh dated February 5th 2025
A3 that's all I have so far you can reference the Google aerial image we could Mark that as A4 the two resolutions are they going to be going to reference the June the has
questions we certainly would we Mark that as a five and six five and six at this point the 85 and 89 resolutions Mr K what was the areial again A4 A4 than
you mark your development application zoning board adjustment appli Zoning Board of adjustment application checklist and state legal basis that A7 A7 and walk to Mark at CB1 CM engineering
report October 2nd super Rizo 224 uh the CB2 the CME engineering report 11 1124 over Cordo and what I
guess I'll refer to as uh zb2 a which is really the marked up version of the zb2 resolution marked up as it December 14th yes December 14 thank
you were there any completeness items that we needed to address yes there are four checklist items these are the typical four we have I'm sorry there's five actually the first one is a draft notice that goes out to the property
owners in the newspaper think at this point we've discussed that the notice is okay um and then the other four are Mammoth County planning board three-year-old SCD Mammoth County Health Department applications and then the last one is
copies of all Covenant it was noted appli so I do not take exception and then if I can quickly point out there was referenced to exhibit ZB 2A which was a marked up
version of my November 11th 2024 review letter number two um the main change here is that the square footage uh the Flor area was reduced slightly so Mr kovat has this number um
for the resolution but I want to point out that in dropping this number um is really just a factor of how the how everything was calculated the floor area ratio as proposed is 399 whereas the requirement is
04 so that will eliminate the D4 variance for the floor area ratio Flor ratio would be compant and um the closed floor area is now 4,470 the that's still a variance I'll let Mr
CR get into that but I just want to make sure that's explain for you the lock stays the same the 57.1 is correct yeah 57.1 that's that's the same so there's no far okay got it yep it's just four area and four are
year than you thank you Mr R chairman board members uh again good evening by way of brief history this is an existing lot consisting of 11,214 square ft it's in the R5 Zone where 5,000 square ft is required right so we're better than twice the size of
what's required in the R5 presently at the property there are two single family residential buildings with these uses having been recognized as prior existing non-conforming conditions by the board resolutions identified as November
rather dated November 9th 1985 and dated June 5th 1989 and identified as A5 and A6 this evening no changes proposed to the front residence which has the frontage on Church Street and which has historically been rented to third
parties and is presently occupied by Mr Merchant's father um the rear residence is proposed to convert a portion of the existing law space uh to create two bedrooms and one bath uh the applicants have two young daughters this will allow
their daughters to each have a bedroom on the second floor and to share a new bath on that second floor as well uh the residence presently has two bedrooms on the first floor with two baths and only a loft area above in almost an open Barn like condition if you can picture a Barn
Loft that's what we've got that Barn Loft today is used as a playroom the photos when we distribute that in fact we might as well do that now um the photos will send them around to existing conditions on inside and the outside of
I reference my introductory remarks so were these previously marked were these yes they were marked yes I think that was eight yeah Mr you say these resolutions confirm that these houses are pre-existing on deformities and legally existing yes they
do do confirm the origin of it though it doesn't confirm the origin it just notes that recogniz that they exist right right so I don't want to rub through this so I want to understand can come back yeah I
can come back to the resolutions so it's clear to me based on the two resolutions that the two structures existed when the board previously considered the changes that were Incorporated based on these approv but
the statement's not that statement is that the resolutions confirmed that they are pre-existing nonconformities legally existing the subject here's here's the resolution from the following findings of fact from the October 3rd 85 resolution subject
premises are non-conforming for the following reasons two residential structures contained on one law front houses a front setback etc etc rehouse is setback etc etc all non-conformities are
pre-existing think Squires the issue I think it just says that they're not I just says that they're pre-existing I don't think well legal I I don't really know what that means ter if if the zoning and far even
dates back to the 60s the the idea would need to be that the houses would need to pre-exist that zoning and they would need to be effectively grandfathered in their existing condition I'm just I'm just sensitive to to the to the statements that you're making that they're
effectively legal today as as confirmed by these resolutions maybe we're splitting hairs it is certainly it would certainly be unusual for the board to have twice made decisions with regard to changes to these structures and to have at the same time question their their
legality right so then the 89 [Music] resolution ban says less yeah it doesn't say an awful lot but the can can you I'm sorry I I cut you on yeah the
that's okay the 89 resolution adds 825 ft to the existing residential structure to the rear of the property subject premise contains two dwelling units which is not permitted in five Zone yeah those are the words that jump out at me they made no judgment on it nor
comment they kind of especially the 85 resolution they noted as a as a matter of course but don't it's full as that they didn't want deal that's kind of the way I read it they also say there are no residential uses to the rear of the subject property is that that's on the
property or is that behind beyond mean meaning behind the subject property not to the yeah I think that's what it means to because it's B1 over there is that that's not really clear no it's strange there's a big vegetated area behind well it's B1 as well it's it bumps up too and
not residential in that's fa right the second where're as for the second par says applicants proposed construction will result in a more livable and attractive rear house clearly it was living in the rear house no it says it was dilapidated but it depends on which resolution you
ref can you can you tell the board in the November 85 resolution marked as I guess well 85 it references has all the
preliminary language has to Juris iction and then I I read the following whereas the board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and the ad joining property owners in the general public blah blah blah woof woof uh October 3rd 85 makes the F
following findings of fact the subject premises are non-conforming for the following reasons one two residential structures contained on one lot two front housee has front setback of 20.6 Ft where 25 ft are required three front
housee has side yard of 4.3 ft where 5 ft are required four garage has side yard of 1.9 ft where 5 ft are required five rear house has rear yard of 4.5 ft where 30 ft are required
and they talk about the non-conformities the existing subject structure is in a dilapidating cont condition which structure are they talking about it doesn't seem to be I looked at the resolution a couple times I'm interested maybe I miss something but I can't tell
which structure received relief it must be the back one there it's neither it's a shed well I'm just just saying does not have proper Foundation puttings or or floor the proposed instruction will conform in all
matter to the existing building code there will be no substantial on neighboring properties yeah the first page says remove the bled attached storage shed and place same with new construction yes this is a variance for a shed not for the building oh yeah it's attach where's
the shed no the variance was to construct the new no I understood but I don't see a shed on any of the I'm just I'm just trying to figure out is what is now the house was that was that the dilapidated shed it says remove
a dilapidated storage shed and replace it the same with new construction so it's got to be attached to one of those resen maybe we can ask the architect that he might have reached an opinion based upon its investigation of the
conditions I haven't qualified him yet though no no still on my introductory comment sure yeah that's okay it's all right sorry no that's okay that's okay we the chairman wanted to get into the resolutions I think we did we did okay so
uh certainly we can come back to the resolution but if I could continue with my introductory comments then we'll we'll get Mr cronin's qualifications on the record then we can maybe address the question about how do we get from shed to possible improvements presumably on the rear of the two buildings the
hammering pongs down now okay all right very good okay so um as I indicated the where where I was um the rear residence footprint is proposed to be increased by approximately 29
square ft all of the new construction is proposed to be contained within the existing footprint of the rear structure the applicants eliminated a previously applied for unnoticed F variants of D4 or use variance since this is the
expansion of a non-conforming use a D2 or use variance is required of course which we've also noticed the main new variances are for exceeding the maximum floor area 2200 square ft permitted
4,21 Square ft is existing and 4,470 square ft is proposed so 2200 is permitted 4470 is proposed going up from 4201 for both Wellings combined
exceeding maximum lot coverage 50% is the max we're at 50 7 we're proposing 57.1 so going up a 10th of a percent there are also new variances for relatively minor deviations for principal sidey yard setback combined
sidey yard setback and principal we yard setback are those I'm sorry are those new pared those are exacerbations of existing conditions as a result of the addition right so the applicants will show by testimony from their experts that the request relief is reasonable appropriate for this neighborhood
consistent with the zoning ordinance and the master plan and this this unique property and house configuration is analogous to two homes on two slightly oversized lot right two homes of 2200 square fet would be 4,400 square feet or
4470 two homes on 5,000 foot Lots would be 10,000 square fet with 11,000 square fet so just as a as a as a thought for the board so with that um and at this time I'd like to place Mr cr's credentials on the record chairman just one point on that the 2200 is the max
understood so not the 5,000 it would be a greater square footage for for the lot yes so Mr cron do you possess any licenses from state in J uh yes licensed architect state in Jers it's okay we can save time Mr you lose any since you seen
us last I have not we'll stipulate this Mr conventions okay so um earlier this evening you heard the chairman ask a question as to um the 1985 resolution have you reached a a determination as to
what might have been substituted for what with regard to that it appears Excuse me yes um on the second sheet of my photos there that's A2 A2 I uh I show uh photos of the four sides of 25A which
is the the house we're working on if you look at uh south from the southeast Corner Shop we have you see the rear or the east side of the house these are shed roofs they're not very well constructed one of the reasons we're
doing this is because there're they're not even though they're well maintained but they're just they've outlived their life cycle um these are low ceilings in these spaces they are part of the living space there's part of the bedroom a bathroom and a laundry room back there
which we intend to essentially replicate in new modern Code Compliance construction so I would the The Sheds would be the in my opinion would be the east side it's about a 10t
deep swath of the of the the 25 could you so could you just I'm going to hold up A2 could you just circle that with your finger that you just were were pointing out there okay so that was the shed the back the back of the the back of the rear building
yes in in simpler terms I'm sorry so the theory is that the the structure of the appendage in the Southeast Corner photo was at some point a shed is it now a shed no it's it's living
space and you think was the you think the approv 85 was to convert the shed to living yes okay what do you draw that conclusion how do you feel like they reference the only spot in this building that it can B
something else was torn down as in they would have left the shed roof and it says remove did they leave the shed roof remove and then build new construction under that shed roof we haven't opened it up yet but we do have there are low I
will call them shed roofs the a single slope roof across the back of the house it's the the ceilings are low it does not look like the front 2/3 of the house but by that but by that logic the whole thing is basically one giant shed
without the a frame pitch here I I don't think they would demol if if you're going to rebuild it you're not you're not going to rebuild the shed ceiling and then say well this is looks a little bit like a shed let's add a regular house to the rest of this I think it's a stretch I think the house I think the
shed that was demolished is not what we see here that's my again reference from question say remove it I'm looking at 85 just I'm interested in your I I'll I'll take whatever conclusions you get
but it says remove a dilapidated attached shed and replace the same with new constructure that would and then and then in the front and at the back it says it's non-conforming for the following reasons two residential
structures contained on one lot so I understand that as there is a shed attached to the an existing home the the what the second resident what we're calling 25 act but then it would
say demolish an existing home with the shash they're just demolishing the shed part of the no I'm I asked the question you're giving me an answer I I want you to fin your answer so so it would seem to me that they're talking about a shed and not living space and they got caught
up with zoning and they couldn't do anything without getting board approval and they might have had to come in for a shed I don't see anything that would at least I'm not hearing anything that makes me convinced that this was approved for living space although it does acknowledge that there were two
structures on habitable structures at the time but I don't know that I I I really don't know that I agree that that confirms that this rear shed roof area of the house was approved through that [Music] resolution have you been in the front
house yes and the kitchen that's on the rear of that that appear to be part of the original House or is that new that's actually there's a that I've been through to get into the partial basement and the foundation is
pretty old under there so I have another question so we we had a similar one of these come at some point in the last whatever right year or two that wouldn't be much longer if you were here that had on Church Street nonetheless that had a dwelling in the
back right and what they were able to prove to some degree was that it was continuously occupied right and that they had fire maps and aerial photos going back in time that proved that that was
there yeah that's that's correct yeah may he rest in peace um that it was you know not only continuously occupied testimony put that there there were aerial photos and sand moreor maps that this existed do you have anything that
shows that because it seems to me one of two things either it was there and it was it was it's been occupied the whole time which would be great right or because I I I agree I think it's a a real stretch to say that what they're
referring to in that resolution is this at least it's vague enough where it's there's a lot of reasonable so do we have any photos or any knowledge of how this was used going back um at least before these resolutions or no I don't
have any hisor I would suggest this I I think it's clear based on the resolutions that there's been two dwelling units at least back to 1985 right I don't think the resolutions prove that the structures that were approved were approved by these boards or that the structures as
they exist ever received any board approvals these seem like prefunc approvals about other things because the property's so unusual that it required the board is there anything if we're if we're trying to establish that you have
currently existing a legal how many square feet well two two structures totaling 4,400 square feet two structures totaling 4200 sareet okay so if can we establish that that 4200 is currently I if we would concede based on the two resolutions that the two
dwelling units have existed for a long time okay maybe before zoning let's just concede that because they didn't stop at that right but how do we know that what's there at 4200 today is there a way to know that that is all good to go well you can certainly not that it's dispositive we've established that you
know as as as for time in Memorial but we certainly check the property tax records and see what what those records show we could check things like the sandboard maps we could check you know other historical indices but I didn't think that that was a question based upon 40y old resolutions look I don't
know that it really is I think the question here is how many pounds of potatoes are we going to put in this bag right right I mean just to put it bluntly so you've got a lot of square feet on a lot and and I know that it's above the minimum we have a lot of square footage but only a small increase
in the footprint and and we're trying to reconcile and again you know maybe we need to do some forensic architecture and say look this is a structure that was built in 1890 or was built in 1910 or whatever um and if that's what the board is looking for to help justify how
we're trying to reconfigure what's going on on the inside we could certainly do that there would be big difference to say we've got 4200 F feet a house and we're looking to reconfigure 4200 feet a house and we've got resolutions it's been seen and all we're asking is to not
be hamstrung to do anything on this property versus adding 200 F feet to something that we don't really know what what predate zoning what is actually copacetic based on prior approvals I'm just I'm just flagging it
as a question for you I understand that it's a small addition based on the overall but I don't think that it's clear to me that we've got 4,200 legal seems to me okay and and I wouldn't even question a
regular residential structure this one's unique you don't see a lot of these we don't see a lot no absolutely you know I mean we could produce you know certificates of occupancy we could produce you know things we could produce a lot of things you've got a second address so I mean there's a lot of people that acknowledge that there's a
second living dwelling unit back here it's clearly been there a long time that that's clear I don't know that we need to get into whether or not the the two structures is legal I just I'm struggling slightly with the square footage overall and how it got to do
with so how long has the square has this square footage 4200 change existed that's that's the question you're looking to have answered no I don't know I'm just throwing it out there I'm starting with I think the proposition that we've got 4200 confirmed in the
resolutions as as leave we're splitting tonight we I I'll share this right the last one that came before us was on Church Street coincidentally probably not far from where this was and we were able to
establish it the building as it sat looked literally exactly how it looked like in 1920 or whatever it was it literally was the exact same footprint yeah we did we did see that that's true so to that and then there was a separate sewer pipe there was all these things that leg you to believe that perhaps
it's been a long time perhaps it's been consistently occupied and you could get over it here it's a resolution doesn't have much color you have a house you have a lot of square footage albeit maybe the lot's a little larger and it's odd and we don't you know you don't see
two on one property and a lot of people in town I think would like that and it's a dangerous kind of thing to trickle down without you know at least for my opinion the appropriate proof that it was there you know it could be a shed that was reconstructed they added a bunch of stuff to it and it just sat
like like that and then some point someone gets an address and before you know it it's a house right the truth is we don't know one way or the other we really don't I just want to point out really that the front house includes basement square feet which probably wasn't originally included and also at the 4200
that includes the basement in the front because it's an excess how much basement is 242t for the basement but it also includes a small amount that's um the under the roof of the first
floor so second floor floor area so I'm sorry what was the Bas number 2 2 4242 all right so let's not lose track of that number that that number is really important you shouldn't be penalized by that number as we run through these numbers for what you're proposing and what's the second piece of that I don't
know the number but there's um area under the roof of the first floor second floor floor area where the uh the height is greater than 30 in that on the back portion that comes out with this over back tail there yes okay
and how many how many square feet is that I do not have that I just put it as a number I don't think it's significant your 4470 include that 242 then yes yes yeah so nett it out it's 269 versus 2
242 you're almost it's almost a water so well the 4470 includes the basement number of two of 242 and we're and we're proposing an increase of 269 it's almost a water yeah you're with you're within
27t the existing 4201 that 4201 does that include the basement calculation yes why is it a wash well it's almost a it's a wash take basement out if you take the basement out and you add square footage from the from the back if it's a real if it's a real structure right it's it's a starting
point I mean the starting Point's one thing but still realistically the the the the the number we should make everyone know that the number includes the the basement which is triggered by the new ordinance 100% also the area over the
the rear of the first floor is 40 square feet that is higher than 30 in okay so that's 40 plus 260 so we're going to call it 300 everybody in your mind keep that 300 in mind that is a penalty for the new ordinance and the way they view the house that is not habitable square
footage in a conditional sense trying to figure out what the existing is the zoning table shows 3898 uh but your your building floor area breakdown shows
3,913 you know which of those is correct or either are either correct um you repeat those yeah which which ones in the zoning table worksheet under maximum allotments maximum
habitable floor area existing 3,898 from the building floor area breakdown below both houses it says uh total habitable floor area for the lot 3,913
I'm just trying to figure out where we're starting probably just wasn't calculated all the way through I have um 4,21 square feet and that includes the basement um it is 3898 okay
um I'm getting lost in numbers here I I personally calculated it so I definitely want to utilize my number to make sure just so I'm clear because I think I've lost a little something in the translation here could you could uh Mr
Rizo could you please restate what we're looking at uh given given table given column and a given figure please I mean I need a little help get navigated through these charts but I I separately calculated everything okay
what did you get to existing would be 4,21 sare feet and that includes the 242 square fet of basement in the front house yes so this claims to include that but shows a total 391 for the lot
of 3,930 so can I ask you what what is the revision yeah you look January 18th 25 that is that 10 yeah yeah that's the current one yeah change it shouldn't
change the existing shouldn't change well we were working through the calculation of the existing that that changed all right but the question that you were working through was the inclusion of the basement or yeah yeah it's the same for existing in so I mean if we go with the
4201 right which is obviously the worst case scenario yes between these two right it's still 3901 after that that rough 300 square foot let's call it uh penalty ordinance change penalty that's
in there that's a fair that's a fair point so 3901 is kind of the if you back at 300 correct right that's kind of the on the worst case scenario we don't I guess there's still the question of why this is here but well I guess the question is is the
F well it shouldn't change really it's not going to change I guess not an issue we don't have an F any longer we do for expansion of the noncon corre I'm going to make a suggestion because it is I think it's
really 10:15 got 15 minutes I'm really anxious to see the plans I'd like to understand what's actually being proposed so that we can at least all get a sense of it sure um before we run out of time that's that's fine let's jump right to those PL all
right we've got the three buildings on the site the front house that we're not uh adding two 25 the two car garage which is being used as the shed then we've got the rear housee which is 25A build
um here's the first floor plan existing and proposed the we have a the stort living room in the front with a waft over top of an existing master bedroom suite we come back to an existing kitchen that is
a cathedral space I'm sorry we've got a a kitchen that's an existing Cathedral space you you can see these spaces on the third sheet of the photos the interior of a little bit back yeah now come in on
your left there you go and then we've got an existing uh bedroom for the two daughters bedroom number two then coming back here the low area that we're going to be removing is partially the rear of this bedroom we've got a a hall bathroom
with a with a with a shower and then we've got a laundry mud room in the back here there's an existing outdoor shower that's remaining and there's existing uh work Landing really that's remaining what we intend to do on the
first floor is um you come in the front door on the South Side as it shows on the photos we are adding a closet to create more of an entry space we're make bedroom number two into an office but it can be used as a bedroom because still
going a closet we are enclosing this 15.3 Square ft which is the only addition to the footprint of the house really to the to the coverage I should say this not this Notch here Notch this
Notch 7 by 2 fo4 gets enclosed and we we extend the bathroom and at a Liv closet but the bathroom fixtures remain about the same we can't even get a second vanity in is that no the reason your yes 15 square feet it's about
that's the 0.1% um and then the laundry room remains essentially intact um think we're going to be using 2x6 walls and uh new were uh just modern Cod compliant
Framing and construction and then uh we're we've got the porch Landing here we're adding a post because over the on the second floor we have the stairs going up to the loft as you see in the photos there we've got
the the clear story space over the kitchen and dining to the rear of it one of the photos is taken from there we've got the open area into the into the living room and then we've got the the low roof area in the back which we're going to be removing and
reconstructing we end up with a 234 by 324 excuse me addition built from the kitchen wall back uh rectangular squared off to the perimeter of the house we've got a an
entry hall here we've got a a mechanical room and some storage then we've got two bedrooms for one for each daughter and a shared bathroom in the center uh we've got a pull down attic stair in the hallway there then we access the The
Loft just as it has been accessed and what does that look like elevation wise elevation wise the front essentially almost the front 2/3 a little more than the front half of the house remains intact we removed the the front is on the left this is the front
this is the street side of the front so we will still have the same profile we will have the addition set back about 25 ft the addition will have two windows up over the the Gable of the existing the the existing roof then we
are creating a second floor with a low plate height a low Wall height to keep the mass of it down so the walls are going to be the exterior walls are going to be about 7 feet where the where the rafter sit then we've got a shed Dormer just to add some interest to it where
our windows are on the two sides the two sides are pretty much identical for the second floor so each side contains that shed Dormer element correct yes then we've got U we we are sing weing out over the existing porch so that's where our additional building coverage comes
it's not additional impervious because it's already a porch s and then we are at the rear we are uh squaring it off as I said we've got two windows overlooking the creek and um and Fair Haven Commons a little window in the bathroom and a double
window in the other bedroom do you think you're going to be able to see the Second Story pretty clearly from the the street as you drive by it's like this one elev this one photo here on the right at the bottom right you know kind of from the angle
the way the house pitch it's kind of right your focus Point down the driveway I think you'll see it but I don't think it'll be obvious that was our intent was to try to obscure it for lack of a better word as much as we
could and how presently the second house how far set back uh in the property is it I estimated it to be about 125 ft but that's that's just my estimation from the front yeah from the front from the front property line on church you can see more clearly in this set
yeah that's yeah that was the that's the exploded picture that I was looking at it's one it's it's just the exped yeah it's same the1 from the front yard set back 150 to to the front of the front of the second and
then addition is another 25t past that right Mr K what's the ridge height of the existing structure right now it is uh 20 fo1 just so from the front of the house right here so it seems to me that if I
were trying to figure out how to do this with the least amount of impact that the first thing I would think to do is to change what I'm going to call the front law into the bedrooms by not altering the ridge height at all and popping two shed dormers on left and the right and
you technically don't change the square footage at all and you might be able to get your bedrooms and maintain the structure exactly as it sits did you entertain that we looked at that a bit and we didn't for a couple of reasons one is the the ridge as you'll see in
the in the photo the third sheet of photos the ceiling is very low in this area so uh uh shed Dormer coming out would have to be either very shallow or we would have to do something else the
other would was also that we were combining the second floor Edition with the Reconstruction of the rear of the house which has to be done anyway so we were we were trying to contain the construction in one area and Achieve greater efficiencies
yes and yeah really really the living room without the the cathedral space would would it's a small living room it feels big because it's open to the wall the small living room it's a second house on a lot that has
two houses it's an accessory house that's what it is it's like a it's like an Adu that you would find somewhere that's why it's a small house because it's a second house okay is are the two homes are they occupied by the same family or the two separate families here occupied by the same family but capable
of being rented to unrelated maret historically and historically done so including during my client's ownership of properties property do you mean like immediate family or Mr Rose's father's living in the front house right
now so help me understand when with with regard to my suggestion you've got walls so so where at where the where the Ro meets the exterior walls what's the height of those walls um that's right that's it 8ot
ceiling on the first floor so okay there's plenty of houses with 8 foot ceilings could you not run four Joys and restructure it so that you w up with a second story under that roof line I I didn't understand why you said it
wouldn't work um let me grab my scale the back of the house is being rebuilt but that's not a reason no I know but that was what was yeahi to so that that
825t Edition in 1989 was everything from this staircase forward that front half of the house is 1989 right so the existing living room the existing bedroom back walk-in closet entry and the Loft above it is 1989 can
you show me that Mr Con on your plans we actually the 89 resolution approved an 825t addition to the front of the house yes and and this is 25t by 32 and change which is 825 ft so they didn't
approve the Loft above it I apparently I believe Mr sh is talking about this area here you agree with that Mr Crona is that an addition from dating back to about 89 they look like they were constructed at different times we haven't taken any sheet off the walls cuz but you're
saying you need to rebuild the back of the house yes and not the front of the house so the the house is probably new and also the the ridge is only 11t above the the second floor so if you did the not going to do
the trick standing here but if you did the trigonometry with any sort of a roof getting out to the exterior wall get getting out to any reasonable bedroom size the roof would be low yes you could do different kind dmer we just discounted that as the BRS love that
part of the house they just that's what sold them on it um and we felt that uh we could kill two birds with one stone fix the rear the problems that they have with the rear of the house get the additional bedroom space that they're looking for have it as least impactful
from the street as possible and as we considered possible and um those are a lot of the decision that wanted to showing it in the back to designing it in R I think we would really have to rebuild the front roof in order to get
Dormers in to make those bedrooms work drens I want to find a logical place to pause this for tonight there are people here and my inclination is to give them an opportunity if they have any comments or questions about what we've done so far because they've sat
through three hours of this um are you comfortable pausing where you are well um you know I'm hopeful to get some additional feedback from the from the board members because if we're going to go in you know in a different design Direction I think I'd like to make sure
that I understand everybody's approach to that um the the idea the idea the main goals here were as and the answer is then yes I think we can pause but the main goals that were sought to be achieved were to
reconcile the older part of the house I guess relative to the newer part um and create a design that allowed U basically a suite for the for the girls and at the same time have it be as as minimally impactful to the property in the
neighborhood as possible so that's why it's set back in the back of the second house just to just to keep it very simple so if we're talking about redesigning something then it would have a greater impact potentially to neighbors you know the property and and what have you if we're going to we're
going to kind of add on to the first floor in the front of the house we could do that obviously and stay within that existing footprint reallocate the square footage that way but it would be a fundamental change with the from as compared to the approach that we've had so
far look my my angle is to try to figure out how to deal with this structure which has clearly been there a long time in a way that minimizes the impact of the surrounding Neighbors in light of the fact that this
is highly unusual right um even in this area where we have some accessory dwelling units they're not this big um I actually think I was in this house years ago and and I think it was described to me as
a I don't know what this is is it's so unusual right um how how many square feet are in the structure that you're playing with how many are right now just this structure total is looks like 2345 right total habitable floor area how is that
2300 well prob the of theof 2421 cuz a lot of the Loft in the space over the kitchen counts yeah but but but from my side I would angle that to your advantage you got it it counts it's there reconfiguring it and coming
back and helping us understand how you're going to repurpose it to try to show us that you can do it in a way that you're never going to know we touched it but we can make use of it in a much better way this is not that it it's it's it's taller it's larger
it's intensifying this use even further and it's a lot it's a lot and I know that we talk about the 5,000 foot minimum but I can probably count on this many hands how many R FS are 5,000 square feet they're almost all 7500 squ feet 10,000 Is Not Unusual all the
neighboring lots are this large but it's here I'm sure everybody's sensitive to the fact that it's here and so trying to figure out how to deal with it something we all need to do together but I'm telling you that from my perspective as I as I even look at that one picture
where you can see straight back kind of looks like a cottage I can almost buy it you will no longer be able to buy that when you do a second story it will clearly be a second house that will be as large as most houses that sit on side Lots like this all by themselves so so I have an R5 lot and
it's 150 deep and mine goes through to the next block right which is a rare thing but I will tell you my lot is 8,000 sare ft or 8,500 it's really oversized and you know what it's not that far when you look at the back of the house cuz I have a garage back there there was a second story on there it'd
be a hulking thing I think at least and I just speak for myself I think I I just really want to understand what's gone on there before we went through one of these we scrutinized it heavily it was only a few hundred square feet that house that little thing whatever whatever you want to call it was like
was like 480 sare ft this is a full-blown second structure you could see it I think you're bastardizing something to try to make it liveable I understand there's a family involved you know not trying to jam me up but it it this was never meant to be a second fullblown
livable house for a family it's it's really an accessory dwelling thing maybe a single person to live there whatever but you're trying to make it into something that's not and that's why it seems so outrageous in my opinion and and again that's solely my
opinion but I would like to see how long it's been there and understand all that because it has been there and we're not trying to say you can't use it or any of that but it's a big ask and I think the the jump from reading the variant I think it's a I think it's a really big
jump to make it's really unclear and to that end if it was a shed that was reconstructed and there's then then there's the resolution after that something may have happened in between and again that's not you know we we weren't here for it but it doesn't mean that we're you just do this uh so that's
just my opinion I tend to agree with the chairman I think I mean you've got a 2,000 square sh you got all the open space in there yeah that we can use you know those sure please patricka are DHA
it's it's not a 2,000 foot ship there's a 500 square foot garage on this on this property this back house might be 1250 ft the the way it measures is 2,000 cuz you're counting all that all the open
Loft space that's what we're getting at is that by the Numbers you've got that you know that that and it kills you I get it yeah all right it is a fair point way to use it yes and it is a fair point sir that it lives smaller than that but I think the point is that you have that
some of that space and maybe there's a way you can utilize it without making this seem like a second house on the back it is very visible um and look there we get it on Church Street there is quite a bit of these but again there all really small this is like a full-blown second house and I think with
that second thing it may almost feel bigger from the street than the house that actually fronts the street it seems to me like it needs a super light touch and it needs a repurposing of these lofted areas to make them usable and some discussion about some minimum
expansion of the structure itself some minimum expansion to make it work without without really changing the character of it because it's it's it's out of character it's been there a long time I don't I don't I don't quarrel
with that but but boy this feels like an expansion of a non-conforming use and just the kind of stuff that is really really hard to to figure out that's that's what it feels like it doesn't feel like plus 200 sare feet to me how many square feet are in the front
house so the habitable floor area of the front housee is 1480 is um it's 1326 plus the plus the basement and all it's 1568 for the ordinance sorry 1568 it's 13 13 yeah let's forget about so the
back house is in fact already bigger back house was originally the way you measure it probably 765t before 1989 yeah that's that's house has had the the wraparound porch
winter eyes 2009 in ' 89 essentially this same discussion happened before a different board and it was look we got to make some use of it and they let him have 825 ft which now includes a lofted area as well so it's already happening we can see it on the
paper I mean you can say that the design in '89 was bad they should have made better use of that square footage in the house design in 19 well because it was never expected or supposed to be a second Full House it was a back house with two two bedrooms and a little Loft
area to do whatever would so so Mr Akens I I um I I struggle because you leave halfway through the discussion and it's a lot this is this is a hard one this is a really hard one and and I I I've just uh I caution you about reading too much
into what we're talking about because we haven't fully gotten through it but you know certainly you've got our initial indications I I do want to open it up to anybody that's been sitting here if anybody has any questions or comments with regard to what we've done so far um because people have been waiting this long J that's fine that that's a perfect
time to do that thank you um so I'm going to invite anyone who's here who has any questions or comments with regard to the Mera application I I need I'm sorry I need to step forward so our microphone could pick you up we need your name and your address for the record and where o s u l i v n you swear the
testimony G before the board be the truth all about the treuth address 19k I just want to say that I have no problem with their addition it would be well behind us you
can barely see the house as it is I don't think there will be any issue with the vegetation where's your house in proximity this morning with Jason yes on which side North North so your your lot is actually even longer and and and and how large is your
house 28 and just just one or do you also have D in the back no we have the original um Barn from the church that used to be there yeah it's like the size of that other dwelling in 15 the other
side you know the one you're talking about there small not far enough to have seen this Edition go in the 80s no although my mother attended book there she what attended Booker meetings there oh so it was functioning house yeah I I I think
we all I think we all con see that it's been two hour for a long time thank you thank youc anyone else um yeah any other board members want to share any other comments
direction to the now um look I I I see this as a very very difficult um property to work with um I I think the board recognizes that um what you presented as the difficulties in trying to figure out how
to make it work um we just need to we just need to figure it out okay okay thank you so I guess I would need you to tell us that you would like to carry we like to carry to the next meeting March 6 for now with no
further Ren notice and we provide the necessary extension of time for decision J what what is h what's on for Mark okay um okay I think we should I think I I will make the motion to carry it to
March 6 and and Mr Rens I think we just carry you right to the front of the line um to the extent you're going to Pur ceed with the plans that you have to the extent that you've decide that you're going to make adjustments or whatever please let us know will um because we're not going to put anything else on the agenda for March um if we now have three
understood yes we'll try to convey that right away to uh the board secretary thank you thank you thank you okay so I just made the motion any a second and a vote call you ready yes
yes yes yes yes yes thank you ladies and gentlemen good evening we appreciate the board's extra time at this late hour thank you thank you very very quickly two small administrative items
minutes from genuine meeting motion approve minutes I'll second yes yes yes yes I guess we'll table [Music] 202 making a motion to approve the
excellent written 2023 annual report yes yes yes yes any more yes um I do have one comment for the
board and I know it's late um as we've seen we've had de variances we have Mr Ryan has to recuse himself Mr Akens who's here a lot attendance is Paramount right we only have this once a month people on us if you have a problem make
sure you email Sheila myself and as soon as possible because we have to have have to have seven right it's once a month May time I I really always want to have none every time yeah no I know no I know and
I know what you mean and I appreciate you mentioning it um these are these are really important things for people's lives and um you know you see that tonight and sometimes it really takes you know a skip to say I don't think I want to do that or a Frank to say
don't know what you said hav there's a flat something you said what tonight no but it really helped the discussion really helped get us where we need to go and that's why everybody's valued and that's why having everybody here is so important um and we're saying that to the people that are
here yeah exactly these are not the people that is but we take a lot of time in figuring out the calendar to adjust for schol holidays schools religious things oh that's the time to make your
voice known when the meeting is going to be yep that's all I have second Mr there's a um aniss on here for the ordinance discuss yeah I know I wanted to do it tonight and I was told we continue to oh absolutely keep
carrying that especially we're going to have to this basement thing just is killing me I feel responsible with like so Jordan I I've spoken to um to Josh I told him that I thought that we needed to set up a couple of committees including the ad hoc with regard to
residential um Brian is hopefully going to be spearheading and ad hoc with regard to commercial um and so there's going to be a time where we're going to ask you to sit with us hopefully with that committee and present those ideas um I've looked at the thoughts that you have that you put together with Joe and
they're all really good and they all really require um thought I I don't think there's anything on your list that doesn't warrant review and I think your stuff is really easier than some of the other things um because it's based on what you're seeing dayto day um so we're going to get to it and and we appreciate
put the thought you put into it perfect thank you okay all right anything else that's it motion to adour all in favor said something I said