All right. This is the regular meeting of the period and zoning board of adjustment. Adequate purpose of this meeting have been given pursuance the provisions of the open public paintings act at the time of the board meeting organization in January of this year. The board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of the schedule was
sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 3rd, 2026 and the two river times in January 22nd, 2026. That notice was also posted on the bulletin board in Burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is
on file in the office of Burough Park. Copy of the notice has also been sent to members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given, the board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of the speech. Before proceeding with the formal meeting
tonight, I'd like to say a few words to the applicants, their experts and the audience about the role and authority of the fair zoning board of adjustment. The board is a separate independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is specifically set forth in the burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipal land use law. It is
quasi judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and council. The zoning board does not enact the burough use land laws and regulations. The burough council does that. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough fair. This is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer. This board deals
with appeals for relief from the requirements of the burough's land use laws or the denials by the zoning officer. An applicant is never entitled to a variance, also known as an exception to the zoning regulations, but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal land use law and the fair haven ordinances by
satisfying certain required standards of proof. The board has no authority to wave these requirements. The burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to the specific relief requested. The applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance and the deviation will
substantially outweigh any detriment to the zone plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and not are intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations. Roll call, please. >> Uh Mr. Forte >> here. >> Mr. Leer,
>> Mr. Dr. Law >> here. >> Uh Mr. Ryan, >> Mrs. Newman here, Mr. Lava, >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Mrs. D should be here momentarily. I think we're just going to go right into it without um the show.
>> We'll do the admin. >> Um >> okay. Uh first case that we're going to hear tonight is 108 Baton Road Gaskin. Mr. Groski. >> Yes. >> For the record, please note Mr. Shetty will accuse.
>> Um Sherry will be here. You know what? That's a good point. Do admin. >> Yeah. Mr. Rosski, can you give us five minutes? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Um, let's do this discussion. >> Okay. I just need like three minutes.
>> Um, >> I didn't. >> Sorry. So, uh, I circulated this this sheet if you want a little visual. Um, should be in the back of your packet. Uh, the GRE application came uh
before the board and was approved in November of 2025. Then in December of 2025, the next meeting, the uh, resident came back and had an informal discussion at the end. It was about the addition uh, finished floor. He proposed it one foot down. So
one foot dropped from the existing house. And the board gave him an an ability to raise that finish floor by a foot and then offset the the roof the same foot. So now the visual part of this is um
as everybody's probably heard the second floor floor area counts when it's more than 30 in greater than the the first uh you know the second floor plane extended. Um the initial application the board saw was uh very intentionally 2
feet 6 in above that to the uh bottom of roof rafter. When they then added that foot to the to the roof, it then created about a foot on top of that inside to the roof rafter which by the length of the
building added about 92 square ft to the theoretical floor area. Um, this was covered by a condition which gave the applicant the ability to raise the roof by one foot. Um, but I just wanted to make sure that that was in line with how the board view
>> if I recall and I think we all agreed that the step the extra step down in the house was was kind of pointless and inconvenient and >> dangerous >> dangerous and that was our decision to allow them to level the thing out. I think the 92 square feet was an
unintended consequence and I think if we just memorialize that and as an amendment to the resolution that was that was passed I think we just move on. Uh it was a could have been avoided that from the beginning and we should have caught it
earlier but it is what it is. So that's my take any if anybody has anything different. No, I agree. Just as long as it's I don't want people coming back after as a precedent saying, "Oh, look, look at all this extra square footage." It's right. They want the number to be right and we'll we'll memorialize the
decision in in the uh an addended resolution. >> Hold on. What did you say? The square footage of the house. >> What would that What was What was the number including that 92? Um it was
the point being we don't uh any a2 >> you just want the final number the full number said I have a reaction once I get the home >> it was 3981 So 4,73.
>> Would you proposing the number be in the final resolution? >> It was 39.81. >> Correct. >> I think the number in the final resolution should be the total of 4,73 taxes on >> a suggestion.
>> Such is life. I mean, >> it also is going to show on paper that it's over 4,000. >> I understand that. I'm just trying to think of another way to do it. If we say that 92 ft exists but doesn't count that kind of goes along with any other, you
know, >> I think the 92 ft exists and shouldn't count. >> Remember this is all the result of an accident. >> You know, we've done this before. May I May I suggest without an agenda
simply acknowledge this a part of the I'll figure out how to do that with the building folks that this is consistent with the conditions of that mentioned that this design future is within the spirit of
the resolution. Just leave it at that. We don't have any revolution calls it out as 39 and change. Yeah, you're right. I recognize we have those in the past where the official numbers this >> okay
it is it is when when we tweak the ordinance we're going to resolve this so that was never intended to be >> okay when we figure out details from our engineer and your code folks I don't think you need to do another formal
oration all I need a vote on this. I don't think so. Well, I would I would vote on this action take. >> Uh Mr. >> Yes. >> Uh we
did. >> Oh, we did. We did this. Mr. >> Yes. Dr. >> Walker, >> we forced him into >> Mr.
I don't think No, he didn't go this way. >> And Mr. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Mrs. Dzel has joined the desk. Mr. Shetty will be recusing and Mr. Brodzky
will give you thank you for coming. >> All witnesses to step forward if anybody is speaking. Let me swear you in now so I don't disrupt your digitation. Also
doing testimony board. >> Yes. Yes. >> General directions you start testifying state your name seated. Your name for
the record last name is Mr. Morrison documents. A1 will be the land development application checklist as well as the zoning board zoning board adjustment application. A2 will be the zoning permit denial
September 18, 2025. A3 will be the color uh photographs and aerials of the subject loading and adjacent properties undated. Believe they're eight markers. Day four, new size of a survey prepared
uh December 26, 2024. Day five, the architecture of cycl unit elevations three sheets the last robotic November 3rd, 2025. We will also mark um a CV1
the review letter by our engineer super short visa dated January 27th 2026 believe that that is all we have a I didn't bring in A6
resolution dated April 3rd 1998 agent. Um, I believe that's all of the exhibits that I have at this point in time. I >> Yeah, we may have we we're going to have one or two others as we go through the >> test.
Perfect. >> And the sheriff's permission. May I ask you to identify any waivers and whether or not he has the objections? >> Okay. Thanks, J. Um, there are six uh checklist waiverss being requested. The
first one is in a completed checklist uh which is okay. I completed and looked at all the items. Uh next is elevations. Um so they provided it for a garage and you'll hear testimony on that. Um not the house itself. Um but as I understand
that there's no changes as part of this application to the house. um calculation of floor area and lot coverage. Um it's a minor change to a garage. So I did not take a look at the overall house or the overall uh lot for that reason. I
looked at the lot but not they didn't provide a calculation for it. Attic access is probably not applicable given it's a garage. And then a key map showing all properties in 200 ft um was not provided and I don't take exception to these. >> Thank you Mr. Does anyone have any
issues with the waves outline? Maybe not. No. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Broky, on behalf of the applicants, Lewis Gaskin and Al Ally Reer. Um the application before you
pertains to the property located at 108 Baton Road, um in your R10A zone. Um the application uh seeks variance relief uh to basically for the
cons uh the demolition of an existing uh detached garage and replacement of it with a new detached garage. Um just just to sort of give you a little perspective, um the Gaskins uh purchased
this property back in 25 uh uh in January of 2025. Um Alli Reer, Mrs. Gaskin is is a interior decorator who actually um specializes if
you will in sort of traditional sort of uh renovations and uh so the existing home which is about 120 years old or so um uh Mrs. Brier uh or Mrs. asking grew
up in Fair Haven, moved away and then kind of always had um always loved this house and when it came up for sale, she grabbed it or they grabbed it. Um and they've been are in the process of doing a um an extensive uh uh renovation to
that house. Um and part of that as part of that renovation they also want to incorporate a uh um a garage. The garage um the the existing freestanding garage
is in is not in good condition is in very poor condition and so um it did not lend itself to being renovated. The new garage that is proposed is in essentially in the same footprint uh uh
or or very similar footprint, very similar location to the existing detach garage except for the fact that um the existing detached garage is 3 and 1/2 ft off of the property line. And um
they are proposing to uh construct the new garage of similar size at 5t off of the property line. Still requiring a variance because 10 is 10 ft is required >> a front yard >> because it is in a front yard. This is a
corner lot and while the garage is in the architectural rear yard, it's considered a front yard because of the fact that it's a corner property. So um that's one one element of the leaf that is sought is to permit a detached
garage to exist in the front yard where same is not permitted. The second ele the the the second element of relief that is being sought is with respect to the height of the garage. The the permitted height um in in this in the
R10A zone is 15 ft. what's being proposed is 16 feet. It's one foot over. I'm going to leave it to my architect to um explain uh you know the basis or or or the motivation behind
seeking that extra foot. Um, and it and it has in in my layman's terms, it has to do basically with architectural um um perspective and aesthetics in in terms
of um comparing it to the house. And the you'll hear from the architect that that extra foot gives it, you know, um a much better look and and sort of view from the street. Um, and and one of the
things that Ally, who can't uh M. Reer, Ms. Reer, who can't be here, he's at a wedding, uh, talked about at length when we discussed this was that, you know, she she wants the garage to feel like a more of a carriage house look, which is
going to match the home as opposed to a, you know, a smaller shed kind of look. So, I may I will let Mr. Goodw um speak to that from an architect's perspective,
but basically that's what's driving. Um it's it's an architectural aesthetic issue uh not really a functional issue. Um so, what I'd like to do, unless the board has any other questions, is um have Mr. Good sworn in and he'll walk
the board through the plans that have been submitted. >> He has been sworn. He had been >> It's been a long week. It's been a long week. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. with you, if you would for the record, just just provide your background and the credentials of an
architect here. >> Peter Bidu Ramson, New Jersey. Um, I've been an architect for 35 years now. Um, I've practiced uh pretty much doing this
type of work. I've been in front of the store numerous times in the past. I do a lot in Romson, uh, Fair Haven, just the general area. Um, and, um, I also, um, the Reagers are
old clients of mine. Um, Alli's parents hired me 20 years ago to do their house in Shbury, then moved on to a new house on the river in Redbank, and I did work to that about 10 years ago or so. And you know that's why I'm here.
>> Anybody have issue with Mr. Muy's credentials for the flight? No. >> Great. All right, Peter, if you would let let me see. You have a couple of additional exhibits here. >> Well, I do. First off, this is this is an implication, but I do
have aerial view of the house here. >> Okay, let's get that marked as A7. Is there a date on that, Peter? >> No. All right. So, let's use today's date. April 16th, >> 2026.
>> Oh, thank you. >> Existing condition. >> And Peter, this was prepared by your office. >> Yeah. >> And does this reflect the current conditions of the property as >> Yeah. site. We didn't have a location plan. So, we're we're basically where the rats are down here. We're at the end
of Bon Road. The house is on the corner there and then comes in. I guess this is still >> B. So, that's Baton that turns into River. That's still Bat. >> Yeah. Batten, right surrounding. >> So, so we're right in this corner. There's a house next to it. The garage
is, you know, um it is a bit of a tight yard. the existing garages, you know, in a spot which one which we're proposing to build it. Um, and
they have the, you know, house is kind of pushed over to the side um to the property. So there it's a larger piece of property on the other side is kind of their backyard because they don't have a backyard. um this with a tight spot here
and um there's a there's a U shaped driveway and a driveway that runs back the city which we're planning to maintain. >> Okay. And so that 3 and 1/2t the existing 3 and 1/2 set foot set back is
off of Baton, right? Second frontage on that. Okay. Um so as far as the neurologist is concerned >> um it is >> and are these a cop is this a copy of the plans that was submitted?
>> Uh yeah >> okay we don't need to know the bar >> I don't think so. of candid. >> Yeah. Let's mark it as A8. So something other
than something that was there slight changes to that. >> Oh yeah. Well, it's mostly materials. >> Okay. >> Can you give us a new date on it? >> This one was 15th
or 15th. So, as far as the signing of the garage goes, I'm trying to understand what it looks like. So, on the front of the house, that's on main section of B, let's call it. >> And you got a circular drive and the garage is if it were an interior lot, it
would be considered at the back, but because it's on the corner of that garage sitting at the front of the yard. >> Alternatives placement as you're knocking it down, obviously, you can put it anywhere that works. what consideration was given to other spots on the site that would be conforming and
what were the hardships that that prevented that? Um mainly the whole reconstruction of the driveway and all of that. I mean I'm looking at the survey. I'm just trying to figure out where I should put it. >> Yeah. >> And also it's the its location to the
service under the house. >> If it was if it weren't the corner off the location too conforming for a side or a setback for an accessory structure. >> Uh it could be 12t. >> I'm not sure.
>> It would be five five foot setback. It's It's 10 foot 10t for the front door. >> I'm saying it's four and a double front door essentially. >> No, it's 10 foot for an accessory side. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, I think I think Peter, if if I'm understanding correctly, if we if we
were to shift the construct the new garage 10 ft off of that, what would be the effect on the location of >> No, we we couldn't we couldn't put it there. We there'd be no way to get into it. You wouldn't be able to drive into it over the existing driveway. Sorry.
Yeah. >> Right. Right. And then of course to put it over in I guess the backyard the the quote unquote backyard area >> would just take putting a driveway across >> all the way around >> all the way around or in the front you
know living room beings. >> Just trying to exhaust. >> Understood. >> Understood. >> Why why it has to be there? New Zealand areas. Yeah. >> You've got a lot of property to the uh to the southern end uh
southeastern end of the property. Did you give any consideration to demolishing this and then just extending from your circular driveway um you know straight back to the uh to the southern end of the property and and putting the
uh putting the garage there. Then you can do whatever you want. it we would the garage would have to be behind the front yard setback I believe if it's detached and that would kind of put it right in the middle of the of that
>> pretty that's a patio there I said generator in the way is that what you're saying >> no what I'm saying saying is all this property what I'm saying you got all this over here you come in this driveway you could you put it put it back into
well behind the front door set >> and it's well behind the front door setback. Then then you're conforming all the way around. You the only thing you would do is block off this portion of the driveway and you still have your circular driveway, but you would have
you would have the uh the garage over here. >> You basically have the same shape you have now. The driveway just the mirror image you put it off. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. the filament page like this and you go >> I'm just looking at what's in the way here too. You have landscaping generator
patio. >> Well, you've got a big tree back there. You've got a big tree back there, but you you have plenty of room to the uh to the wet side of the tree. You could come straight back here and you can put the
uh you could split it back adjacent to to that tray. Well, I I think Well, I don't know, Peter, you speak to that. I mean, it seems to me that the idea was to um Well, you why don't you you explain the thought process behind
>> replacing the garage where exactly myself was that she wanted to maintain this house, >> the way it was. I have suggested to be on that tour. Uh the idea of bringing a
driveway back to the corner or or other um avenues on that. So that um that way of approaching it, but you know, she was kind of like adamant about kind of maintaining what was there and
and improving it. >> Well, you wouldn't you wouldn't have to uh uh you would be conforming all the way around if you put the the garage on the other side of the house. >> I understand that. >> Yeah, he's right. I mean, it would
literally necessitate no variance at all. That the front yard garage would no longer be in the front yard, right? Or the corner lot and it would no it would also wouldn't be on top of that leg road or whatever. >> This that particular side of the house is the dining room and the living room
and all that stuff. And it's an old house with windows that wrap around that side. And you know that was in in in an effort to kind of maintain its integrity and not have, you know, a
garage sitting like be right out the >> in the middle of a room. I get it. And yeah, >> I'm not I'm not paying space. >> I'm not saying the attention, but essentially what you're saying is so you don't have to see it out the windows here. everyone everyone else has to see on the edge on the >> but they're already looking at a garage.
>> Yeah, this is this is the thing that's that's but we'll we'll continue with the testimony. So you're improving you say you're improving the what's there now. It's 3 ft. >> Yeah. And we'll get the five from the road. >> And that road is steeply banked. It sits
up on the hill. It's going to be a dirty building. It's it's going to into that view of the um of the uh probably you know from the neighbors walking tour people using a bow ramp and
explain to me how one foot left on the new pipe. Yeah. Changes things. >> Oh, it's just because it's one foot less is going to make a squad roof and then have those beautiful tall peaks and you know what I mean? not
tall in a sense of numeric height, but you know uh certain peaks like you know I mean a lot of these houses then look like you know there the older houses always had like you know 10 on 12 12 on 12 pitches things like that to give it
you know and we're trying to maintain that. >> But aren't you already up on on a little bit of a bluff the uh from where that existing garage is it slopes down to the street? >> Yes. Yes. And then uh but that would even make more of a mass looking from
the street to the garage. >> Oh, looking from that side. Yeah. Come down from that. >> For context, I have some photos of this from the street. It's on page 101. So you can see from a couple angles what it looks like. >> What's the footprint of the exhibit?
It's um jeez. It is >> I found a perfect square. I have it as 349 square feet. It's got a little curve to it. >> And the proposed curve. >> Yeah, I see that curve. Is it really? Yeah.
>> What's What's the square footage of the new 355? any more NFL? I >> I have it at 365. I mean, yes, it's around to be fair. It's a It's a pretty modest garage. >> Let me just make sure it's 365.
>> Yes. Okay. >> Most of the garage see >> I'm looking at where it's located and I'm looking at the design and it clearly the the the single bay is to the left. So, I assume that the door is on the right to the interior. Yeah. Do they
carry it a lot? Yes. >> So, but that extension is what four or five feet. Is that an extra four or five feet in width in terms of the garage itself? >> It's over here. >> And on the site plane, you'll see that area where I'm maintaining that 5 foot
setback is. >> So, my observation is that if you had a simple onecar garage, if you didn't have that appendage on the garage, then the whole thing could move over by another whatever that distance is. You could wind up moving it back maybe 10 or 12.
What's the purpose of the of the bunk out and frankly of the garage? Is it going to be used as a garage? >> Yes. It's not going to be finished inside or anything like that. It's basically she they want the look. It's nothing like a
some sort of lighthouse or anything like that. Right. >> You asked two questions. You answered second first. You answered first. We have to >> I'm sorry. >> So what here's what I'm trying to understand. If if the footprint of the
garage includes both a single bay for the car and then the bump out which appears to be abrupt 25 ft, you've got it basically pinned to the northerly side of the house and you said it can't move over any further and you won't have access to the door. But it's I guess I'm
>> that particular reason for doing it like that was that um there's from aesthetic standpoint it's a much better view from the backyard looking in at it. Um, you know, that's going to be a storage potting shed, so section
um um unfinished section on that this little bump out here. And if you look in the site plan, I have to maintain a 5ft setback from the house in the text. So that's kind of driving it as well.
>> Well, I think that stays static. He's just saying >> we're saying if you lop if you lop off the whatever that notch out is there, >> right? So it's it's basically a rectangle and there is another rectangle that's sort of overlapping. I think what Todd is saying if you take that notch
out then you can shift the whole thing you still have a onecar garage. It's not as close to batten and a lot of these issues are are minimized. I think I think that's what it's saying and and frankly the way the door is open here. You have a door on this side and there's a door literally
around the side here. I mean, how much utility are you getting out of this space anyway if you have these doors? Yeah. >> If I maintain the garage's rear yard setback and push the garage towards the house, >> yeah,
>> I'm going to crowd that area and I'm going to lose. >> You're crowding it with the with that. >> Yeah, but it is in within the five foot setback that I'm required to have for fire. >> But it still could be if that was missing, I think, is what Jordan was saying. It would effectively remain sad.
So that that where those steps cylinders of course that's the house. >> So at these exact dimensions >> where the car pulls in is a little bit more towards the front property line. So if it technically moves like a perfect shift then it would be closer than 5t.
You'd have to shift it back process too >> like this. Like that >> on an angle. Yeah. Um they're 12 point >> not on the bias. Just just that back slide it back that way. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. It would have to shift back to towards the rear property line. That's
12.1. So they have >> three feet essentially there to go. >> You can pick up five on one side and you lose some on the 12. Is that right? >> You would. Yeah. >> Think the 12 might be better than that. >> So look, the piano can rebuild a garage
exactly as it says. They've got the right to do. They're here. They've taken a lot of time and spent a lot of money to come and show us exactly what they would like. What I'm trying to understand given that this setback is highly unusual to a front yard and and
there is a decent amount of traffic there is whether or not there's a way to get it closer to the house. And and I'm also wondering if you maybe you couldn't sort of just push that bump out back and somehow figure out how to keep it far enough from the house, maintain the utility and provide for a better
setback. I I I don't think that the request is egregious. They're looking for an additional foot and height and they're improving the setback. So, I don't want to push too hard, but I'm trying to understand why that wouldn't be a better compromise to basically get the thing kind of wrapped around the back a little bit so we can create a
greater setback off that >> that is possible and I don't think we would ruin >> I think that is possible. >> Is possible. >> Yeah. I don't know that you're going to get as much as you think, but
>> Hey, can I can I Sorry. Hi everyone. SW >> Yeah, >> he's been sworn. He has not been identified. You can spell >> Lewis Gaskin. Gaskin is G- A S K I N. I am one of the homeowners. Um maybe just one comment on if if we were to push the
garage back. The property line does slope off towards the neighbors. >> Um so I think what we've tried tried to do is be very thoughtful around where we place the the the garage. I think it's very consistent with where it is today.
Um there was a question I think earlier I would hope it is currently curved that's actually the structure that is currently it's bowing the side >> um which is being captured in survey. So that's also part of our motivation is to
try to put in a very structurally sound barrage that's very consistent with the existing home um while also as Peter said maintaining a lot of the historical integrity of the property. So right clearly that bow is is will be removed.
>> Correct. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. That's the existing design not exactly as no there is there is there's extensive damage and rot to the existing structure. Um,
to your point, just read through denial of their original um request. It says that once the existing Dorado is raised, any structure must conform to current ordinance which prohibits
accessory buildings to be located in the frame. >> You can't rebuild it. You have to rebuild. You can't take it down and then rebuild it. You can replace it in and effectively the rights to have it as
by the way which was affirmed by the zone board in 98 when it existed. They acknowledged it and it was effectively approved in the place that it was. I'm sure it predates zone given given the age of the house. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not suggesting that's a better resolution by the way. I I'm just I want
to make sure that we've kind of put some parameters around what we're talking about because deviations minor their ability to rebuild it is this model level and so I just want to make sure we sort of continue our conversation to the scope. >> I mean so what we're looking at is the
proposal obviously is to shift as much as we possibly can to improve the baton road side. I think you have that you've got more to play with on the rear on the rear lot line than any >> back to Mr. Caskin's comment on this area. You can see the house that's next
door, the one that's behind it and there is there is a extreme um slope drop off there. >> What's the the the setback on the accessory on the real lot line is 10 ft. >> Yes, correct. >> So you do have two feet to play with
there. Mhm. >> What's the top one too though? Did it drop off in the last four feet or is it >> It's dropping off a good eight feet down. >> You can see where where does that drop? Where does it start? >> Is there room to push back? >> Right up right back our property line. There's a there's a row of trees running
down. >> It looks like it starts right behind the existing shed. Um I'm sorry, the garage. But the new garage is probably 5T or so behind that. So I think you're probably looking to build that area up. And there's also trees there, too. Are
you are you planning to take those trees down? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. You would um need to take down one of the trees which sits directly behind the the structure today. >> Um and I think the push back is maybe two or three feet whereas I think if you
were to set it back further, that'd be pretty challenging. >> Yeah, looks like about five feet on plans. >> Okay. I just want to clarify. I'm not suggesting that the garage be pushed back to the east. I'm proposing the house be pu the garage be pushed to the
south so that it is creating a greater setback to that the bumpout be configured so that that's pushed back slightly to to be in line with the rear of the garage. Mr. who designed terrific stuff and I'm sure that this is the
creme little creme of design in the garage and I do recognize that the proposed change to that would be a compromise in terms of the aesthetics but in terms of the the the public interest I feel like if you were able to recapture an extra 5 ft and tuck it in
and have whatever little appendage or bumpout behind the house it would um it would benefit uh the streetscape significantly especially with the extra foot up going up and now I understand what you're saying this leader like she was saying to shift that >> saying to shift it so it's like an L.
>> Yeah. No, it needs to shift this back. >> Yeah. Yeah. So it becomes like an L instead of an up job. >> Right. >> Right. Can can I also just make one one small comment that um the yard area behind the property. It's it's pretty tight there. You have some um air
conditioning units that are currently that are not picked up on survey. Uh >> actually you have two units that are >> they are on the surve on the survey but not at this point. >> Okay. So there there are two AC units and it does get pretty tight and there's also a um some existing landscaping and
a stone wall between our property and where it starts to uh slope down towards our neighbors. >> I could see that. And but you you you're already going I see the outline of the existing garage on the on the
architect's plan. Yes. >> And you're going past that anyway. What this will be doing is going shifting that little section back to meet to make the back line even. >> Understood. So more like an L shaped
>> more like an L. >> Realistically to your comment before the the area this 12 ft is sloped, wooded, etc., etc. So that's not being affected at all as far as utility is concerned. It's still in that same top which is sounds like they're going to build it up anyways. All right.
>> Yes. >> How many feet will they have to build it up? >> Is this thing not to >> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out. >> It's dropping heat. Sorry, Mr. Brok. >> No, I was saying that that I guess the front door, so to speak, that's remaining the same. I'm trying to figure
out >> the front door of the >> of the garage of the garage. >> Yeah, that doesn't change. We're talking about the >> just on the side here on the >> the smaller piece >> shifted back to so the >> right I see.
>> So the whole thing is 12 ft from the rear lot line and not just you know whatever portion of it is. >> How does that change the the Baton Road Saga? >> Well then we're going to move it over. Mr. Leer's proposal was to move move it then move it over to the
right. We do have to maintain that 5T to the >> I think you will be able to if you push that back you can come over closer because that that what is that bump out is 6 >> can we can we still Peter make the move into here please there it is right
>> yeah so here it becomes if this is slotted back here then this becomes probably what is that? >> Yeah, seven. >> So become seven or eight. So they keep over this that way. >> All that does. So that puts this corner
kind of >> it will sit right. So the garage door would be a little more sens. The corner of the garage is going to be right up against the the first tread of the staircase to No, no, no.
You want to push that bump the >> We want to push the bump rearward. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then you can move the garage closer to the house. Not a ton, but you'll be improving. >> Well, I just I don't know that I'm going to make the 10 ft. It'll be >> We're not going to make 10, but it'll be
>> No, it'll be more than five, especially because you're asking for an extra foot in height, >> which is more imposing to the roadside. The more you can move that garage off the bat roadside, the better it is. Okay. >> For for the neighborhood it might be. >> Is there any other relief requested?
>> This is the only thing because the plan shows some some potentials. >> Is there any other relief you need? >> Height and location. Nothing in the house. >> So just clarify that. There's a note on here that you're removing portion from the house. >> Um this is suggesting you're decreasing
floor area and then your table shows that you're increasing floor area. So >> none of that is part of this application, right? >> Um the part where we're decreasing floor area in the definition of floor area, not in
the lot area. >> There is a porch which you've taken a picture of. >> But that but you're not doing that as part of this application, right? >> Correct. >> You're doing other interior modifications as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. So now the question
>> now to the question are we seeking any relief with respect to anything else >> heighten location. >> What about square foot on the table? So it's just a garage. So it would seem to me that we could figure out a footprint and a square footage and we can get
through this as opposed to requiring that they come back. >> I think so too. I'm trying to figure out a way to just say how do we say this to if that's agreeable to the client and Mr. good unit. >> Um, >> obviously that's the direction I would like to go. Obviously the board members I'd like to hear their people that
haven't spoken, but um here I don't want to I mean let's face it, we we do want to just get through this so we don't >> likewise >> like this. >> Um what about this? Does this stay intact? >> So the whole the whole garage would
shift >> I don't know 2 feet to the right. bar. >> This isn't enough. Let's go. >> Um, as long as I got answers, I can >> just fell. So, for the moment, I'd like to give the public a chance. Anybody that like to speak on this um while you're
deliberating so we can go forward. Um, any members of the public have any comments that they would like to make regarding this application, please step forward. Let the record reflect up. >> Um, >> Mr. Chair, can I run through a few questions? So, >> yes, please. >> Thank you. Um, so we talked about the
tree removal. At least one's coming down. So as a condition, I'd say we should have >> burrow permit is required for any trees. >> Um, the survey shows a retaining wall to block wall in that back corner. >> There's an existing retaining wall.
>> Is that been removed, affected, rebuilt? >> Yes. >> Should that be showed on the >> Yeah. Do you have any do you have any plans for that? >> No. Okay. I think we should have plans showing what the toe goes, especially since you're up against the property line.
>> Is it structur? Is the wall structural? >> It is a retaining wall. By its nature, it is structural. I would think >> it like 4 ft over have to be designed by an engineer and all the rest, footings and whatnot. >> Yeah, there's um the driveway of the house behind the the one we're talking
behind the garage is in a gully and they have a they literally have a a retaining wall to get into their garage there. So, if you were building this, then you'll probably require >> Yeah. some design. >> Well, if it's independently required that it be designed by an engineer, you'd want to see it. If it isn't and
it's 4 feet or under, you wouldn't need to. It's it's uh whatever it is. >> What's the existing height of the retaining? >> It's like 6 in. >> Oh, okay. So, we're not talking. >> Yeah. It's >> No, no, no. It's it's very very very >> I'm going to suggest this. which her
retaining for her driveway was one of the reasons for the the fact that it is that I'm trying to >> Yeah. >> You know, did you look at any more landscaping? When you're right on Baton Road, you can see through. Are you going to be planning anything else?
>> Yes, we we we plan to make that more private. >> So, it's part of that approval. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I know. And I'm just trying to is I have a problem visualizing the bat coin. Is that a is that the main portion of Baton Road that this absut or is it the the
extension of Baton Road that goes around the corner? It's the extension. >> It's the extension. >> It fronts on the main wall. >> Got it. >> On the main portion. >> Okay. >> Adjustments to the retaining wall additional landscaping.
>> So, >> no, I'm just I just want to >> Oh, you good, Mr. Uh, I guess drainage is going to have go straight straight down the grade. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I would say that should be pointed away from the neighbors, especially >> I'm pointed down the drive
>> towards your your >> front yard. Yeah. >> Um, and then I had some technical comments. Um, one of them is about windows. There's I guess an inconsistency as it can be windows and all. >> Yeah. which when I thought the lead in
the back would be nice and they didn't we're were more than you know willing to take it out of it was a problem. >> I just wanted it would be nice just I think your point was they should be consistent. >> Correct. Yeah. >> So if you just comply with the the four
clients. >> Okay. >> Yep. Okay. >> So you're telling me to take the window out or no? No. No. The window's fine. It should be showing if you're the floor plan shows something different than elevations the patch. So Peter, can you do a quick
>> So Mr. would it benefit you to take 15 minutes or so and draw something off >> and the best you can give us some see exactly where what you think is good you that you could improve on that with the suggested that we did. But as far as
shifting that pump down back to level, make it even with the uh the line and then see what you what are you looking at it can come off the road maintain. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> All right. think okay the interest of brevity so I think we're going to change start at least start the the next application for uh
record show Mr. SH is returning to the day. I ask that anybody testify in our application come forward. >> So, Mr. Kovitz, I introduce you to Mr. Federa Jennifer BMR professional planner Anthony Kendor our arch
everybody in >> going to provide testimony with this young mouth raise your right hand please continue to be sworn from the last test the truth I hope >> I do >> yes before you start testifying please
state your name spell your last name for the record we don't have to do that right now everybody can relax you see the marching exhibit so I don't have to continue to interrupt anyone let me do this I have um
like mark A1 is the land development map activation A2 I'd like to marked as the architectural site plan elevations uh looks like they are left to reise February 26
26 six. So A3 is the uh survey dated July 8, 2024. A4 A4 is only permanent denial dated
December 20, 2024 25 are the color photographs. I have this uh five pages 11 im images in my dedicated file six by colors printed March 7th 2025
A7 a historic preservation commission a member end of action dated August 29 2024 at A8 is the March 25 2026 writing from
council A9 is the fair haven historic preservation additional document dated July 17 2025 have CV1 is May 5th 25 prepared by
um Mr. Rizzo CV2 is the October 14th 25 prepared by Mr. Rizzo CV3 is the legal version prepared by Mry Vizo on Zoom 5,
2025. Then we have a Zoom before right by Mr. Miz dated April 14, 2026. We don't have any other exhibits if we are going to marin's
benefit. Our next item is for view you'll be paid 10 you have an additional um >> I don't know Mr. Chair is do you have any additional waivers or issues that need to be addressed by the local building?
>> Yes, please. There's uh five checklist waivers noted. First one is four plans for the existing building. Um you'll hear in a little bit that the existing building is being demoed. So those were not um prepared to be submitted. Next, the statement of legal basis for the
granting of the variances. Um take exception to that now because you'll hear testimony in that in a moment. And then the three outside agencies, Mammoth County Planning Board, Month County uh health department, and then Freehold SEDD. The one here is probably going to be SEDD that will be required. I imagine
if it's over 5,000 square feet. So, I'll just ask that that one be provided at a late date um if they wish during um >> during compliance if you wish with an approval. >> We would stipulate that would be a conditional approval if necessary. >> So, I don't take exception to the five
waves. recommended. He must recommend those waiverss to the board. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Any questions on the waivers? >> Okay. Mosski, would you >> Thank you. So, hello ladies and gentlemen. My name is Monica Falsi. I
represent your applicant Brett Federo this evening and we come to you for uh what we consider to be uh one variance remaining which is a square footage variance. Although uh Mr. Rizzo disagrees and we're looking at a combined sideyard setback, but we hope
to allay any issues with regard to that this evening by way of testimony. Um at this time, you can see based on the dates of these submissions that my client and his family have been working on this submission at this point for close to two years. Um,
from from its inception, this has been about uh, you know, a husband and wife with a overly large length of a lot, not so much in a width of a lot, um, with four young children who is essentially
looking to build a family home um, in a location that he grew up in. So, we've gone through multiple reiterations of the plan. We have gone through multiple um appearances before your HPC to get approval of each set of plans as
they've been revised. And we've even gone so far as to uh request a tech conference and had a tech conference with Mr. Kovatz and Mr. Rizzo um to further refine the plans prior to our submission tonight. So we really, you know, I'm sorry, was there a question?
>> No, it was Jun. >> Yeah, we Yeah. So just because we were we were represented parties we we asked Mr. Oess to sit in as well. So you know I mean just to keep everything above board and and have any questions answered. So you know at this point I just like to put some >> attorneys for outstanding.
>> Yeah we were outstanding. We said pretty much nothing during the entire during the deck. So so um at this point I just like to start out with basim from Mr. Foddero with regard to you know his intentions with regard to the property. So Mr.
Vado, you've been uh sworn under the record. Can you explain to the board um how you came to purchase the house and when? >> Yeah, sure. So, um my my wife couldn't be here. Um we have we have four young kids and the the youngest is a little sick this evening, but um we bought the
house in 2020. I grew up on Lewis Lane and you know, our intent was always to kind of move move back to Fair Haven and COVID uh we decided we we always wanted to live in the historic district so we bought the Cape in the historic district. Um, but that that that's how we that's how we bought the house and
and why. >> Okay. And how old are your kids at this point? >> I have four girls. Uh, a 9-year-old, a 7-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a one-year-old. >> So, we realize that thus doesn't play into the land use ordinance, per se, but that may answer some of the questions
that come up with why my client wants to retain the garage in its current location. Because even though it won't be utilized as a quotequote garage, it will be used utilized for storage and it's an existing structure. So, we're we'll be addressing that. Um, with
regard to the application itself, um, Brett, how many reiterations of the plans have you set up? Do you remember? >> Um, a lot. More more than I had envisioned. Um, probably at least I'm going to say at least half a dozen. >> Are the specific goals that you had for
this >> to make it look historic be in the historic district? Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Was your wife a large part of that as well? Yeah. Yeah. So, we went through the like the historic registry, all the houses around town, all that, and being thoughtful in terms of putting the house
to fit into the neighborhood and then also kind of be cognizant of where it sits in the neighborhood, getting more close to the park. >> So, let's talk about that park for a minute because, you know, when we first started this process, we realized that there was an access easement on the lefthand side of the property, which would be the northern side of the
property. Correct. >> Okay. But the access easement sits not on your lot, but on the park lot. Correct. >> Yeah. Between us and the driver. >> So, I don't know if the board is familiar with it. If if you're not, I certainly have pictures and I can produce them either now or at later
time. But as shown on the survey that was submitted, the access easement does not sit on our lot. It is on the adjoining lot. And you know, I will I will show you. You don't find >> adjoining lot. Yes. >> Yes.
If I may, >> there's also the driveway to the the other house that >> Well, there's there forget it. >> Sorry, Mr. >> There is a park, but it's also an easement to get to the house. Correct. Behind them, they don't have frontage. >> We're going to mark this yet.
>> No, it's in Norman >> council. >> Yes. >> And please represent it back. So, in the record, we are showing the actual um driveway, which is the access easement lot, as well as the currently existing driveway, the park sign next to the
driveway, the park itself, and a picture of the house in question, and the right hand side of the property as well. >> Okay. How many pages? >> There are two pages. I'm sorry. >> How many images? >> Let me three pages and five pictures.
>> We have enough for everybody. when these were taken. >> Yeah, they were taken today. >> So, it's the easement and it's the access to the lot that's on the river, >> right? The access easement isn't is uh I don't know if that house is up on the river, but it's you can it is on the river. Okay. Yeah. So, the access
easement is actually on the park lot. It is not on our lot. You can see on the first page, the bottom picture, the two dividing line fences. Mhm. >> So at the white picket fence, the left hand side is the access easement that is
not on our lot >> and that black gate leads to the adjoining property. >> The adjoining property. So that's what I'm saying. The access easement while it is adjoining to our lot, it is not on our lot. And I think that becomes very important to understand because if you move to page two,
you're going to see a picture of the card from our perspective. the house that we are um proposing, if you will, will be closer to that side of the property than it will be to the south side of the property. Because if
you flip to page three, you're going to see that the houses are fairly close together. My client in consideration of not only, you know, moving closer to the park where there is an unobstructed view, but there's also no immediately adjacent property owner where a house sits, has moved the
shifted the house to the left with a proposed 7 foot um sideyard setback on that side, although Jordan says it's five. We'll get to that in a little while. And a proposed 10-ft driveway on the right hand side to give the stop me. >> Yeah, sure. Of course. >> Mr. Mr. You've heard everything that
your attorney has testified to at this point in time. >> Yeah. >> You would agree with her testimony? >> Yeah. And I thank you. >> So, Miss Kski, you said there's a 7 foot, they're proposing a 7 foot increase, but then you said you have a 10 foot driveway outside. >> So, the 10 foot driveway would be on the
south side of the property. So, that's what I'm saying. So, the the uh when the new construction begins, the house is essentially being shifted slightly to the left, right? So that we anticipate a 7 foot sideyard setback um from the property line on the north side of the
property and 10 on the right hand side to accommodate. >> Yeah. So that would be >> doesn't that compromise the driveway? >> No. >> Because if you shift the house to the left, >> doesn't that compromise the driveway? >> The existing
>> the driveway switching to the other side. >> The driveway is switching to the other side. >> Photo you see it's being filled with lawn. >> Yes. So you see a big sea of of pavement here, but the property line's pretty much down the middle of that. So half of that is going to be returned to to the wall. >> And my question in my letter was, is
there an easement on the subject law? And the answer to that is >> the answer to that is no. So right. >> So does that change your contention about the propos about that? >> Nothing to do with >> Okay. >> So at this point, uh, Mr. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, with regard to your your
plans, can you um show the board the actual lines in question and the the >> um >> Yeah, >> I think you'll bring it forward. >> I can bring it closer. >> Thanks. Just just identify yourself. >> Yeah. Anthony Conduras, C N D O R I S
>> and your your credentials. >> I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. uh testified in front of this board many times and other boards in >> acceptable. >> Does anybody um we've seen Mr. Gurus many times? >> So, Mr. Kus, can you please explain to
the board the shift as we just described and where the the proposed task would sit on the subject lot and the the driveway and its the proposed driveway I could say in its life? Yes. So, if you look on the page V1 of the architectural plans, you can see the site plan here in the middle of the sheet. Um, you can see
that and here's the house sitting on the property. So, we have a 10 foot side foot side step setback on the north, excuse me, south side and a what we are proposing as a 7 foot side setback on the north side. This and this is the uh existing garage
that will remain on the property. >> So, Mr. When we talked about the um the north side of the property, is there a feature on the north side of the property that was particularly important um to increase the um the historic value of the house? Yes. Uh so there there is a
stairway on the north side of the house uh inside the house and we created an architectural feature of of a bay window um that is basically suspended in the air. It doesn't go all the way to the ground. >> Understood. >> Um and we were considering it an architectural feature. Is there a detail
on the side elevation perhaps we can look at? >> There is. >> Is that causing us a side by looking? >> And that's what that's why I want to get into this testimony because that's >> that Mr. Cong. It's 2 feet. Okay. >> Now, let's keep in mind that um Mr. Rizzo has pointed out that perhaps the
eve at the top of the window >> overextends um beyond the two foot. So, we have discussed we were happy to pull the eve back so that is no more than 24 in. With regard to Mr. Mr. Dizzo also pointed out that there is a railing on
the front porch which we have proposed. We're willing to withdraw the railing as well. Um simply because it is a two-ft step up and the railing is not required. Is that correct, Mr. Condor? >> That is correct. Okay. >> Without railing doesn't any bearing railing. >> So the railing I believe extends out
probably 6 in to a foot beyond the covered porch. >> Yeah. So if for sa if for safety reason you prefer a railing then we're happy to install it if you'd grant a variance for the railing. If not we we can leave it historically accurate and remove the railing for the twostep. >> It's not required by
>> think I think that does the back of the stair require a bearings? >> No. So the front yard step backs be taken to the front porch >> right >> and then with that railing that would be now the notice there were certain street that were made between your third letter and your fourth letter. They did. There
were certain things that were cut back. >> They cut back. The railing was added on the last iteration. I don't think it was intentional to put that in what I'm considering the front yard setback. Um I think that was uh you know, maybe someone willing to take off. >> It just kind of Yeah, it was there. And uh but yeah, but it's
>> the bay window. Is there flooring there or is just a window? >> Uh it's actually it's actually the stair landing. It's the landing of the stairway. So that's why it's up in the up in the air about six feet. >> Yes. >> Mr. When you shift the house to the left, >> yes.
>> How much how wide is that driveway extending to the back the back? >> 10 ft. >> So there's 10 ft of res. It's new. >> So what's what's going where the driveway on the left was? That's the
question. >> That's grass. Grass. Okay. So that >> Can you point to where the original driveway was and then where the new driveway? >> Yeah, the original driveway was on on the north side of the house here and it came in. freak. >> Sorry, why are you sh
Why are you putting the driveway on the stop sign? >> Well, so once again, if you go back to the pictures that we've shown you, you'll see that the the house itself is very tight to the next door neighbor. So, by shifting it to the left, you not only give more light air and open space to your next door neighbor, because you
have an immediately adjacent park um with an access easement, nobody is going to build on that access easement for the adjoining lot and you're going to have an open view to the park area. So, it makes sense in that sense to shift it really for for the benefit of your of your neighborhood. I mean, it really
does open up the space as far as the house is concerned. >> I think that's one way of looking at it. There's another way of looking at it. and having car between the two houses is negative. So I think it comes at that expense. Um but that's that's your reason and that's I think
>> yeah I'd say the other thing too is if you look at the width of that driveway or the width of the two driveways combined at present and there's the park there particularly during the summer there's a lot of traffic and there are cars that whiz by there you know the kids are opening up the gate and going
in there it's it's a safety issue I think I would say from where they're where they're coming in and out given the cars that come through there as well >> cars that are going through the house that your neighbor house or Wizard. >> Correct. >> Really? >> Now, I'm not saying it's them, but there's land landscapers, delivery
trucks, there's multiple cars that come by. >> Is there there's no garage considered then on the right side of the house. You're you have that existing garage on essentially >> not used. So, there's not going to be any forpurpose garage. and what and and one
of the reiterations that we went through and Tony can certainly speak to this is that we were very conscious of being able to meet the parking ordinance for the town and the recess requirements so that everything will be behind or in the driveway. Um so we you know we really do
not have any issues with regard to the driveway its location or the ability to park the required number of cars. Correct Tony? >> Correct. >> Question if I recall that house next door a barn in the back. Is that still existing >> along along the backs?
>> Okay. >> No, they had they had to take it down. It was at that house. >> Yeah, it was it was a cool looking ball. It >> was a very cool looking barn, but it was sketchy to walk. >> When you go in our backyard, there was there' be shingles or things that would fall down and our neighbors are great like but it was unfortunately you had to
take it down. >> Okay. So, that doesn't exist anymore. So, it's open, >> right? >> Okay. And so Tony, so let's just talk about the combined yard set act because that's one of the variances that that Jordan uh has called out, Mr. Rizzo's called out that we did not feel um was appropriate
based on the current ordinance for Fair Haven. So and once again, because ordinances are not always specific to a situation, they don't reference every little thing involved. It really becomes a matter of a board interpretation of an ordinance.
So what we were talking about here and I'm going to mark this if you don't mind. >> I'm sure this is going to be >> this is the land use and development regulations. It's entitled section 30-7.7 your areas of building ornament building
orientation and fenistration for I feel about it. I can help you. >> I got >> probably have it right here. You're good. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I kept a separate packet for myself just
in case. >> So, with regard to Fair Haven's ordinance, I'm just going to direct your attention, if you don't mind, to two specific provisions. And I have to, you know, I apologize for my highlights there, but it's it's essentially um paragraphs D and E. So when you're
talking about fenistration, you're and yard requirements, you're talking about, you know, really what is historically appropriate. Would that be correct, Tony? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when you did the design, which is an elevated bay window type, were you given um certain photos and requirements
or not requirements, maybe that's uh architectural ideas, if you will, from the homeowners? >> Yes, I was. >> And how to make it historically appropriate. >> Well, yes. through just amongst us. We had discussions about making it historically >> and and what what makes this design historically appropriate for that
particular area. >> Uh it's it's it's a it's a house that's a period of the period of the house is very it's actually common in that in that district. So the design is based on some of the neighboring houses that we that we looked at and uh that's how we came up with the way this looks.
>> So it's it's essentially a raised bay. It has um corbals. Correct. >> It does. Yes. >> Yeah. So really speaks to the design on the open area of the wall for the house. Correct. Correct. >> So it's essentially extremely visible from the street side. Correct. >> Yes. And and from the park as even more
so from the park. >> And would you say that particular type of designer fenestration is from the 1890s to the 1920 period? >> It it would be it would be common in that time period. Yes. >> So it would be historically appropriate for the neighborhood. Yes. >> Okay. So looking into your ordinance and
bringing you back to section E, every part of a required yard shall be open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky except for ordinary projections allowed by the state uniform construction code including but not limited to sills, belts, courses, chimneys, which is included here, flu,
buttresses, ornamental features, and eaves. Provided, however, that none of the afor projections shall project into the minimum required yard more than 24 in unless otherwise permitted by this chapter. How how big is that projection, Mr. >> It's 24 in excluding the roof overhang
that's above it. >> Correct. But we were going to pull that e. >> We can pull that back. Yes. >> Contention is that the ordinance allows for this. >> The ordinance allows for it in under our interpretation. Of course, it's yours that counts. And I quite frankly, I don't know how you have interpreted before or if this has even come before
you before. But I can tell you going back to the state uniform construction code, if you research it, the state uniform construction code does not give you a guideline for what exactly um a bay window >> hear from taxert.
>> H well okay, you know, after 30. >> Oh no, I mean you have someone that can speak to them. >> I understand. Okay. Uh, so I will I'll I'll rephrase that. Um, in in my research, um, I didn't see anything specific to bay windows and permitted
projections. However, um, there are model codes which every municipality in the state of New Jersey would typically adopt. And I can tell you that our interpretation was based on others ordinances. And if I may, I would like
to submit and show you just some other ordinance that um would substantiate our interpretation >> well of the the permitted projection. I realize it is not your ordinance, but it was part of our research and led to
this. Why don't you explain how in section E the construction of a protrusion to the house that's intended to house a staircase is covered by this 24in exception because it isn't an in it's not an ornamental feature.
>> Well, that's our contention. Sorry, >> that it's ornamental. >> It's it's part of the ornamental and fenistration for a building that's supposed to look historically appropriate. >> Well, it's part of the penistration because it has a window, but it isn't required to meet the penistration. I didn't say it was required. It's part of
our interpretation as being historically appropriate for the neighborhood in the area. >> It's not a matter of whether it's appropriate. It's a matter matter of whether or not it beats or doesn't mean setback. That's the only issue. >> I understand. I I understand. But so how you interpret the fenestration and the
ornamentation in its architectural appropriateness for a period that the house is being designed for is really critical to the historic look of the town. And quite frankly, I've been the attorney in Ocean Grove for the last 20 years as the zoning board attorney, and I deal with
this sign in in a significant manner. So the look and feel of the house can be just as important as h as the the period ar it it relates to the period architecture is what I'm trying to say. So we consider it um in this particular
application to be a fenistration which is ornament ornamental for and essentially creates the character of the house to fit into the character of the neighborhood becomes very important. >> It is in line with the chimney though that's the only thing I can see on the
shim. No chimney >> there's a chimney behind it. >> Yeah. So if you were to remove that, if you were to remove that bump out, you'd still have the chimney in that space. >> I would suggest this is a problem with Chicago houses. >> Well, I just I want to get to that
because we're talking about the sighting of the house and and and in my mind, the guts of it is yes, you've got a long lot. We find these on the other side of town on Harrison Avenue has many R5s that are 50 ft wide and 600 ft deep. And
>> uh yeah, Lincoln as well. when I think the through lots. So, um, how did you come to Honduras to and we've seen four bedrooms, two and a half baths at well under 3,000 ft. So, taking advantage of an extremely deep lot kind of let's walk
me through why we're 42% over the allotment, >> right? Well, so we actually have five bedrooms on the second floor and uh so that's one of the reasons why it would be very difficult to fit five bedrooms and that's based on
the number of children that they have. Right. So there's a there's reasons behind the set >> based on what your goals. >> Yeah, I know. I know. I'm just saying that's that's why we're doing five bedrooms. It wasn't just an arbitrary let's do five bedrooms. Okay. So, >> and we're we're also we're also in the position, you know, and correct me if
I'm wrong, Tony, where we're looking at a lot that is about 52 feet wide, slightly less than 52, I believe, with a double the length. In other words, it's it's an oversized lot lengthwise. >> There are plenty of those in town. >> No, I I understand. I'm just
>> didn't necessarily mean you could put a thousand square feet over the path, >> right? Well, we really I think that's the elephant in the room, right? We're arguing over this fenestration thing. the elephant in the room is that this is 50% essentially over and if this was on another block where this wasn't maybe
adjacent to a bark they it this wouldn't make it 10 minutes past here it would say hey this is a really big issue take it back right >> right >> so we're talking about all this other stuff but this is this is the big issue >> right we well this is beautiful by the way it's gorgeous >> and I know you have four >> I would say that's the next issue I
would say it's the big issue but I hear what you're saying >> it is well right so we came in there with this ask I guess you'd call because we were we were thinking of the floor ratio how it's so far under based on the lot size of the lot and um even looking at the lot you can see the house doesn't
doesn't overwhelm the lot by any means but yes we are over on we are over the floor area cap uh we're well under the floor area ratio >> so that was uh that's why we're here >> yes and if you know and if and if the board agrees with the the fenistration
argument and understands that you know for us this really wasn't a a combined uh cider hydro setback variance, then we're looking at a property that is essentially, you know, significantly under the floor area ratio. It's significantly under the building
coverage and I know we're 900 square ft 920 something square feet over and we're looking at a property that essentially fits within a building envelope and this is why I asked Miss Beam to come here. Um, Miss Beam, can you please explain to the board the justifications we would
request for justifications? Are there any more questions? Your >> architectures I'd still like to hear from what considerations you had that came up with the only way to fit the space is to go 40% with the cap. So
>> why? Well, you can see the bedrooms themselves right now are they're relatively small. They're 10 by 10 by 11. They're not huge rooms, right? So, uh we did our best to try to squeeze what we thought were appropriately sized bedrooms. Um, and that's that's where
the square footage that's where it took us from a square footage standpoint. >> And at this point, we have reduced the height, we have reduced the width, we have come through five iterations essentially, you know, to be able to at least bring something that we felt strongly about to the board. You know,
we recognize that there are, you know, floor areas for a reason. You know, we recognize that Fair Haven is very strict about their ordinance. We recognize that there is prior, you know, uh, prior cases involving those floor areas. You know, we are not a developer. We are not
looking at a 26,000 foot lot. We are not looking at subdividing the lot. We are looking at something where we have a, you know, a growing family, if you will, on a significant property that has the unique ability to accommodate because of
the ark located next to it, the easement that can never be built on. And it's a situation that would have reasons for the single requested variance of a floor area. >> Also a situation where everyone that goes to the park sees a massively oversized house in a neighborhood where
there other houses are all thousand foot less. I mean, listen, with all due respect, I know you're big family. A lot of people in town are big families. There are plenty of these lots in town. We would never allow this on a random lot. And people have come before us with with neat requests like this. It does.
It's a beautiful design and it fits nice. My lot is 190 by 50. I would not put a 3200 foot house in my It just It just is what it is. And my neighbors don't have those houses either, right? >> I worry about the airline open space to that to the house to the north, which is significantly smaller.
>> Oh, to the south, sorry. The yellow house, which is significantly smaller. And you're now going to be extremely crowded into their backyard. And and I know you've moved the house over to improve that situation, but it's still only 10 ft. It's not like over 30 ft
away from the neighbor. >> Understood. >> And you have the drive now. You have the the and the additional hardship as Mr. Leer pointed out of having a driveway between the two houses without the benefit of the other houses a budding driveway. You're on their short side essentially. >> So there's only two proposed variances
left. You have total square footage and the issue with regard to the combined setback, >> right? It's it's it's one side or >> one side. I'm sorry. I'm Jennifer Beam. I know I didn't get sworn in, but I just for clarity. >> I'm sorry, but you didn't do my credentials. So,
>> why don't why don't we put those on? >> Sure. >> Sure. Good. >> So, my name is Jennifer Beam. I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree from Cornell University. I have
over 30 years experience. I've never testified in Fair Haven before, but I have testified pretty much in front of all your neighbors over the years. Um, I'm also a courtappointed special adjudicator for affordable housing matters, and I represent about 25 towns currently as their municipal planner.
Um, and represent them at their planning and their zoning boards as their professional planner. >> Does anybody have any questions about this view or any questions? So, I just wanted to clarify, you know, I'm not looking to put my testimony on yet because I think there's things that need to be vetted out before I can even
go. But there's three variances. One is the one side, which is, I'm going to paraphrase, right? The northern property line, right? So, there's a disagreement between how we had envisioned the application and your professional. So,
we thought we were at seven. Uh, Mr. Rizzo feels we're at five. So, that's a that's a sideyard setback on that side. And then that's coupled with the 10 ft on the other side to where I think we need 16 ft. And we're atif we're at 15 versus 17,
>> right? Yeah. So if if the if the two if the 24 in, you know, is is deemed acceptable under your ordinance interpretation, which we're hoping it would, then it's a 17 uh foot combined yard setback and there are no variances. So just be the area. >> It would just be the area. >> So it's the single, it's the it's both
and then it's the size of all. So, so what's the argument for the merits? Is this a C1 or a C2? I don't think specifically about the score footage. >> C2. >> And what's the basis for the flexible C variance? I mean, quite frankly and respectfully, I need you guys to decide
what you're doing with the sideyard setbacks before I can formally give you total testimony on the area >> because I feel like whether or not the application meets all the other bulk standards in the zone goes directly to justification that I'm going to present to you for the area. I understand the
concern. I I'm not disrespecting the concern. No, I get it. >> I understand it. But it's different when the house doesn't fit on the lot versus when the house fits on the lot in terms of the sideyard setbacks, front yard and rear yard. So, I really need that fleshed out before I can go through. Um,
but in the off chance cuz I can read the room pretty good >> that you agree with our position that it is a projection or an ornamental feature, which I'm getting a very strong sense that you're not going to agree with that. But let's just argue for one
second that you do agree with it. You know, when you're looking at floor area, the whole purpose of it, and I actually read that in your master plan, was to control the massing, right? To control how these buildings looked and in terms of and that's when this habitable area
came about. I think it was in your 2016 master plan. Um, which I think it's your last one, at least it's the last one on the website anyway. Um, and my argument would be in the event that you do agree with my sideyard, then all the bulk
standards in the 5,000 square foot zone that we have more than double the area are met. And in furtherance of that position, I understand the position that there's a lot of bowling alley type style lots
located throughout the community, right? Narrow, super deep. So it gives you additional area, but it does really condense the building envelope and what have you. But the sideyard setback is going to dictate whether the house fits on the property. So that's why I feel that we I really I personally need
direction from you in terms of do you agree with us or not? And if the answer is no, then I feel like we have a little work to do before I can provide you with justification for the variance. >> So what under the thought process that it's ornamental, right? So it's it obviously has a use, right? So it's not
it's not not fully ornamental. When I think of something that's ornamental, I think of it for aesthetic purposes or just to have nice to have nice looks nice >> aesthetic purposes. >> Could you this is penetration? >> Could you flatten that out and still have that landing is the question and I don't know if that's true. I
>> um Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. So we actually had looked at that and you know the the fact that it becomes an ornamental fenestration actually gives that side of the building the historical character um which goes to the aesthetics. So once again it goes
to more in keeping does it does it help the interior of the home? Yeah it it does create however you know otherwise it would be a flat wall. >> No I agreed. You know I'm trying to visualize that. I'm looking at the elevation the front elevation and trying to visualize it's not a matter of
whether it's pretty. It's it's done. It's beautiful. It looks great. It looks great. >> It's not a matter of that, >> right? And and you know, additional care and concern was given to raise it up at least to get it out of the lower portion of the house and raise it up so you're not looking at, you know, the bump out
straight down to the ground, but be able to put in the additional architectural features like the corbals, like the cutouts that really create the historical character for the neighborhood. >> I would do that for historic preservation, right? >> Absolutely. And we do that notion grow time with performance. >> I don't know that it satisfies your
argument or you know with regard to our ordinance that that it's a purely an ornamental thing. >> Well you know and if I may that's why I said I I really did want to give you the opportunity to look at you know other other ordinances if you will that were based on the model ordinances that we looked at um that really swayed our
testimony and our design. And if you'll allow me to do that, I'll submit it not as a reference for you and your interpretation, but as a reference for us so you could see what we were looking at when we came up with the design because your ordinance doesn't speak to it and I don't know if it's been decided before. So if I may council,
>> may I submit what I had what I had found? Thank you. >> Sure. Because in a sense with regard to if I understand what says you have a flat wall from the seller up for six feet, right?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And then after starting that six feet, then you start. >> Correct. So we could actually see a demonstration of that in your plan for the 6 ft below. >> Yes, it's on the elevation drawing.
>> What are we up to? Fil >> now. >> Hello. >> Well, >> yeah. >> So, >> I'm going to mark a1. >> It's here at least fine, but it's not. >> No. And I understand that. And I'm not
asking you to to look. I'm ask I'm asking you to understand that this was part of our um our interpretation uh for what we did. So not necessarily that you need to rely on it, but I am telling you that your ordinance doesn't speak to it. We tried to find
surrounding communities. This was one of them. And if you'll just allow me. Um so essentially this is the land development ordinance for Mammoth Beach. All right. And it is if you look on page
it would be the second page it says yards building orientation and penistration which mirrors the language in the fair haven ordinance. If you look at paragraphs C and E the language is exactly the same as the fair haven ordinance because as most of the
municipalities were codifying their ordinances based on models if you will. >> Sure. If you move to page three, you'll see in section H that intrusions into the required setbacks for yard shall be measured from the face of the building foundation wall and be limited
to and it says up to 24 in for bay windows and similar elements provided that the area of any wall elevation occupied by such elements does not exceed the greater 8% of the total area of the wall elevation or 50 square feet and up to 48 in for the eve surface and
other roof elements. So essentially what they're saying is bay windows and this this particular ordinance is is very common um in the interpretation for historic designations in bay windows. So based on our research
the bay windows the elevation became part of the fenistration and the bumpout if you will which is a permitted projection under most interpretations that >> it's not anyone who walks in bay windows. I have a big window in my house. I don't walk it into all the stairs. Right. It's a piece of a
landing. I mean, listen, it is an art ordinance and he's right. It is hearsay in a sense of it. But yeah, I think I listen, I just I think it's a sh is what is is my perspective. >> Well, it's a shortcoming in our written ordinance that we don't specifically address bay windows. Correct. >> Now, we've had this with the with willow
with Randy House. Remember we said, is there flooring there? Is there not flooring there? Does it count? >> Maybe we should address that in our ordinance to to tighten it up. But for now, we don't address bay windows. And I guess the argument is, is it ornamental? Is it not ornamental? I know it creates a setback issue. Just my personal take
on it. I don't have an issue with it because you've got a chimney there anyway. So, you've got mass in the space, which we allow. So, that doesn't count, but this mass in space does count. >> Even if you hated everything else about the house, the still determination is
can this be a historic feature to the home? So even if you hated the additional room it provided, you know, inside because it adds to square feet, that's a separate issue because, you know, if >> I think the interpretation's a stretch. I think you're leaning heavily on historic. It's a historic home in the historic district. They had to go to for
historic preservation. It's historic because it needed to be historic, right? If the historic preservation didn't exist, you could build some modern home here that was, you know, goddy and out of character. You cannot because it's in the historic preservation. So this is a means to an end. And it just so happens it's also a landing. So, we keep marking
up this historic street. It's designed like that because it's in the historic district. It's beautiful. I don't think anyone here thinks it's not beautiful. It's you're leaning so heavily into that without understanding that it's a it's a landing. You're giving us stuff and say, you know, bay windows, quite frankly, our ordinance doesn't address bay
windows because outside of historic homes, they're out of vogue. People don't do them anymore, right? So, you're leaning into all of these things that are just like these stretch >> things district. So I think maybe the and I respect your opinion. I really do. >> I just I personally think it's just a
very large show. >> What's the square footage of the port? That's what >> Cuz it's two floors, right? >> It's it's two. Yeah, it's two. It shares two L two landings share it, right? >> So you're you're you want to know the area of the protrusion square?
>> What are we talking about in footprint? >> No, no, no. Total protrusion top to bottom square footage. If this were Mama Beach, >> well, each floor is uh Okay, I got to
get my scale. Sorry. >> Two feet. It's >> It has angle. It has angle wall. >> No, it's just the It's the box. >> It's the height by the way. >> It's not too low. Not a problem.
The window itself protrudes two feet from the wall of the structure. So the bumpout for the wet bay window that is beyond the building line is 2 feet. >> If you were doing it as a a square, right? So
>> it's it's 11 square feet per floor. So it's 22 square feet. If that's what you're asking. I >> think that's possible. >> It's the width times the height. >> Oh, you're talking about volume. >> That's cubic foot. >> You said square footage. You didn't say volume. So, so this ordinance is talking about 50 square feet and and it because
it's set up for windows, what I'm assuming is it's going to permit protrusion of up to 24 in as long as the total extension of the house doesn't exceed 50 square ft total, which would be 10 ft x 5 ft. What we have here is closer to 8 or 10 ft by two stories.
>> Yeah, I I didn't know you were talking about the exterior. I thought you talking about the floor. in responding to the argument that the that the uh Mammoth Beach ordinance is relevant because I don't think you comply with the Mammoth Beach ordinance. >> No. And let me make it clear, we weren't
looking to comply with the Mammoth Beach ordinance. We were looking for direction as to whether or not it would be considered a fenistration because your ordinance doesn't define it >> and it and it doesn't reference it. I understood your argument to say that in Mammoth Beach they have a sensitivity to
this and they they've created an ordinance around it and that's similar to what you could do in Mammoth Beach. You were trying to create something that would be permitted in Mammoth Beach, but it's larger than what would be permitted in Mammoth Beach. >> So it's a it's a from from the face of it, it's 120 square feet.
>> Mama Beach allows 50. So you've doubled it because you've got the same thing, one floor on top of the other. And that >> double bang window. >> Yeah. And it's also a landing that just happens to have windows around. >> Two landings. >> Two. >> I mean, I'm just trying to be honest.
I'm just trying. >> Well, it's attractive and I like it. And if the house is going to be approved, it's probably better if you have it because a flat wall is a problem and the size of the house creates more flat walls. So, we need to figure out a way to offset it. But we haven't even touched on the idea of how you get to
meet the C2 criteria because you're building a brand new house. You have no hardship and you're asking us to believe that if council were looking at this lot that they would agree that this is the right size house for this lot. You're talking about meeting the bare minimum of the R5 setback requirements, but
you're talking about building to the square footage requirements of R10. You don't have anything to offset the additional square footage by way of setbacks. And you're suggesting that it is reasonable to build a house of this size in R5. I haven't heard why yet.
>> Can we move back just let's just talk about I want to move back to the window for one second. We don't want >> the windows really and let me let me just say ask why. Okay. So if if the if the bay were reduced to just one story to be like a single a single bay.
>> Well, okay. >> It really is. I mean, if we're the the window is ancillary to the yard. The argument really is 3200 feet. >> The elephant in the room, unfortunately, is the size. When we do new construction, we see new construction, it is rare that variances are granted, period. I'm sure there's some history of
doing, but the whole idea is if it's new, it complies. So, we're taking the focus and we're moving it to this window, which is beautiful. No one argues it. Maybe it's a window, maybe it's a landing, they don't really know. Maybe it's already mentioned, maybe it's not. >> It's really irrelevant because the house is almost 1,000 square ft of over the zone. So my point
>> that is the that's the problem >> and I and I understand that. So my point is if we left it as an ornamental feature and we reduced it to let's say one landing would that still affect the setback because then that affects the rest of the envelope of the envelope. You really you don't have any
>> a lot of houses that we see that have basically straight wall going back. We have we have >> cut in a little bit. It just gives some yes it's architectural interest. I get that. We want to see something like that especially because you're going to be viewing it from the park. So it adds to that. That's a plus. The fact that it's bumping in, that's a minus. But the crux
of it is past the chimney, you still have a straight wall of house going back, affecting air light space to the park and affecting air light space to the settlement. So, can I just ask a general question based upon what I'm hearing is that the board, and I know you guys haven't
officially voted one way or the other, but the general sense I'm getting is that the board feels that the bumpout for the big window, whether it's one story or two stories, is a setback variance. However, the justification for said variance would be the massing of
the chimney behind it, the aesthetic view of the fence from the park. I'm not I'm not I'm not actually getting to the area. >> If the house is 4,200 feet and you come and say, >> you know, that's a that's that's great to me. It's also not like the the
variance over the 2200 is 150 and then you look at the window, you say, well, the window's 120 and that you know, there's your foot, you know, oh, let's let's remove the window, get closer. >> It's it's a massive thing and we don't allow this generally. There's it it
there's there's very few instances where people get variances on new construction because the point of it is there's no hardship. You have the lot work with it. You know what you bought, you owned it, so on and so forth. It is a big lot, but all that provides you quite candidly in my opinion is just a really nice backyard. It doesn't provide you with
the ability to just increase the size of your home. I think what we're looking also is like form versus function. Like is the design, you know, if if we compromise on the design, lower the square footage, you know, um on the side, you know, and obviously reduce square footage, you know, are we still
meeting the sideyard setback if we maintain it? So, I I understand exactly what you're talking about, but now it's going to come down to to design. I I think when you talk about function, it's really just a function of how much square footage do you have to use because there's plenty of homes that are on smaller lots, right, that are in the
R5, much smaller lots that they build a 2,200 foot home. They have the 8 or 900 foot basement depending on the water table and how many horses you get in there and whatever, maybe a little bigger and they go and they do it and they have a very livable home. Understanding it's a big family and that's part of it. Unfortunately, when other people drive by this and see and
they they're going to the park, wherever they see a massive home here, first question is, well, hey, I would have loved to build a home like that. How did that happen? Right? And then they come and they look and they find out that we granted this variance. And then now the variance in a historic district for a home that's 50% 40% whatever the number
you want to use is over. And the historic district is also very tight already. Everything feels like it's on top of each other. So you have I mean there just a lot of factors in my opinion. >> Okay. >> And and I've said quite a bit. So if anyone else wants to check that >> Oh yeah, anybody please feel free
>> but there should be consider you know Mr. going to urge your excuse now that we've known you for many years. Uh there should be some considerations to that and and see what you can do because it is just I don't think I mean you've heard the the board's concerns and it is new construction is new construction.
>> Can we uh regroup for take a few minutes and uh so I can have justice before you do that um I'm going to open up to the public for some comments. Does anyone in the public have comments on the Bedera application only? Director Raise my Okay. Um,
yeah. Why don't you take 15 minutes? >> Thank you so much, sir. >> Uh, may I ask a question to you? Give me your experience. Would it be wrong to bring back um Okay, so this is unusual. So, we're
gonna we're just fall and if uh Mr. interrupt me if you can. Um, >> try to roll everything up. >> All right. >> Everyone still under oath? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Shall I start from the beginning,
>> please? Right on. That's all right. >> Um, we ready? >> I think you're looking for maybe some redesign and some Yeah. Yes. So, thanks. >> Yes. >> Exactly. So, we we we we took the
board's uh comments into consideration and uh we think we've come up with something. M Mr. good you has uh which we think adequately addresses those concerns but at the same time you know maintains the the goals that the that
the homeowner has and so essentially well Peter why don't you explain it we're basically talking about bringing the the the garage off rather than five feet off of batten eight feet okay >> and doing the cutout we talked about
>> and shifting it into the L-shaped and it's spoken about >> that slag back about that eventually. >> Yeah, region report >> just refer to the clarity and and again we're not looking for a finished time.
So can you mark up a document and we could identify now as a is this good enough >> that? >> Yeah, that's exactly what we did. Why don't we take a look at that start
and we want that >> A9 we're at A9 we characterize that is in markup and mark what the applicant ising for the board's decimation gas
>> okay >> and is that five feet at least between structure Yes. >> Slide this around so folks can see that still works. It'll maintain its function. >> You can make it pretty. >> Absolutely.
>> Be able to address the retaining wall. >> Yeah. >> Up against the stairway to the side. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> And we're improving the setback at the bat. It'll remain 12 feet to the rear lot and 8 ft to that.
>> What do you call the square? What do you identify as the square? >> Uh, essentially it's going to stay the same. I'm just going to move it up. >> Let's just move that up. >> What was that number? 165 16 365 >> 365 >> 365
>> 365. So it's just a reconfiguration of the where >> the applicant obviously final drawings should be environment >> the proposal for the rifle change 16 is >> yes >> yeah see I don't think there's a problem
with 16 if we become three extra feet on battery that's just my personal but others have but okay um >> Mr. Mr. Chair, our goal would be to submit a revised plan before the next meeting so the board could put its eyes
put their eyes on it prior to adopting the resolution if that's helpful. >> Obviously, we'd like to see a plan, but I don't think it's going to preclude us from making decisions. Okay. >> Uh if we're all in agreement on on the plan, we will review it. >> Um does anyone >> that of course complies with the you
know the plan that comes in. I think the resolution would say that it must >> resolution component. >> Yes. Yeah, Mr. B. I think it'd be better for everybody if you had the drawing and we could adopt the resolution based on the amended drawing. We don't need to see you again. >> That's my thoughts. We'll submit it in normal courses, you know, in a week or
two, but well in advance of the next meeting. Yeah. M >> um does anyone sir? So I don't there might not be a need for retaining wall but I would be comfortable much more comfortable seeing topography in the back here just to show what the slope looks like to make sure that we're not really impacting the neighbor since we
are it is being shifted back like 5t from existing conditions. >> Yeah I'm just uh I don't know that we can get all that done. >> I don't know if you need that before next hearing as a condition >> but we can do that.
Yeah. >> I So here's the thing, right? That it's easy to call for it, but the topo alone is going to be thousands of dollars, right? In order to get that, >> it's it's partial. So I don't need >> Yeah, but it might be really hard to find somebody to do >> a partial topography for just that
corner of the lawn. >> What what what I would say is that to the extent that the retaining wall needs to be modified, that we would want to make sure that the modifications were structurally sound to the extent that it's structural. If it's an architectural wall, which I understand
before Peter Les, then we wouldn't need to get into a lot of uh engineering or or any engineering questions. I just don't want to put a word on >> the shed is being shifted back about 5T from where it is today. And >> away from bed, not to the rear.
>> To the rear. >> No, no, >> not to the rear. >> If you look at the plans, you can see the existing structure. Oh, I see you just asking the problem. >> Yeah, the new one is the new one is further. The old one is further than
>> And then you look at the photos and you see the back of the garage is right on beginning of slope >> and there's 12 feet to the next property. >> Yeah. Do you know how much um approximately distance there is from the
>> I would estimate between probably three and four feet because there there is a tree >> uh directly behind the property and then it kind of gradually sl >> and if if the survey is accurate which I have no reason to believe it isn't you're going to run over the the area
the retaining boat you're going to have to rebuild that retaining >> correct yeah that's that's planned If what Mr. Leader is correct, if it's less than four feet, it doesn't matter. He said it's probably >> there could be a zoning board penalty. It shouldn't be more complicated because there's the need.
>> One of the um >> Yeah. >> One of the issues is that the the garage was built the existing garage was built without a foundation. >> Okay. So, we're going to put in a full, you know, 3 ft deep or
is >> Well, that I kind of think that would retain. >> It's not so much the retaining wall. I just think the fact that the slope starts right behind it and then you're shifting the whole thing. So, you're going to have to build the slope be steeper. >> Yeah. Foundation. >> But if you put the full foundation in, you don't have to build the slope.
>> So, we're talking about exposing the whole >> It's only the back is I don't know. Is that going to be exposed? Is that going to be >> Yeah. a little bit of but it's going to be I think Jordan saying it's going to be if it it's going to increase the the the slope of it right so it's going to be a significant build
>> that could create more runoff or erosion onto the neighboring property >> it's going to go from like this to like this if they build that foundation and then push it back >> but I guess we're going to have to get a couple >> I mean wouldn't the retaining wall I mean wouldn't the foundation act as a
retaining wall then >> so you're you're saying you're have exposed foundation I suppose if that's what the Lord wants to allow these, >> we'd be willing to put brick on it or something like that to >> make it aesthetically, you know, just
mean in theory, you're pretty much adding height to the structure at that point. But >> would you be willing to do some sort of veneer like a little cement veneer? So this brick veneer. >> Okay. Yeah. I don't want to I agree with Mel.
I don't want to overburden having to get to you know the full tubble for the property and such such so all right how do we uh they should comply with any requirements that are there I'm not suggesting you wave any requirements suggesting we not imposing a new
>> no it's just Mr. Mr. Rizzo suggested that we get a full no not a full departure. >> Okay. >> He rightfully wants to fully understand what it's going to look like back there and I certainly understand his concern. >> The applicant will consult with the
engineer provide him the requisite documentation and information the engineer requires satisfy him that this is structurally and aesthetically sound. have something along those lines.
>> I'm I'm concerned about that. >> It won't necessarily dictate a topo. But if down the line your field or the end here needs a topo, you might have to do that. >> But you can make it structurally sound and create erosion issues for your neighbor because you have a 50% slope
now because you're making it steeper. >> We don't know where that slope starts though. He's the evidence. >> We don't know. >> That's what I That's what I said. >> That's why he's asking for the to point. That's George's point. you know, he doesn't know information that he feels like he really wants to know. >> A lot a lot grades like this. It's here. Now, if you move it here,
>> it's basically graded like this. So, the neighbor is here. So, you're taking it when the erosion's here, it's going to drop off like this. Now, we don't know these. >> I don't think we need an engineer. I think a surveyor just needs to provide topography in that back corner. >> It it doesn't have to be um based on a datam. It could just be assumed atom. Um
so, it's not >> a couple give me a minute. And I did my most recent survey and I was asked, you know, by insight was like, "Oh, do you want us to add the lines if you don't do it?" It wasn't a big deal. So, >> it can be done. >> Let me I'm sorry.
>> No, no. Here's how this works. You're the chair. I don't Okay. >> Um, no. I was just going to suggest because we have a change here. Does anybody in the public want to have any any comments about the changes that we just made? I feel like none. Does anybody else on the board that hasn't spoken have any more commentary to make
or questions of the radio w identified before it's going to application be phrased in favor of height variance the modification now that's been identified knowledge check and and I guess condition
would be a consultation Such a beautiful application. Um, relax. >> No, I'm just I'm I'm trying to make sure that Jordan gets what he needs and that there's not a surprise any part of the applicant. So, if it is,
let me get the language from the engineer based it on something that I'll characterize Zoom data >> and then I will I will work that to get the foundational and a >> draft resolution to gap to make sure
that everybody moves from this side of these is is okay with it. George, you mentioned the height. We got to we got to talk about it at least. How are we determining height at 16 peak to the peak? >> So, it's based on existing grade right now assuming it's >> existing grade
>> assuming it is the same essentially. Um, once you shift it back and put it in part of that slope and then you start exposing the foundation, I would say that 16 foot height variance is now getting taller by >> because you're going to take an average of the four corners.
>> I would I mean unless anyone has concern about the end result of that, I would just build that in that it's acknowledged that the measurement of 16 teeth is an existing grade in the location of the existing garage. when you somehow acknowledging that if
there's two foot exposed in the back that look if you expose the foundation you may not need to change the grade in the back you may just be able to bulk it up a little bit which probably be bad but that may technically change the way somebody measures height >> well think because of the change in our definition
>> so we would say that if you the relief granted would reference the 16 ft from existing grade but final the final number could be different based based only on the exposure >> on the existing whatever and only you
know we talk about that see green >> if if they expose foundation if they don't have to expose it and they can make the slopes work then then stay 16 >> if we just if we just make the the motion based on the existing grade and then that's what gets memorialized is that we measured it from the existing
grade the new may be 16 okay >> and chair just a quick note the the applicant did meet with that neighbor and went through the plans Yeah, with we >> Okay. Um, if anybody else nobody else
has any issues, questions, uh, I appreciate the, um, the adjustment based on appreciate the >> and I think it's a better plan to be honest with you. And so therefore, I'll make a motion to approve uh, rier application based on the adjusted plan
that was submitted and um, the requirements of the of the bureau engineer. Understood. >> Um, memorializing the the height at 16 ft measured from existing grade >> and and whatever topographical
information the engineers. >> Yeah, that's what I just refer all that to would approach. >> I'm going to interrupt quickly before I second because that was a plan too. We we mentioned landscaping. Are you thinking about planting landscaping between the garage and the street? >> Yes. Yeah, we're planning on trying to
make that as private as we can. Could I just suggest that we incorporate the requirement there be some sort of um >> foundation some sort of B road and that side of the course? >> Yeah. Great. With that additional conditional second
Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Leer. >> Yes. >> Mr. D'Angelo. >> Yes. >> Dr. Ler. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shett. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr.
Appreciate it. >> Okay, today >> Mr. Have a good night. >> So, it looks like my client would like to attempt to revise his plans one more time. And with your indulgence, we would appreciate a uh German with no further
notice to your next available date if that's a possible. >> Um yeah, it is uh we are up against it in May, right? >> Two applications are so >> given that we've this is a late meeting and we don't have as much time for May,
I will suggest that we look at June. >> That's fine. So what is the date we need to announce at this point? >> June 18th. >> I don't know. June 4th. >> June 4th. Okay. Excellent.
>> Advocate wage time limits. >> Absolutely. >> So I'll make a motion to parily um application to the June 4th meeting without requirement items. >> I'm going to I'm going to once again interrupt that order. Council, I just want to suggest that as you reconsider
how you're going to come back to the board that you remember that the board did like the aesthetic of this 2480 inclusion. The debate was as to whether or not it was measured and set back. There was no debate as to whether or not that feature made the house look more attractive from that safety. And
>> I truly appreciate that commentary. That's actually one of the things we were discussing. So that that would be very helpful. Thank you so much. >> I'll second the motion to carry Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Dr.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for >> Thanks everybody. Appreciate it. >> Thank Okay. Um moving on to Flanigan.
Can I have a couple more? Mr. Leader like Mr. Leader Anybody else? Follow anybody's going to testify. I think they're going to testify. I might have something to say. Sure. There's a remaining swear.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. But we've been here earlier before you start to call now start your name spelling your name for Phillips.
Um at this point like North D1 application guidelines and checklist marked as a combined exhibit plus the statement of legal dates to appear to be unlike
plans for plan elevations uh as of February 7th beginning at 206 6. Exhibit A3 demographic survey dated August 1125
A4 permanent denial dated October 8th 2025. Uh other photographs images could be in about Wellington undated for number.
Day six is a package of documents dated 2016. How do you identify those? Um we also have ZV1 which will be
letter of January 13 206 letter February 23rd 206 six. No, I think that that is all of the exhibits I have at this point in time. Let me explain upon the record as to what I have for exhibit only six. It appears to
be an amended 11616. It's only includable appears to be second sheet with some handwritten notations on it. Dave Hill 6 and that appears to be respondents Kelly
Feny and Flanigan. Um signature Kelly and Flanigan identifying themselves the homeowner dated November 10, 2016. And second sheet to that is from Martha
Simmons, architect dated number 16, 2016 to be portion of the photos that appear to be two sheets two side. These two sheets
identify an addition of alteration to existing residence lot 7.01 block 40 Mr. Mrs. plan against um if there simmons date appears to be October 126,
2016 by what it was 111. Um that just is to amplify what is said. Do you have any other you want? Yes, we do.
May I distribute? >> We're going to mark them now at page seven. If you can identify what that is. >> Yes. Some colored photographs of before and after the house when we purchased it and then after the renovation. on the
bottom, two colored photographs of the interior of the house, um where you could see the cathedral ceilings that we're hoping to preserve and then the beams and the historic character of the house that we are maintaining and that the beams which are um found throughout
the door and the bedrooms upstairs. >> Okay. Um single sheet for purpose of record A7 single sheet four six eight uh images various conditions when we got the property you
know when these were taken >> um the before images were all taken um in 2016 when we purchased the house and the after were all taken after the initial renovation just to give the comparative of
>> the arch ctor. The other two in the bottom were taken today. >> Give me a year as to the >> of the after that would be 2017 2018. >> 2017. Yeah, that's good. >> The bottom >> two bottoms were 2020. >> There was minimal change in the front of the house.
>> Um the bay windows the two um windows on top of the up stairs bay window. >> Mhm. And then the back of the house if you see the we the roof lines the existing roof lines. Yeah. Um Mr. So let's so if any for anybody's
edification I think so >> oh we do have two other exhibits tomorrow good >> do you need to present that >> uh yeah >> well why don't we just why don't we get the waivers out of the way otherwise you're not going anywhere
>> yes okay >> go ahead Mr. um 200 foot property owners list. Um imagine that's been resolved at this point. So no exception there. Uh applicant requested ownership disclosure
statement stating that they own 100%. Um outside agencies, M County Planning Board, Freeld, Mountain County Health Department. I don't think any of those are going to be applicable. So no exception. Uh all easements and deeds, they responded that none um they're not aware of any.
And then the last one is a tax collector certification. Um and that they provided a print out from the website showing the taxes they paid. So I don't take exception. >> No. Okay. >> Um for the board's uh notice this was upzoned in 2016 2017 when you did it.
They took advantage of the upzoning >> to seven and a half. Um but Mr. Rizzo we are not based on and you can help. We're not basing on the relief to be sought from the upzone
number. It's from the the R5 number, right? >> Yeah, you're correct in saying that the previous approval through the zoning office did get upzone to the R75. Tonight, we're we're looking at the project through the current zone, which is the R5, and using all of those criteria from the the actual zone that
we're in. >> I agree with each. Go ahead. >> The only other thing is you had other mark now up to 88. >> Yep. Uh, one is a slight modification to the exterior elevations. Uh, sheet day
three, but I guess we're A8 and that's dated today uh, April 16th, 26. And the other is just simply a couple photos uh, similar to what you already have in case we need reference anything.
Yeah. Four images. >> Yeah. And those uh no date on the sheet >> when she were in >> that was in um October 2025. >> Anything else? No. >> Where's yours?
>> Great. Um, Kelly Flanigan. That's uh K E L L Y Flanigan. F L A N A G A N. 223 Third Street. >> And uh Edward Flanigan by Ted. Uh F L.
>> Um so yeah, sure. So we uh we bought our home for sale by owner in 2016. Um, it was, you can see from that image there, when we called the number, they didn't even want to show us inside the house. Um, they said we were going to knock it down and, sell it to a builder. It
needed so much work. Um, we saw that it had a it was built in 1869. It was a Fair Haven Century Home. It had a plaque on it. Uh, we both appreciate older homes and that type of style. We called
him up again. We asked to please let us in. Um, and we fell in love with the character of that of that home. Um, we understood the the the huge amount of renovations we were about
to embark in. We did uh we the master was on the first floor. We with two little kids, we wanted to up that master onto the to the top floor. You can see we also that would alleviate the mismatched roof lines in the rear of the
house and make that more um appealing. We did new roof, new plumbing. The upstairs bathroom wasn't working. There was no insulation in the cathedral ceilings in the bottom. There was two wood burning stoves. One which hadn't been worked in 25 years. The other one
was um right in the middle of the kitchen. Uh so we had to do a little bit of playing around, but we wanted to keep and maintain the character of the house. We uh kept the original hardwood floors upstairs. We matched those hardwood floor the wide plank hardwood floors on
the bottom. We utilized some of the attic floorboards to patch up some of those. Um and we um the upstairs bedrooms are tiny. We had to add closets to all of them. None of them had closets. Um, so
it's um we we tried our best with with with making that for a family of four. >> So we we did Tom, we did the original renovation. I think we want to speak to sort of why we're trying to do more work. Um we bought the home. We did the original work. We had two kids. We now
have four. Um, we when we when we did the original work, we did it on a what was at the time pretty tight budget for us to squeeze all that in. So, I think we did uh what we could within the budget that we had, but um and we were also at the time first time home owners.
So, we really didn't know what we would need. Um, >> still technically first time >> home. That's right. Yeah. So, and and frankly, you know, a lot of the assumptions were were made. We were a smaller family as our first our first home and uh and we were we were working
under under a pretty tight budget. Obviously our circumstances have changed now and we we've you know this family's expanded the space uh I think one of the things you'll see in our application is sort of the height of the home is well below um where we can go. We're 23 24 ft
relative 30. The the ceilings are quite low. Our two sons share a bedroom they're in. We have to have them because of the size of the rooms and bunk beds. The bottom bunk the mattress is on the floor. So >> you can't I think the center beam is 65. The other beams are 69. Um so you feel
very cramped. It's it's also closed but but we love the charm but uh >> our sons are 9 and 11 and we know that that's not going to last for that much longer. Um >> sure >> Mr. Can just just allow the board to
focus. >> Can you identify what beef and additional leaf? >> Yes. >> Based upon zone. >> Is it only the the square footage, Mr. >> That is Yeah, that's correct. So again, we're we're looking at the R5 zone here.
um 2200 foot is permitted and the proposal is 3,491 square feet. So that's the number on paper. Um I'm sure your testimony about a vaulted space. >> Yeah, I noticed you you had some question about the existing um scripted
to be verified. Um I don't want to cut you short, Mr. Plan, because it's it's it's pertinent. >> I just want at this point, Mr. Sh, can you identify those areas that were Mr. Jordan that Mr. Mr. I have a question. >> Yes. And it's actually on the uh the
floor plans you have um and I missed it the first time around. I forgot that Fair Haven counts it that way. If you look on sheet A1 uh drawing number seven, middle upper what I what I do for Fair Haven is dash the line to show where the floor is.
>> Mr. Kovass reminded me that you haven't even though you've appeared before this board many times. Can you do the formal? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. So Al Shaias, a registered architect and landscape architect in the state of New Jersey since 2013 and 14 respectively. Been in
front of the board several times. Um yeah. >> Anybody have issue with Mr. Size? No. No. Sorry. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you. >> Um yep. So as I was saying on sheet A1, middle upper floor, um sorry, middle upper of the sheet, you can see two diagrams, small pretty small scale floor
plans. Uh the the right side is I'm calling it the second floor plan, but really what I'm trying to capture is the cathedral from below and that by by Al Fair Haven counts floor area at a certain height. Um Fair Haven counts
that as floor area, but that's really just open to the first floor below. So uh so the postsecond floor plan back right section. >> Yep. kind of a different crosshatch
and that that total number is 214 square ft of the 3,491 square feet. >> That's 214. >> And if if it helps to visualize, that's one of the reasons we included the the image below here. So you can see on the
interior looking back out, this is the sort of room with that vated ceiling. Got it. And um and obviously even in the original before we made the modifications on the home, you can see in in the original >> it was it was kind of like that. And so
um our goal is to preserve that in the uh in the new design as well. >> That's the kitchen area is above the beams. >> Yeah. It's okay. >> The bottom is not before and after. The bottom's both. >> No, that right that interior. That's just current. Yeah. Current interior. >> So I get 3277.
You exclude that. Is that the correct number? >> Correct. Proposed. Y >> proposed. >> Yeah. >> Slightly given the norm that we see in vaulted ceilings where you know the whole the whole space. This is obviously not can't be finished. Can't be used. >> Yeah. I I think it Yeah. I I can't
imagine. Yeah. I think the height I don't know the exact number. So what's the other number you say? >> 397. >> And that and that's correct. That that's what I kept in as well.
Okay. Uh, thank you for explaining it. >> Um, yes. And so, um, one of the reasons why that vaulted ceiling, we love it because again of the nature of the beams, everything is a little bit crowded. I don't think we have an 8ft ceiling anywhere in our
house. Um, we also, it's an older home originally 1869. So, the new home is one standard four. Uh, we have an old basement. We have another new basement that doesn't connect to that old basement. One's finished, one's not. We have slab floor. We have crawl space. We
just don't have a full um basement utilized space that that other homes in Fair Haven to this uh square footage would also have. Um and that being said, we don't have the third floor, the attic. >> I was going to that was my next question because we do allow attic space, but
there's no >> there is there's very minimal attic. >> You even use it for storage or >> very little storage. You can't even We stuff what we can in there, but but you're not standing. I'll stand. You can stand up in there. >> It's pushable. And in fact, um the nails when we first purchased a home, it was
very um poorly insulated. And so we actually put extra insulation and raised the floors um of that attic for that heating. >> Okay. >> So, >> and so I think to just sort of summarize, I think also how we got here
from the last project. So we've now we we sort of alluded to trying to expand understanding sort of where the first work we did we're now realizing you know trying to get more utility out of our space and out of the home. Um we've been working with AL for almost two years on
the design and and what we did was we we basically are are thinking about the project and sort of three there was almost like three parts to the scope of it. there was uh adding living living area upstairs so that we could add an
additional bedroom and just sort of it gets it's as it is upstairs right now it's very crowded with everyone the rooms as you can see are small. There's also uh extending out that that current space right there cuz that's really the only large gathering space in the in the
house. So when we have company over it's pretty much the only place you can fit more than our family of six. And uh and then and then the other chunk of scope was kind of expanding the mud room. Uh because right now >> everything just piles into what is uh
the the very small mud room. And so we went back and forth with Al times trying to understand what we could do within sort of the various square footagements. Obviously managing the budget as well. We looked at basically multiple renditions that would have two of the
three things. expand upstairs, expand the mud room, but don't bump out the vaulted area. Uh, don't expand upstairs, but do the mud room and bump out the vaulted, right? Basically, every different combination of those three things. And and we didn't like any
really, we didn't think any of those combinations sort of were going to meet the needs of the family. And so, we hit pause, we went out, >> looked at homes, >> looked at homes in the market for a while. That was eye opening. And uh and
so we came back to basically Trondog >> and right and I think one of the other things too is that we love we're on Third Street, right, which is like heart of Fair Haven. We have four kids. We send two to Sickles and two to Nwood and it's just the ease of that and being on there um on that route has been
phenomenal. Um we love our location. Um and we are and we love our front yard and our front porch and our neighbors and we're not changing anything about the front of our home. We love that it's historic. Um we also have a historic tree right on there too. Um right in the
in the in the yard. Um there's a lot to love and so we're just trying to see if we can make this one be a little better fitting for a little more workable. >> Yeah. >> I mean I think the difference between this application and the last one right is there's a real hardship here. You're
trying to work with stuff. you're not going to mow it down and say, "Hey, we want to build something >> whatever 3,200 square feet just because you have a very deep red street lot." >> There's still some of the same concerns, especially and I know the lot. Well, I actually looked at it before they sold.
>> Um, but there's a lot of houses that are but this way and we're going to be going. So if you could >> run me through the board through what's being demoed what's being added on and looking at the plant the dash lines on the bottom floor. So that vaulted kitchen
>> y of that space you're going you're going to extend that. >> Yeah. So um I don't know what's easier to refer to the existing or let's first do your first floor plan page on 82 three >> I see some dash lines.
>> Yep. Yeah. So I'll walk through that. So um on the first floor the goals were running laundry. >> That's new. >> This this is this addition and we'll go into kind of some of the logical functionally on the interior but also we're trying to be cognizant of some of the intent of the zoning ordinance. Uh
this is modern laundry and infill kind of this is existing up front. >> So the family foyer is existing and that staircase is existing. >> Correct. We're modifying it but yeah that's correct. And the existing basement stair. So, we're kind of swearing off from that corner, not bumping out close to the neighbor. Uh,
right now the back of the house ends here and we're proposing a 14 foot extension. >> Okay. So, that breakfast table is existing. >> That's more like the living room right now. So, uh, yeah, they're looking for more room there. There's also a
secondary reason for that as well. >> That living room vaulted, >> correct? And then the only other addition on the first floor, it's really uh the second story above. It's going to be a small covered porch that bumps out 8 feet. That doesn't contribute to the floor area, but it allows for the
addition above. So 8t on this side is an open covered porch. Second floor above 14 ft extension of the living room here. Squared off uh mud room laundry off the existing mudroom family fort. >> Nothing in the front.
>> I know somebody's going to say it, so I might as well say it. That covered porch. Uh we've had some history with cover boards against um to remain open. >> Yes. >> No walls. >> No, there's been no discussion to that. Um if anything, they actually didn't
even want that feature, but there was really What else are we doing than going out above? So, it's kind of a leftover >> facilitates adding the bedroom on the second floor. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I was just going to say because um >> how how far are you extending the house?
This is 14 ft onetory edition. That's part of the vaulted ceiling room. And on this side, 8 feet, but 14T's the further most >> 14T one story. >> One story vaulted >> adds to some of the cathedral >> and 8t on this side as a twotory
edition. Well, one second floor edition covered porch below. >> Okay. So goals in the first floor are really to get bigger living room and I'll go into a little bit of a secondary reason for that laundry mug room and also allow for the second floor
addition. On the second floor right now it's four bed two bath. Um it's only about 1,000 square ft which I normally use a rule of thumb four bed two bath is going to be 121 1250 to today's standards on like a 50 foot lot. So it's
only a thousand. The questions are, how's that possible? These bedrooms are all really small. The one that their two sons are sharing is like 11 by 11 12 really slow uh low ceiling height. That was the one Kelly referred to with the bunk bed. The front two rooms, the front
room is really more like an office. They use it as a bedroom, but most people would call that more of an office. >> Existing three, right? >> Existing. That's the front. Yep. Front, right? And then the other Yep. >> I don't see any measurements on your plans. Uh I don't have them but I could I could >> Yeah.
>> Um and then the front left room is also relatively small. Maybe maybe a little over 100 square feet. So that's how that thousand square feet does technically get four beds. >> Nothing's changing in the front section of the house. >> Yep. Correct. >> If you were looking at it two-dimensional in the front, the only
thing you'd see is a little covered entry on the side set way back. But effectively two-dimensionally from the front, you wouldn't see anything. No, I was going to say so how would you improve the situation for the you say two boys there? >> Yeah. >> So two additions are proposed on the
second floor. One is over the existing kitchen and that gives an extra bath and an extra bed. Again, four kids. What I normally rule of thumb I say to people, two kids, one bath. I'm talking about kids baths. Three kids, you're on the fence. Four kids, you really need two
baths. Today's standards. >> And where is that? Is that labeled bedroom five? >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's new. >> And this is over the existing kitchen. This is not extending the footprint, >> right? >> And there's nothing there now. >> It's that ra ceiling that you see in the bottom. >> So, this is where the things fit together.
>> It'd be right over those beams. >> We have to drop the ceiling over the kitchen to fit this room upstairs. And in doing that, we lose >> the biggest area space we have. Hence why we want to push out. Jordan, did we take that into into I'm sure you didn't
take that into account that we're losing that open space in the kitchen. >> We So, I mean, we're looking at this in terms of just against the requirement right now, right? >> I don't um I don't know if I have an exact existing >> but you're getting space in a living room.
>> I I can answer that. Yes, it is. So, there's an ones um and and to Jordan's credit, I don't think this was in his first review. I don't think he had this info. Um and when he raised it, we added it. Uh I
mean right now the cathedral in the existing house contributes 256 square feet. >> Right now the cathedral though altered contributes 214. >> So there is existing >> swap you're swapping the kitchen swap >> roughly. Yeah. Okay. So, so I have a
question. >> Not necessarily pushing this, but given that you guys upzone to the or if it was upzone, whether it was a play 40 or not, that's 3020 square ft M. So, if you took that >> that vaulted space out of here, that's about 257 square feet. Did you consider
anything where you say, "Hey, let's try to target the 3020 net of this kind of phantom space." Didn't just say, "Hey, we already went for the R." Yeah. >> 7 and a half >> because you only built 2600. So you've got 600 square feet to play with there, >> right? >> Did you consider anything where you
said, "Hey, even if you have even if you do remain in the ball space because I understand the like the feeling of just like openness." >> We didn't we didn't design we didn't try to design to a target. It was more as as I think Ted gave a pretty good rundown
uh looking at all these different options. And quite frankly, I think fair to say I was pushing back a lot to say, look, at some point two, >> we're going to have to we're going to be over on floor area and we're going to need a variance. And when we looked at
all these options, it basically, and to give them credit, I understand where they're coming from. It was it doesn't do what we really need. We're putting all this into it. Let's get this out. So, no, we didn't we didn't look at that and say, "Let's target for this to make it an easier." Well, we thought and it's
my own is that 3 almost 3500 makes pretty big for the archive, right? We just we just saw the first year, you know. >> Yes. >> But >> so I was just my my thought was that maybe the >> you know maybe the hardship is and the and the pitch is look we already got to we already got you know seven and a half
here. That's 30 20 that other space we know is sort of phantom space. We understand the need for it given the house is so short in stature. It's I mean 869's got to be pretty old for most house in Fair Haven especially not in the historic district. >> So maybe maybe the pitch is like look
hey without this space we get to this we're still getting to the seven and a half and we we're able to do that because our lot is you know whatever 70 ft wide or whatever the calculation 69.7. So >> yeah I think >> just just a thought that's 257 ft. I
don't know where >> you're not going to take any rooms down particularly because I understand you need the doll bathroom for the for the children, you know, this that I don't I don't know. I'm just it's just >> and I think we we did consider that. We considered so many different options. Um I also am the mom of four and laundry
and and sports equipment. We don't have a garage. We don't have a basement. We don't have an attic. >> We hopefully we'll have a brush. >> I I I have no space, right? I have no storage. And maybe that's a part of me, too. I need to clean out more. We were losing, we only have in our master regular size closets and we were losing
one of them to put the other additions. So I said I can't go down and in and my bedroom a closet like and be and I I was losing my linen closet too. So it was such a battle going back and forth. So I totally understand and I would have loved to have not even come here and
just use the R seven5 to our advantage and make it all work. I just it you know it's tough. Our volume is not nearly. If we knocked this down and built a 2200 foot home that was 30 feet high with a full basement, it would have met our
needs completely. But this is a lot of >> huge wall third floor. It's it's, you know, it's not right. Right. >> It's, you know, it's dorm, you know, whatever. It's not as it's not useful and I'm not a big person. So So, um, I get it. >> Al, could you just walk us through the rest of the changes now?
>> Yeah. So, the the last piece of this, Kelly alluded to these the second floor, the master's position basically right here. >> Uh, and again, not enough closet space right now by any means. I've been there. They're definitely bursting the scenes as far as storage. Um,
>> uh, this is the 8ft addition on the second floor that's yielding the covered porch in the back. And what that does is allow for, uh, a more, you know, modern size walk-in closet. So, I think that at least for the interior, there's some sight stuff, but that's not really related to the variance. But as far as
the house, that's the main things. Um, >> that's all quiet. >> What the quietly say walking? >> Um, you mentioned a garage. How you starting is
>> Yeah. So, again, for storage, sports, equipment, things like that. Uh, there is no garage right now. Um, quite frankly, they wanted an attached garage, but that was just it wasn't going to work as far as setbacks and things like that. So, we're proposing a onecar detached garage set to the back of the
property, extended driveway, um, walkway patio reconfiguration, a uh, outdoor shower kind of nestled into a back corner of the house, and then there is two existing sheds. One's close that kind of overlaps with where the proposed
garage is. We're just uh proposing to move that to the back where an existing shed is that they're going to remove. >> So that the rear shed that says 4 foot >> um set back on the survey that's being removed >> and then uh the existing one in front
move back and go to 5t. >> Um yeah. >> What about the uh the slate patio? If you go back >> what 14 or 16 feet, >> what are you going to do with that slate patio? of the existing or yeah existing.
>> Um I would assume that I don't know if they're going to reuse it but that would get moved further back >> or I think we would change a little bit of our of our >> we were going to >> definitely reuse the slate but I think we were going to kind of just >> instead of going back directly behind as
it is now we were going to use this more of the space out uh to the left by the porch. >> Yes. By the porch area. >> Yeah. That covered area. Yeah. The president will move the second shed. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Basic garage at 260 ft.
>> Uh yes. >> And what is the height of the garage? >> Uh want to say 13 and a half. >> And you use that for storage. >> We have right everybody. We can't fit six full grown bikes in our shed right now. And that's that's how they hit the
school. So, it's mostly just for storage. It will not be for a car. >> Um, >> do you expect what do you expect to replace? >> Bikes, >> sports equipment, >> lacrosse bags, >> electricity, water.
>> Oh, um, a light, electricity. >> Yeah, >> just electric. >> Just electric. >> You could put a bar in if there was >> You could, right? If we sold the house and somebody wanted to use that, that's another good selling feature. I just can't imagine >> having no just a regular standard
>> shed type garage. >> Um yeah, so that is so I'll continue all complete design. So that deals with floor plans. Um we did make so on that exterior. Kelly sent some before and after photos. This is kind of the rough profile of the house right now. We're
we're um proposing to extend the the larger gable out. This >> you know that's existing or is it >> uh this is proposed but it kind of has a similar profile. The main difference other than this coming out 8 ft. This comes out 14th. So it'll break the scale
down a little bit. >> Um front facade. The only difference and it's really set back is a little covered entry over the mud room. Um the right side facade uh right side elevation. This is the addition that's over the kitchen. So, we're just basically
matching an existing gable. Again, try to tuck it away so it, you know, minimize the mass of this from the street at least. This is an existing dormer. Um, I realized tonight really this roof line should be shown coming out to here. This is this roof line
beyond. So, I should have shown that extending out, but that's kind of beyond. And that's that one. >> Everything when I see that the first floor edition, I'm looking at the right side elevation. the singlestory uh addition to the rear. >> Yep. That's this
>> that that's your >> that's the that's a little >> and everything past that is that existing then >> this is the bump out of the mroom laundry. >> Uhhuh. >> This is an existing dormer that >> What about that area below? That's push back. >> This is pushed back. This squares off.
>> Those are the stairs. >> Like so now. >> So this kind of just squares that off. The stairs are are at this location, but they're like 8 ft beyond. >> Yeah, that's basically our trash can bar today. >> This is a second floor edition for the bedroom over the kitchen. >> Mhm.
>> Again, this is a living room coming out. And this actually is this roof line beyond that I'm showing in correctly. >> This would be the covered porch below. Uh the left side elevation is >> pretty challenging right now. Just so you know, this is this is what it looks
like. So this is the 8 ft coming out here. We did make we we talked about, you know, impact the neighbor. Our first take was, okay, why spend more money on the side of the house or anything like that? Um, but, you know, right now it's not a great elevation. I I think anyone
could get that. So, what we're proposing as an alteration, this was exhibit A8, was mimicking this gable and then doing a little eyebrow roof just >> scale it down a little bit. I wasn't aware that there was a choice. I don't see that. I don't think we
>> No, this is an exhibit I brought tonight. Yeah, this was this is a was already marked. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Can everybody see that? >> But I think that looks at the >> top. If you look at the existing this
elevation against that this which is really very similar to what it is now. >> Yeah. >> And then this poster consideration measurements on set back from that. >> I don't think so. Right. That that would
actually be the >> Yeah. For the eyebrow you're talking about. >> Yeah. I'm think it's like 12 inches something. >> Yeah. No issue. >> Um not ornamental. >> Not staircase. >> Um >> yeah, actually it would be oral.
>> I prefer that to your first deal your first iteration. >> So a couple zoning things I just want the way we were thinking about it. Again, we knew the whole time what we're up against with the floor area from day one. Um, in my mind, the floor area
capping it, it's it's it is a good ordinance to have. Not every county does it, and you can see when they don't. And it's really to keep in scale. Just because you have a double or triple size lot, you don't want monster house sitting next to another one. I think on Third Street, there's pretty I mean, other than some of the corner lots,
depending what size they face, you have a pretty consistent lot width. Um, so the houses tend to have a certain scale from the street when you're going by. Everything we're doing is really roughly in line with the existing house. So I don't think it it's it's not going to
make the house, I don't think, appreciably bigger from the street. Definitely not 2D headarm, but even from an angled side view, you're really not going to see this addition out the back. This is already here. It's kind of hiding it somewhat. This this technically wouldn't be here. If
anything, I think it makes a house look more appropriate, but that's probably most the mass that you'd see added on an angle. Um, so we were we were pretty cognizant to add there for that reason. Obviously working around a lot of existing conditions. So I think from the
scale from the street, I don't think it's going to be appreciably different. So that's one way to look at it relative to what the purpose of the cap is. I think the other thing is look at the end of the day that this home the original out we believe
it or not was Jess the um I think it was probably a two bed one back on the second floor and they actually did keep I we think this is the original house right here >> and if you you can see in the photos really cool historic character I commend
them for keeping that it really looks like a period piece Um, if you go inside, they really did keep that. So, obviously extending out the back, I think it's something, you know, it definitely gives it more historic feel to the neighborhood. Um, obviously cuz the ceiling heights the
the house, uh, I think one of the questions Jordan had is that I I'm having a little discrepancy on the measurement, but I would say it's 22 to 23 feet, 30 feet allowed permitted. So, volumewise, it's 3/4. So one other way
to look at it is if this house is 34 90 whatever the number is if you multiply that by 3/4 technically someone could come with a new house at 3/4 is square footage and it would have roughly the same volume without doing all the
detail calc. >> So that that's kind of another way to look at it. I think the hardest part in my mind where you really notice it is really the side elevation, especially the left side. Um to me, like this
elevation here, I mean, I think you can get the vibe of it a little bit. I think there's enough ins and outs. The house doesn't seem that big on this view. Once you get to this point of the house, it's kind of starting to set back and further from the street. I think this is the most challenging elevation, but also
remember right now that already exists. So that exists, right? Oh, okay. >> Right to there. We're going out 8 ft. Bottom portion is isn't even fully enclosed. >> And it doesn't look like that. It's flat, right? It's flat. So if you had that shed, that that little roof there,
and the gable, the extra gable, >> I think that makes a big difference. >> And also keep in mind that existing home actually the neighbor on the left side comes out to about that that space. >> It's not like it's not like they're here and they're seeing all this. So I I think that's a helpful
consideration, but in my mind that's the most challenging part where this house does appear much bigger, I would say, than it is, but I think in a lot of other ways I I don't think it goes so far against the intention of what the cap is supposed to be limited. >> Let me ask you, how many people are seeing it outside of the people that are
immediately adjacent on both sides because where it is on the on the street, it's pretty tough in, right? It's not like you have like some big view point or like from the side, >> right? neighbor. >> We're right next to our one neighbor and then our other neighbor um it's been vacant for over a year.
>> It's their rear yard. It's their rear yard. >> Yeah. >> It's their rear yard. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, obviously the idea at some point someone will live there, but I >> Right. But it's but it's also their rear yard, right? And we have a big hedge and our driveway is in between there too between our home.
>> Yeah, it's the one there's there's an interesting application coming up for that. I can I can only imagine >> if at all. >> Um so in fact when we purchased a home um we had a huge amount of bamboo in our backyard. We removed eight 40 yard
containers of bamboo from our backyard >> um by ourselves. >> Super abusive. >> Uh it Yes. And so >> we it was horrible. >> It was um >> me and me and four guys from the Wawa. >> Yeah. I'm not sure. >> There was a John Deere stuck back there
that we didn't >> um but >> be a thing on Third Street down the hill across from the ice. It was >> We were We were an epicenter of it actually. It It was really bad. >> It was really bad. >> It was a good way to meet our neighbors. Our neighbors chimed in. They pitched
in. Uh one of our neighbors helped. We rented a a backho from Semicore or whatever and he did it out. How you open up the groups? >> We then had only one tree in our backyard um and and a couple bushes on one side. We planted over 26 trees,
probably 60 perennial shrubs. We laid down the sod ourselves. We put sprinklers in. We have a garden. Um I >> you might have >> I don't know if I'll do that again but um landscaping and we're very in tune to understanding um now I'm you know
learned so much more about native plants storm water um I'm on the environmental commission as well so I really understand the lot coverage part and drainage and we'll you know have taking song out of our house and put in gardens
for that as well too and the question what for the landscaper. >> Yeah, is there any proposal? Anything additional to the >> Also, what's the drainage? Uh Jordan, I'm sure obviously with the lot size, we don't have a huge issue, but we're still looking to capture. >> Yes. So, I'll just quickly point out
that there's a new storm ordinance that went into effect December 14th. >> That's right. >> This was submitted December 4th. >> So, while we can refer to it, um we're not held to it. Okay. Um >> but to that as chair of the environmental commission I am very well
aware of it and try to be as um aligned to as much as at to it. And so any um land will be native plants perennials. >> The new ordinance is an addition of 400 square ft has to have some
uh rain garden bur something. doesn't necessarily have to be a drywall, but it has to be some ventilation. So, >> understand. >> But as as Mr. Wizard pointed out, you came in underneath the the thing, so you're not required to, but of course. >> Sure. >> As you as you know, any of this? >> Yes.
>> Be happy to. >> Okay. Can do that. >> Um, any >> I think that's it for me. Yeah. Okay. >> Any members of the public have uh any comments to be made? Sure. Come step forward. Say your name. Steven Steven
Nolton, 77 Church Street. Very good. >> Good to see you, Mr. >> And what I especially love about your place >> is the American El testimony before the board. Truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yeah.
>> You gota let me finish the earth. You can't just decide what you're going to answer. Go ahead. >> You're a little bit hard at hearing, so >> that's okay. Um, so the the house as it exists is above the 2200 square ft and now it's getting
bigger. So it's it's up to you people to decide whether to give them more uh a lot more square footage. But that's that's the main thing I point of coming to the meeting is is is saying it and the lot used to be deeper. >> The Banahan. >> That's right.
>> You know the banahan. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, he's gone, >> right? But they purchased a piece of that line >> and so now it's not as deep, but it's unusual in the in the depth of that property. Um
it's um the main thing is is how do you deal with your 2200 square ft u requirement in town? And that's why I'm here. Just
Understood. Your decision. >> Obviously, we take this into consideration as you saw in the applications before. We're very, you know, there's certain hardships that we look at and certain and that's why we that's why we sit here. But thank you, Mr. >> And you know, I've got a lot 50 ft by
200 feet. >> If if it's depth of a lot and that's the basis, I could build another house back there. But I'm not doing that. In fact, there's a danger of Croser Court if that
ever becomes accepted road. Someone could subdivide my lot and put a house behind mine, >> but hopefully that won't ever happen. But the depth of lot is is nice. >> Thank you.
>> You mentioned you we like the elm. >> Pardon me, >> the elm tree. >> Oh, it's unusual. >> It's the third largest elm in Mammoth County. >> Yeah. 200 years old. It is it's on the New Jersey big tree heritage list. >> And um
>> we love it too. >> I wonder whether in the history of the house whether it was a farmhouse or or something. That land was farmed at some point. >> They there was when we first moved in said that it was all part of a farm. In fact, there was even rumor that they
used to house civil war wars our house. >> So we haven't found we haven't been able to verify. which haven't been visited. >> But that's you know there it also says it's haunted and so my daughter at Nwood says one of her teachers grew up here and it apparently was known but so far
they've been very kind to us. >> Thank you. >> Wait and see what you think. >> Thank >> any more members of the public reflect. >> Mr. Chair, may I just run through a few technical items? >> Absolutely. um less important to the
need of the application. But some accessory structures I picked up. There's the uh storage unit on the side. >> Is that going to stay? >> We can move that. >> No, it's like it's a Rubbermaid. >> Yeah, it's simple. Okay, so it'll come out. And the u >> the playground equipment in the back. Do
you know if that will >> that will probably be taken down? >> Yeah, we we're not saying you have to take it down. I just want to make sure that if it stays, it complies with the setback be shifted. I think we've outgrown that. >> We're Yeah. I mean, we're weren't timing to take it down as part of this project
necessarily, but it's kind of run >> survey, right? >> I don't think it was. Yeah. >> Put a note on the plans that there's a playground until we'll buy or removed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's okay. >> Um there's the the garden area which you mentioned. You know that the height of the fence?
>> Six feet. >> Great. Um, so the ordinance requires sidewalk along all frontages. I usually defer that to the burrow engineer. >> Uh, our property there is no, uh, leeway. There's no rightaway by the street. It goes right up to the curb and
I've back in the third street. >> It's it's not for this board to I'm just going to defer it to the burrow engineer, but I want to point that out. >> And then there's a note on here about an optional seller expansion. >> Oh, yeah. I was going to bring that up. What is that? >> So, so right now uh I guess seller by
definition. There is a small there's probably about that much of the uh house and basement that's reasonable height. >> Uh it's seller by definition I think it is. >> Yeah. Um they they would like to as part of that extension make it the same
height and extend out cost dependent. >> Okay. >> Uh but it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a four area impact because of the the >> elevation. So the plan is that under the new extension you're going to have >> possibly >> possible. >> Yeah. Cost dependent. >> Okay. >> What would the dimensions of that be?
>> Uh the equivalent of the extension. So it be exterior would be so you figure minus a little bit for the block. Um 14 by 16 exterior dimensions. Um, I was going a little different
direction. If you do install, you'll need to make sure that you have at least two foot separation the bottom to this seasonal high water table. >> Yep. >> I think at this point you can defer to the the burough engineer as well, but I just want to point that out. >> Sure. Yeah. That is that now a zoning thing? I know Rumson does that. It's going to be a building code thing.
>> Yeah, it's it's pretty typical for every it is in the Okay. >> Yeah. And then u I had looks like four or five um plan comments. Nothing made here but as part of resolution compliance would you address all those?
>> Uh yes. Is that number starting with >> 6A through F? >> Oh okay. Yep. Uh so provided 200 foot property owners list on the plan set. Yep. I'll add that. Uh floor area C was revised to include the area this is the cathedral ceiling. Uh oh no I'm sorry.
Uh the exterior elevation. So that that is now shown. Do you want to go over what those >> as long as you're confirmed? >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So I don't have to go through. Yeah, that's fine. >> Address them all. >> Uh, yes. >> Yep. >> Thanks. I'm all set. Appreciate.
>> Anyone wishing >> we're just Thank you for for hearing us. >> Okay. Discussion. >> All right. I love not having to go first anymore. That's why I spoken a lot. So I think yeah
I think that their uh their thought and care that they put into these plans and their um thorough discussion of their hardship um fully showed that they looked into all avenues
and the reasons why they're asking for this over and as I look at the numbers I get that um it looks the bridges compared to an R5, but they are um you
know eligible obviously for the 75. And um that's only like 8 and a half% over the max or the seven and a half. And obviously they put a lot of air into not asking for more than they need and
they're not being egregious in their structure. And um I think this is an exemplary uh application like why we're here to help um people out who have this much
hardship. I think that um I agree with the plan. >> I agree as well. I think that um I really think that the chips that we've gotten in terms of um maintaining the
historical u nature of the house parts of it and and not tearing it down, not building it up to the max. um are all valid and um needed and probably worth the tradeoff for uh going over on the
square foot. >> But in the height that's a lot. >> Yeah, it does. >> Okay. When I first looked at this application, you know, I came to the conclusion there's no way because >> that's what Al told us as well.
>> It looks bad on paper. You're over on the uh R10. You're even over on the arc to me, Bill. I mean, you know, I mean, I I I just I just thought about it. A lot of different ways to uh you know, to to make this work, you know, going up,
going down, you know, uh having looking for a house for my two kids that are looking to move from New York back to Fair. I know the issues that you ran into when you had a sticker shot when you look for for a bigger house. Uh I
mean I I certainly get that. Uh I think 14 14 ft onestory extension and open on the second floor. Uh and I think that the the the bulk is offset by the uh by the
reduced height of the house. So uh and I think Mr. Shisaias has done a really wonderful job designing this house and and making it seem to fit into the neighborhood and all and although it's over um
I I don't see any alternative to it and considering the size of the rooms and um and the hardship involved in this whole thing I have to be in favor of. So, you know, I'm I'm with you. >> Thank you. appreciate that.
>> Do you need to speak, Frank? >> Not really. No, they said it all. And I think I think Jack said it well, too. It's like it's nice to see a good Alphabicia come in that has real hardships and it's the re it is the reason we're here and I think it's very the ask is very genuine and um and look, it's really cool. You're going to
preserve this and and do all that. So, listen, I think it's great. I think it definitely is offset by the the stature of the house. Um, I'm not I'm not like the biggest person or else you may or may not let us say, but you know, I I can imagine being scaled down proportions and I I'm sure
it's it's uh you know, so I think it's great. I'm in uh uh I'm in sport for sure. >> No, nothing. >> Okay. Um then I'm going to make a motion to approve
the Flanigan application as submitted. Uh no, not as submitted as um as shown on >> the side the side the amended side >> with the with the altered left side elevations and the
>> and rear of has that plan been submitted? >> No, that was just today. >> Okay. >> Yeah. um condition on the submission of an approved plan of that point. Um I guess that's it. Uh based on the accuracy of the record and we get the
numbers, do you have an existing question? >> Back to the AA I guess. Can you leave that tonight? >> Yep. >> Is that okay to make sure that I get that? >> Yes. >> Yeah, he has. Sorry, Alex. Yeah, >> we have no question on the on the um the
existing and and the proposed square footage would be >> So, I don't have any questions on the proposed. I had questions on the existing. I guess that's up to you if you really wanted to dial in. >> I don't think so. I think as long as we have the correct number on the proposed square footage. >> Yeah, proposed. We're we're good.
>> Um and think that's it. Thank >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Snain. >> And Mr. Nassie. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> We really appreciate >> you using a song this morning. Appreciate it. >> Glad we could get through today. >> Good. I can make a copy tomorrow. >> Oh, yeah. Is that okay? leaders. >> It was just for
>> it wasn't all through. Yeah, but really the wrong that's actually the one that was what it was was added there and the wall around the corners.
Appreciate it. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. >> All right. >> And then
the resolution operating 66 We have a call second >> Mr. >> I understand. >> Yes. And then lastly, motion to approve the minutes of February 12th until 26
meeting. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. D. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jackson. >> Yes.
That's it. Any members of the public wish to make any statements, comments? room discussion. >> No, we're going to uh we're on hold with that um per Mr. Mule's submission to us. So once we get that, we're going to follow up with Mr. Mle hopefully very
shortly and then hopefully we'll have something further to go. >> I you know we did a lot of things. I was very pleased to read, you missed last month's meeting, but in the February um
sorry the March 626, there was an article uh concerning Lindsay Mchugh with their four-year-old twins, Ryan and Harper during a ribbon cutting ceremony because they moved into a house in Paris that was developed by Habitat for
Humanity, but also in the good works of a lot of folks here. Good works on the planning board. Good works on its own board of adjustments. Good works on the committee gave someone potentially a forever home. So good on you. Good work.
Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much. We have anything else? Motion to second. >> Favor. >> Thank you. >> We have three applications. Wow. Pretty
good. Burn. >> Burn. Couple couple pieces in between.