for your help. This is a regular meeting of the fair zoning board of adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. At the time the board reorganization in January this year, the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice the meeting schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on
January 31st, 2025 and it libertines on January 23rd, 2025. Notice this meeting was revived and p was revised and published in the adbury parks on August 29th 205 and the two river times on September 4 2025. Notice is also posted
on the board no hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been made available to the public and is on file of the office of a third. Copy the notice has also been sent to the members of the public as requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been
given. The board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of the meeting. Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I'd like to say a few words to the applicants, their experts, and the audience about the role and authority of the fair haven zoning board's adjustment. The board is a separate and independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is
specifically set forth in burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipal landings law. It quasi judicial nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and council. The zoning board does not enact the burough land use laws and regulations. The burough council does that. The zoning board does not enforce
the land use laws of the burough a fair. This is the responsibility of the code enforcement officer. This board deals with appeals for relief from the requirement landings laws for denial 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 with the Jersey municipal landings law and the fair ordinances by satisfying certain required standards approved. The board had no authority to weigh these requirements. The burden of proof is always in the applicant to show that he or she is entitled specifically requested. The applicant must prove that
the deviation from the regulations have the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation substantially outweigh any detrimental plan related to the future of the land or not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations. Roll call please. Mr. Nesn
here. Mrs. Dian, Mr. Ryan here. Mr. Forte here. Dr. Lawer here. Mman here. Mr. Canella Mr. Shetty here. Mr. Verge
of the flag for stands one nation under God indivisible and justice for all. Okay. Uh we are going to hear the career application first but before that we're going to make an announcement with
regard to the Hagerty application. I understand shield that we've had communication Mr. Akens on Hagerty. Yes. Requesting to be carried to the November meeting. We've chatted and I understand there's nobody currently on the agenda for the November meeting. That's correct. I'd like to make uh and he stipulated an extension time to act in the notice. I'd
like to make a motion to carry the Hagerty application to the November what date? 13. November 13th date. Second. Mr. Nes here. Yes. Mr. Ryan.
Oh, same. Mr. Yes. Dr. Law. Yes. Mrs. Newman. Yes. And Mr. Yes. And Mr. Le. Yes. Uh the next thing we're going to take care of is there was a special request that we move forward with the
hopscotch realy resolution. Um further to you Peter. Uh yeah I'll make I'll make a motion to uh approve the hopscotch realy resolution as submitted. Second testing Mr. Ryan
also Mr. Uh, yes. Uh, Dr. Walker, abstain. Mrs. Newman. Yes. Um, Mr. Are you?
Okay. That should be it. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Please. Council before you start if you can have everybody going to testify. Mike testifies and have a remark. You can
have them step forward and swear in them all together. They're going to mark some exhibits. Sure. This is including audience members who might talk. No. No. Okay. Just justify sharing.
Well, the way he said it, I was We'll do that. Please raise your right hand. So, I swear the testimony against before the Lord will be the truth. The whole truth about the truth. Yes. That should be Ed Moss. Yes. Yes. Just before you start testifying,
I'm going to ask that you state your name in the record spelling your last name. You can all be seated right now. Council, if you bear with me for a moment, I'd like to mark the application of July 7, 2025, the
land development checklist and the zoning board of adjustment application uh as A1. Like to mark the zoning permit denial of July 1st, 2025 as A2. A3 will be the architectural plot plan for plans
elevations, three sheets. They are revised as of September 18th, 2025 and I believe that's by daily architects. A4 will be the single sheet of the survey dated by revised to January 17,
2025. A5 are the color images of the subject property undated. I believe there are two of those. Then we're going to mark the consulting engineers report with a signature of Jordan Rizzo August 19,
2025 and CB1 and then we follow up second report and Mr. Rizzo's signature dated October 2nd 2025 as ZB2. You have any additional exhibits that you want the board to consider that we can mark now or you want to mark those as we go
along? We have these boards that are representative of the plans most recently submitted, but I think that some of them have color on them. I don't know if you Okay, we'll mark that as well 86.
That's the You have a date on that? Um, oh, so this this is uh this is the plot plan that appears on sheet A1 and that was the one that was last revised on
uh September 18th, 2025. So this is just correct me if I'm wrong enlargement correct coloration for ease of reference. We'll mark that as day six. Those images have already been marked
better. Yes, those are the referred to about plans. Um, if I have any others, I will mark them as I go. I don't want to I'm sorry. I have things that I I might mark, but A7. Okay.
Yes. Mr. Yeah, I have a few checklist submission items here that they're requesting wa for. Um, all standard stuff. a draft notice to the property owners in into the paper that was not submitted with
the initial application. Uh corporate ownership disclosure statement um I'm sure it's going to be an A. NA correct. And then outside agencies are M county planning board free SCB and M county uh board of health. Um all likely to be
applicable. So therefore I recommend the the waiters be granted. Any board members have any questions below? Shut up. Uh, thank you. John Sardo, law firm, Gerard, Howard, and Cecila on behalf of the applicants, Christopher and Vanessa
Greer. Um, subject property 16 River Lawn Drive. Um, would you like me to get going after I enter my appearance here? Can I just jump right in? Jump right in. By all means. Okay. Um, we're here tonight to seek approval
of a an addition to the north side of the home. U, it's on the ground floor. It slightly projects over the um the the base line of the second floor. We're seeking a um a variance from the
cap. Um, and I'll just detail that. I'll read from my notes here. So this addition has a a footprint of approximately 550 square feet but it is calculated as 717 square ft of
habitable floor area. 167 of that is related to a cathedral ceiling. Um there's an additionally uh there's a an existing sun room 251 square ft of floor area that is over the cat. So in total
here the application as submitted is 4,188 square feet whereas 3,220 square feet per minute in the zone that is 968 square ft over the cat. Um I will just note in addition that uh
this lot is nearly double sized for the zone. It's 19,581 square ft for 10,000 required. So we're well within the floor area ratio which is 28 and we're proposing 21. Uh set differently if you applied the floor
ratio alone it would allow a home with a floor area of 5,483 square ft but but you're not proposing that you could you're no I understand how correct correct can you um just slow down a second with regard to the square footage. So the
you've got a house, you've got a proposed addition and then you mentioned a sun room. So the house itself without the sun room without the addition is exactly it's the max permit 3220 on the nose on the nose.
I didn't calculate it without the sun room. It's part of the house. So there there was um prior zoning permit history that I'm taking that from that has it at 3220 nos. Do we have architecturals of the
building condition? I it's incredibly unusual. That wasn't where I expected to get hung up. I wanted to talk about the sun room and then I wanted to talk about the wall ceiling. That's where I want to go. But 3220 on the nose seemed off there. One second.
Yeah, that's correct. So on our plans, we have existing as 3471 because the sun room is enclosed, therefore it counts. So the sun room is 251 ft. Correct. Okay. Um what is the
what is the nature of the sun room? Is it a three-season room? Is it Are there walls? Is it insulated? Is it heated? Is it cool? It is. Uh I think as first constructed it was three season room screened in. Um I'm not sure if there was like small
walls at the bottom. There there's photos in the in the for it looks like a typical room. There's a second floor above as well. Is it in your books? Yeah, in my 42 pages um
seven. So it looks like a it looks like part of double windows and it's not Yeah, it's not screened, let's say. to answer this would be your special though. I there was a time when no one
was was screened and then there was deteriorating wood and things and they replaced them with windows um several years prior. Okay. So, I'm not overly concerned about being penalized for calling it a sign because it looks like part of the house and we're certainly going to welcome
testimony if that's not the case. So, the current structure is 3471, correct? Okay. Um, now let's talk about the ceiling. So, how are we doing this, Mr. Rizzo? We've got where we calculate the
ceiling belt. So, there's actually a really nice exhibit on here. On the first sheet, A1, the bottom middle, you'll see the additions on the right.
um the first floor edition which is um primarily what they're seeking is the the diagonal lines and then the gray box is the area that's greater than 30 in in the middle and then on the second sheet is same location is the inspection
detail. Um so that there's 6 feet 8 in in width which is that 30 inch and greater height. So that's the 167 square feet. Okay. I'm gonna I'm gonna wait to talk about that further until we get further
along, but I I have a handle on. Okay. Yeah, I was going to jump on that because I have some thoughts on that and then we'll get to the architects for investment. The only variance triggered is exceeding the maximum height. I'm sorry, the maximum floor area the cap. Correct. There's an existing
rear yard setback um nonconformity. I think it's 21.58 ft from the rear yard where it's supposed to be 30. But this home uh I believe I didn't uncover anything to the contrary. It was built in 1950 and I think that was part of the house that
predates what might have needed a variance not right not exacerbated correct and the new proposal with regard to the addition fully conforms to regard to the cider except correct but Mr. the the overall height of that
that place where the bolts what's the height from from the grade from the border street 17 178 is that right that's correct and and the overall the home is 29
and and the zone allows 32 um 29's your ridge height on the home yes Right. So, unless you have any other questions, I I'll call I make one clarification for the total floor area. I have 4,198 ft. It's 10
square feet more than what you calculated. So, I just want to use my letter with the official square footage. Uh I I actually presume that was a typo. I just backed into the math of of our plans and I But it is that you use your
CAD to do it. Yes. Okay. Well, why don't we have a back and forth once you put your architect on? Sure. So, uh, called James Bailey. Um, you sworn in. So, would you mind given
your credential? You should know if you lost any credentials since we've No, I haven't. I What's that? I I've testified before the board for the last 30 plus years. And you haven't lost any credentials? No, I have not. All right. I just renewed my license again. Congratulations. Well, handled. We'll
speak the latest credentials, Mr. Bailey. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so Mr. J, this is in the R10A zone, correct? Correct. Um, and I guess can you just describe in
general, I the addition that we're seeking? Right. So, it's it's really from the cap obviously. So um as you discussed so other than that it meets all the except for that one pre-existing which is just
a corner of the back of the garage you know that that you just mentioned that set back there other than that it meets all the setbacks um it meets the F height all the other criteria coverages you calculating the square footage you
looked at the basement versus seller and you determined that's a seller correct correct it's deep Yeah, according to the new criteria that you're and then there's an attic but you calculated that it's a half story attic that's in count towards floor area based on the attic floor area compared to the or below it.
That is correct. Yes. Does or doesn't? It does not. It does not. Is this finished right now? Third story att. No. Okay. So, Mr. Dale, you did an asbel drawing of the existing home. I know you're only doing an addition here. You did an asel drawing. Um there is one but
uh it's uh yes there is an asel for this um yeah yeah that that's what this this uh this is the asel right here actually on sheet A2 I I continue to be troubled by the idea of fitting the existing house to the
3220 and so you have Mr. Rizzo, you have taken the scale of that drawing. You have confirmed it and you're comfortable that the existing house is 3220 on the No, I did not do that. I I I looked at the existing house including the the sun
room that would fall on it and came up with 3479. Um Mr. Sardo was saying without the sun room was 3220. I didn't do that calculation. That's about our delta, right? Because I said it's 3471. He's saying 3479. I I don't think actually that's the
issue. But it and but it here's the thing. If the house the rules have changed, right? So the calculation of what the square footage of the house is being exactly the same as when it was originally built and all of that coming in exactly on the number which is the maximum seems odd.
I'm just going to suggest that if we get to an approval that something be conditioned on certification of the existing size because the house could be 400 ft. Well, it goes and we'll be looking at something very different. But I I I will not take you down that rabbit hole again.
Okay. I in the OPER request I found there was a 2018, you know, closing out the permit from an addition um of prior work that noted there was a certification to the floor area at that time. I don't know if the ordinances changed, but
they have changed. The the issue as to whether or not it would affect the way this measured depend on exactly how it built. And so if you have that, if you have a certification from 2018 and from a prior renovation, that's probably fairly reliable. Um, but it you can't
just take the existing home and come in for the addition and talk about a total number without that being a concern for me. I don't know how everybody else feels. Um, but that that's what that's about. It it's just about what the total is. We talk about the addition. We can assume that the numbers are right. It
sounds like Jordan's done a look at it in total. It's probably understood. Um I guess I' I'd like to
just come back to the plan here. Um well, before I do that, I I just want to explain kind of the genesis of this application. The applicant has three children. They're growing. They play sports. They have friends. They're
um finding that oftentimes all three kids have their friends over. They're on the ground floor and somewhat open floor plan and they are relegated to their master bedroom upstairs to escape that. Um part of their desire to do this is to
have this other room that the kids could run a muck in the rest of the ground floor and they would be able to use this um addition as their own space. Now I understand that doesn't go to the variance or the proofs but I thought it might be relevant to just the
discussion C1 or C2. Yeah. Yeah. Is the basement finished? I don't believe it's finished. It is finished. It is finished and and that that's meets the criteria for
it's a seller for the for the zoning ordinance. Correct. and and it is finished. And how many square feet is the basement? Can you answer that? It it it's the same footprint as the the
first floor. So it's Oh, here it is. Yeah. Uh yeah 1475 that that's to the outside and and it's all finished. Oh no it's not completely finished. There's
some storage down there. It is not all finished. It's about 80% finished. Can you spell your last name for the record? Sure. Thanks. Chris Greer, homeowner, 16 River Lawn Drive, Fair Haven. Welcome. Thank you. Uh the basement is about 80% finished. There's an area where the
heating is that is not finished in the back of it. While I'm here, if I could, um I did want to just kind of jump on what John had said as well and just kind of give a a statement from our family. So I'm a Fair Haven resident with my wife for the last 15 years. We came to town um 15
years ago, lived at a house in Lincoln Avenue for 5 years, have moved into the property we live in now for the last 10. We have been very involved community members um coaching kids, class parents, volunteers in the town. We've been very
good citizens. Um and I think what John had started to say is the reason we actually had to go undergo this process to actually come in front of you tonight. Our kids are getting older. I have two boys at CBA. They play sports. Um a daughter will be in high school next year. We are the ground base for a
lot of their social friends coming over and we actually enjoy that. We like having the kids at our house and kind of moderating what's going on. The problem is based on the layout that we have, the family room is very tight and very tiny. The sun room doesn't offer us much in terms of space also. And you know, the
basement is what it is. So John's right. Many times I get home from work and as much as I want to spend time with my kids in high school, I don't think they want to spend time with me. So I'm kind of relegated up to the bedroom most nights. That won't change for children. No, I know that. Um, on top of that, we do quite a bit of
hosting with our families for the holidays as well. I'm the oldest of five children. There's 10 grandchildren on my mom's side of the family. Everybody's over with the holidays quite a bit. We have a lot of overflow that leads to the mudroom and garage with folks and we can't really accommodate the size of
people coming through. My wife also is one of three. We typically have both families over. Um, so it's that. And the third reason behind the ask is, you know, my job has afforded me the opportunity to work a little bit more at home recently. So, uh, I am at home. I need a little more space to do that, especially with the kids coming home and
look for places to study and us all to be able to segregate and do our own things. So, there's kind of three reasons why we've gone about this. And again, I've been in town 15 years. We've never approached you guys about any sort of variance or need for this. And quite frankly, I I kind of wish I never had to go down this road. But because of, you
know, trying to make the situation a little more palatable and friendly for the family, um, we're kind of looking just to add the one room, which, you know, we have put into consideration other comparables on the street. We don't think it's a big ask, um, relative, but, you know, I did just kind
of want to throw this all out there as kind of what the premise is behind we're coming forward with this. Thank you. Um, so if I could I just Do you do you have an aerial of the uh an arrow?
I do. And I'm just going to show this because it will kind of frame out the orientation of the house on the lot and where it is located in the neighborhood. Um, Ariel K7, you want to hand that out?
Sure. You give us approximate date of the aerial sir. I did I I told this in the last week. Do you know if that that's reflective of the time when the area was taken
the Google satellite image? It's a Google image and I've cropped out that information but it was the most current one. Um I think there's enough here. And there's
I just want to have Mr. say that plastic conditions that are best this is what they show there. Hey Jordan, but just off the plan by the way that sun room is 250 foot almost on the nose. So it comes out like 3229 I
think if you're using Mr. Solo's logic but that's just off but 178 by 14. Okay. I I agree on the on this representing the current state of the street. Yes. So there's two sheets in this handout.
One is uh no show. Um so the first sheets like at a higher level and then the second sheets more zoomed in. Um but you know as you come down Riveron Drive this
property you go down you make a left um you go to the right you head hit water you go to the left towards the culdesac bulb there you're heading towards this house the house is indicated with the red dot um it is you know almost at the end of the culde-sac there's an island
in the middle that has um existing trees and you could see that the the if you're looking down page that's where the addition would be off that side of the home. Um, and you really there's very
few properties that have advantage of the addition. Um, and almost no one has a a head-on view of what the home is. So, when we're looking at the plans here and you're seeing a two-dimensional brass facade elevation, um I think it's
just relevant to point out that um there's not much traffic in this neighborhood as it is and not almost no one will see it on headon. Um um so it doesn't have necessarily the massing that it might appear to have in
the two-dimensional elevation. Um you took a look at the setback in the adjacent property as well. Yeah. And can you just reference that on your plan? I think it's on A1 on the plot plan. Right. On this this plan here, plot
plan. Yeah. There's a setback to the adjacent property is uh think that's 30 ft 33 3.39 ft is and that's the closest point and that's just the point of the adjacent um
right. And that that complies with the ordinance requirements for house to house setback. Correct. And then um you know the the other street the other home that is
I guess in closest proximity that would have a view is across the culdeac. It's 11 river lawn. Um but there's some screening there by the culde-sac trees. Um I'm just looking at the sheet two of this handout from A7.
So, I'm looking at the photos on in Mr. Rizzo's report and I'm seeing the patio area. So, does the patio area remain exactly where it is and the addition goes in front of it or is the patio being removed, the addition being placed and then the new patio behind and behind it.
Um, generally speaking, the addition is going right up to the edge of this patio, I believe. Right. patio is stained and and this goes right in front of it because it's right up to it. It it actually opens out confetti. And then there there you see a hot tub
in the to shift more uh rearwise. We we have it depicted on the uh the plot plan there and there's just a little pad that is in addition to this patio, but none of that
bumps us over in pvious coverage. And like I guess while we're here too, there's an existing fence that comes up along the the side the sideyard there that will have to be some of it will have to be removed um in order to
accommodate the addition and join it join it up to the fence will join up to the addition. Correct. Or yes. It's tied on lot coverage though. It does come right up to Yes, it's nearly there.
Um, but the property topography relatively flat. Correct. And I I've spoke to the applicant and there's no ponding pooling or flooding that he's represented in his experience. Um,
Jim, can you show 82 and just I'd like to just revisit the cathedral ceilings, but that's something you'll be talking about. Um, so under the ordinance, uh, the highlighted area, right, is the area that counts as the correct six to seven
square feet of additional floor area. Yeah. And as I understand it, the purpose of including that is in in the ordinance in the calculation is that it may have the ability to become habitable at some point in the future. Um, and I I
would represent that I don't think there's a practical likelihood of that even being able to happen because what will the um Jim, what is the I guess the height from the second floor on the uh existing
home? Yeah, this is the second floor line. This orange line here kind of highlighted on this. I see it there. And uh if you build out flush with the existing second floor, you would have you couldn't be any taller than like
five feet to to fit in there. Honestly, within that ridge, what's the width of that area? Uh 6'8. And what's the length? Uh it's the entire length of the actual dish. So that's that 25 ft.
Are are you talking to come up under the ridge? Yeah. 25. Yeah. 25 length and then a the width. So look, here's the way this this works. I'm speaking to the board right now. Um
so the historical interpretation of a second story um is basically built over time based on the way the ordinances have been interpreted and read. And so the the old rule was that when you reached a point that you could put a
floor joist in at 8 ft and you could get a ceiling height on the second level that would exceed 73 or whatever ucc in order to make it happenable. Um that's when the trigger happened on the
second story. Um and so if you were under whatever that number was eight plus seven plus the the width of the four number was roughly 17 feet. When the ordinances changed I think in 2022 there was a new ordinance which was
intended to track spaces and attic spaces which were volume uh but were not being finished. And so what you're looking at here is the conflict between the new ordinance and the old interpretation of what was going to be
trivial said, you know. And so I I certainly if your argument is that if if the legislative intent was that if it were to be usable, you'd want to be counted, your point is you don't have the ceiling height and it wouldn't practically be usable. I
think that that's fair. Um and we we will discuss it further because the interaction between the old interpretation and the new ordinance is something that's being discussed right now um as well. Okay. So you clearly grasp where I was heading with this and my thought is that
if someone get on their hands and knees and an army problem it's only 4 foot6 if you made it even with the second um second floor. Yeah. So, but the the real legislative intent was to capture bulk. And so, it wasn't so much to be concerned that eventually you were going to finish a
floor for really small people. It was to capture the area so that if we don't allow it to be oversized, right? And so, the issues identified on the plans, we can talk it through and and the board will consider it as as it is. And and just adding on to that, I think,
what what is the ceiling height in the existing home on the first floor? the it's it's 8 feet. Okay. And is that gonna Oh, so that that was a standard height back then when it was built. Yes. So, but I guess my point was if they had
used the addition if if the home was to the 32 ft, maybe this wouldn't even be triggered because the the floor on the existing home would be higher. No, I'm confused, Mr. Daily. The floor in the existing house is 8 ft. Well, the
first 8t made your 8 foot mark for the addition, but it appears to be below the level of the second floor of the existing house. You have an 8ft measurement and it appears to be below that. But
then when you extrapolate your second floor, you say, "Well, my second floor 8." Well, well, you have the structure of the second floor itself would have to be, you know, discounted. In other words, your floor is about a foot thick. I don't understand. If the ceiling of floor one is 8 ft, shouldn't that match up with your 8 foot number of the
addition? Well, no, because you'd have to have your floor structure in there in order to make that second floor above this bigger, right? You say the bottom the bottom of the floor structure. Yeah, the bottom 8 ft, but the floor
itself would be at like say 9 ft. Put the dash. I'm just looking. I'm just going over. Okay. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Um, are we are we going for a C1 or C2 here?
What's the uh I I think it fits most squarely under. I think that you have someone to speak to that question. I I do not have a professional
planner, but I'm prepared to discuss what would be the substance of that. I don't have an expert witness for that. Um, so can you just I guess show the uh front facade.
There's a basement or a seller being constructed underneath the addition. Yes, there is. Yes, there's a full basement that will be linked up to the existing basement. Um, so A3, that's your four elevations, right? And I just was seizing on front
elevation. Um, can you just discuss, I guess, the math thing and and discuss where the breakups are, the setbacks, and you know, how you interpret it? If you look at it in plan, just just to give you some sense of size, it's it's pretty much the exact same size as the garage that's on
the opposite side of the house. So, it's almost the exact same size of a twocar off 550 ft. And a typical twocar is 22 by say 24 or so. Um, so it matches up where the house is in the center. That's
the higher piece. And it steps down in the garage on the left and then this addition steps down on the right. Uh, and then the height of that addition is the 178 that you've talked about before. So, it balances the house out actually with two two pieces on either
side that are only one story that are the footprint of a twocar garage. And and as you drive down Riveron Drive, are are you going to see the No, you would not see you wouldn't see until you got into the culde-sac itself.
Yeah. Okay. Um, were there any comments in Mr. Reg's letter that we have not addressed or have we addressed them all? One thing I just wanted to mention is that there's no sidewalk in the front. Um, yes. And the ordinance requires that there is
sidewalk in the front. Um, and there's an option for a payment in loop uh coordinated with the burough engineer. Um, we're not really going to get into that much further tonight other than just mentioning it and making a requirement. Yeah, understood. And um, I guess if
we would make that request and you can make it anytime you'd like, right? Yeah, I'm sorry. Like anytime now up until the resolution compliance. That's it's a Yeah, correct. It would be a condition. Understood. Um, can I ask a question on that while I'm here? Um, there are no
Yeah, that's the point. So the intent is so that they do get built, right? And then and if you don't and it's not practical, there's a payment option. That's that's all calculated by the burrow engine. And that's just for So when I think sidewalk safety, right, for for people walking outside
the area back there, there's there's no traffic whatsoever. Yeah. That's not for me to decide. No, just there's a standard requirement that you'd have to to pay into a a fund to do them if you if you're not required to do it. Got it. Okay. Sure. Just say it's not it's it's
an ordinance requirement. The planning board doesn't have the right to relieve from that. I got a requirement at this point in time. You can convince the municipality that there's no need or if there's an extra value. Good on you. Perfect. That's all. But it's going to be it would be a condition in your approval and down the
line when we sign off. Mr. Rizzo is going to look at it and say, "Did you address that?" If you've addressed it, fine. If you haven't addressed it, we won't give you a full compliance. Okay, fair enough. Thanks for explaining that. I appreciate it.
Um just just turning back at least to the negative criteria, the variance relief that we sought. Um yeah, I mean I mean you're if you're out of C2, you're going to demonstrate that this advances the purpose of the zoning and development regulations by the
deviation of the deviation that you're proposing. um substantially substantially that way. I'm not going to reiterate that. I'm sure you know that. As I'm looking at your application right now, our arguments are we got a big lot and the addition is only going to be seen by two folks, but I don't know that
that addresses the criteria. The two neighbors, not two folks, two neighbors. Yeah, understood. Um the the positive criteria, you know, I think there's several general purposes
that are advanced. um that speak to residential uh appropriate establishment of residential densities and neighborhood communities providing sufficient space um locations for residential uses etc. I think those are
not hard to satisfy the the tougher prompts to meet around the negative criteria um and causing no judgment to the public good as to that. Um, as you mentioned, we we pointed out that there's not a substantial roadway. There's not
traffic. It's not a a viewhed for a lot of the community. If you're back there, you're either on a walk with your dog or you're there by accident or you're going to one of these houses. Um, the impacts to the neighbors um on the
one adjacent side to the north, they're going to be completely screened from this addition. They won't see it. I I guess the to shorten the sweet on this because I I don't think anybody agrees disagrees with the density bonding or all those things. And on the criteria, you're gonna have to demonstrate that
this doesn't just benefit this applicant so that he has a place to allow the families to gather and do those kinds of things, but that this deviation by exceeding the cap might in fact that the burrows has a cap on it
that this deviation this instance has a benefit to the surrounding neighbors or the other property owners. I and I mean certainly it has a benefit to this a C2 is somewhat different in that you're going to have to show that
and we've it's been stated differently before the board. If if mayor and council were to look and I'll steal the chairman's example not too long ago. If mayor and council were to look at this particular property would they say oh yeah this is a better plan than what we had originally planned all the other
neighbors there. Well, at this point, I don't know that the board's heard that, but I leave that to you to to make the argument. Well, I I think that it promotes desirable visual environment using creative techniques and good design. I think you've heard about how this
balances out the house um with the addition the facade and it's complimentary and the regard and um I I in the response to the question I don't think we were approaching with a hardship but I guess
there is some extent a hardship in that it's an existing lot an existing home um and it might otherwise be if you were doing totally new construction it's a different story than if you were working with an existing home, preserving it and working off of it. So there are
be small out of this. It was new construction, right? Yeah. Because it you're able to design around. Yes. I'm just not sure it's good to You're not Let's take a look. Let's see one. See where you go. You're not
claiming that there's extraordinary narrowness or shallowess or shape of properties. That's the A criteria. is that there's some exception to the topography or some physical fund you're focusing on that as a result of
structures of the law existing this creates a hardship. I trying to focus your argument on that. That's sort of what I would characterize as the the third criteria under the C1 that you're saying the way in which the structure is located on this property. They're
they're all lawful that we need to put this addition that addition forces us to exceed the cap. So I'm going to let you ruminate on that a little bit. So I'm just looking at table C. So you know the way I view table C is that it allows us to compare
the different lot sizes and what the zone permits. So this is our 10A 10,000 square foot lot. It's all on the plants. has the question of now I compared this to myself
15 just as a personal exercise but the the frontage here is listed is 104 ft the front lot line along with the rightway is 77 something I was just curious how we got 104 feet
of I know we can get 100 feet of width because that's calculated a different way but It's 77.95 plus uh around the curve, but it another it doesn't go around the curve though, right? 14. There's another
lot there. So, it it appears on the survey to show 7795 right there including this building. That property doesn't go that place. Yeah. So, it takes a portion of the curve. It
goes up to the the southern property line which is another 26 million. Well, let me let me get through let me get through my point right. So that's 77.9 ft. That's that's a straight line and then
it stops right there. that little tickets and adds to I guess indicator. So I I think that's a fair question. I mean I'm looking at the survey. It says 7795 and it shows the existing is 104 as
the frontage. So where does that number come from? You well part of it has a radius and a curve and then you take the 7795 plus the 2678, right? That's what you're the 77.95 is a straight line. Oh, so that's the straight portion. I would
need to add in 2678. Good. All right. Then we get to 104. You go with that. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted I'll go with that, too. Okay. So, that's a good question. Apart from the proofs. Okay. I'm trying to assess what you're proposing relative to the rest of the zoning standards. So,
bumping you to the next zone is R15. That's a 15,000 foot lot minimum. Bronze digit 120. Front yard set that at 35 rear at 30.
One one side at 12, one side at 30. Lock coverage of 35. So it goes down from 40 to 35. And your maximum hab ratio. It really still sayable on table C.
It goes from 28. It goes from 0 28 to 0 2. So you don't comply as proposed with those standards. And that would get you to the 3450, which is actually what you're at right now, plus or minus based on the sunroof. Did you follow me so far?
Yep. So now when you go up to the R20, which is two zones up, it's 20,000 minimum, which this lot is just short above, but it's it's similar to this. The setbacks are greater. And then you
get to lot coverage, which holds a 35. gloria ratio goes down to 180 which this would exceed and then you get to the 4140 even if we eliminate the vaulted area. Okay, we just take that out the 170. What what is it? What is without the
ball? What's the total square footage? It's like 49,000 with or without the ball. Without the vault. Without the vault. Well, but it's 4,000 21. Okay. The vault plus 10.
4021 4031. Oh, sorry. Okay. 4031. Net of the vault is ceiling. Okay. So, we're almost at the square footage for the R20. But what what what I'm always focused on is when you're
proposing to build something larger and you're leaning into the idea that the lot is larger, you have to focus on what those other standards are. And so, the lot coverage standards come down. They get constrained. the setbacks go back. And so what's happening here is that you're proposing to make it as large
effectively as what would be permitted within an R20, but you're not observing the R20 setbacks or any of the other R20 requirements. The lot coverage is actually fairly significant with a very large patio. Um, and so while you may not have standing water issues right now, it's certainly a hot button in town
and it's a concern. Um, I just I just throw that out there for context. My immediate reaction to this is I understand it. I'm not sure I understand it with a renovation that he did in 2018 which was pinned at 3220 which probably represented that the porch or not the
porch but the sun room was going to stay threeseason and so it seems to be a little bit bigger than what was represented in 2018. I generally get that people aren't going to see it but I'm looking at it against those other standards and I think you got to
reconcile those things. Well, um, well, assume for the moment that we're applying, we're going up up the zone and he had to comply with the 35% lock coverage. I think that we I mean, the driveway
significant, the patio significant, I think we could, if the board was inclined to head in that direction, I think we could probably reduce or comply with that. That's all the standards, right? after the up. We're going to always have problem with the lot frontage because we're on a culde-sac. So, it's
No, no, no. But that's in the lot and and I understand that there's nothing you can do about that, but you're proposing to construct this addition and I didn't I'm sitting here doing it right now. So, I don't know what the setback would be if you were R20, but I don't think it would be 11 ft. But the floor area ratio also comes down
to exceed that even for the R20 trigger. Well, well, that's right. And so, you know, when you start by saying this is not to you, it's very common that we would be at, you know, half of what the Florida ratio is, that's based on you having a 10,000t lot. And so when you
take advantage of that because you're in R10 and then you look at it in R20, it it's it's not beneficial. It's actually it's actually over the for ratio if you look at it under R20. Understood.
And that Yeah. under that upzoning were over the cap. Well, you don't qualify for the upzoning, so you didn't you didn't miss that. You can't do it because the lot the lot's irregular, so it would be unusual to be able to put the to work that way. Um,
what what's proposed by way of storm water mitigation? What did you come in tonight? What's on the plans? um as proposed on the plans we don't have any but there would be the ability to because it's not part of the variance we
don't have anything to address but in the context of the discussion um certainly drywall there there's an opportunity I guess to do a drywall that would connect to the addition um for all that
the the area of the addition I'm not sure that you could connect. So the survey was done 2015. The renovations were done in 2018. Does the survey dated 2015? Oh, sorry. It was
updated was updated in 25. Updated in 24 and 25. So were the numbers, Mr. Dailyaly, with regard to the lock coverage, did they come directly from the surveyor? They did. Yes. Once again, like right at the number.
I did my own calculation. I got a little bit more, but that's that's what's in my letter. How much more? It's at 39.8%. So, it's it's under it's stressful parts in the level. Look, I think your hardship argument is
based on your existing structure and trying to figure out how to work with it. And I think you do have to be able to work around it, but you're at the max. You're over the max already. So, I think that's a hard argument to make. You're not renovating the home to make
it modern because you've already done that. You've opened it up on the first floor. You've got four bedrooms. You've got I at least two bathrooms upstairs. You've got a finished and usable basement. With regard to the balancing, the problem is that when you're looking at a
house of this size on this size lot, you can make the argument that the that the lot can sustain the house, but you're also establishing precedent. You're also creating arguments for other people that they should be able to do the same thing. And there should be some feeling
of fit. The best feeling of fit I'm getting is I'm not going to be able to see it. But that argument has no logical end because I really couldn't see anything built over here. I mean, you could build something three times as large. And so, I'm not I'm not persuaded by that entirely. It's certainly a
mitigated factor. You mentioned Senate President, which I don't know if it does or doesn't. Yeah. Right. Uh and on that same vein, right, understanding that other approvals are on presidential, but the
house right next door at 19 Riverlon, um that's on about a 10,000 square foot lot with 3612, right? So that is Tell me how this one established president after stating that. I mean, I didn't I didn't start it. Well, I think that's I think that's exactly the
problem is that the truth is that the neighborhood character is defined by what's built there. And so we're we're we're being asked to be more flexible. And so the question is whether or not there are unique circumstances here that make it appropriate on this lot and
would make it appropriate on another or that give us a reason to deviate from the standards which just to continue by way of comparison and just for the that purpose alone. Um there's there's 34 river which is
up up around up around the corner when you're going back out towards Fair Haven Road. That's a 4418 square foot. Where do you get that number though? The best information I could get which was from the tax accessories floor area.
You understand that that's calculated entirely differently than well, right? The the argument is there's an oversized home, you know, identify them. Forget exactly what that aspect of that doesn't mean,
right? And I mean we I was represented the diaons that were in the R5 zone that is just down the street on Normandy and they were over 1,000 square ft over the 2200 number um in that zone. So um I
fully appreciate every point you've made about the cap and how it works and why it's there. Um I'm simply pointing out that there's many uh instances it appears in the area and just to name a few that um
seem to exceed the extent or the magnitude of what we're asking for here with this application. Um and again I'm just mentioning that by pointing it out for comparative purposes about precedent. Um,
if I could, John, too, let me just jump in real fast. So, there's I think there's 17 houses on Riverlone Drive. Um, rough math, and again, this is not the set of precedents, but just the homework that I've done, roughly 25% are already over the 4,000 regardless of the square footage of the property itself.
Um, what we're asking here is not out of character for the neighborhood whatsoever. In fact, I would argue it fits in and fits in very well just based on um the desire to live back there, the the other homes that are there, the families that are there, um and what we've seen through the years. I know
John referenced the house that's two doors down from me has a same footprint in terms of a lot that um we could agree or disagree that it's 44 and change, but it's definitely in that neighborhood and they have a 47 lot where we have a point45. Um, I I think what we're asking
is to just kind of round out the house and finish it so that we can live in a situation where we all can use the house better, but it also fits the character of what the neighborhood is. If you look at the other houses there and how they've been done and how they've been uh cared for through the years, you can
see that what we're looking is just an an addition to kind of the rest of the footprint within that street. H how did this get overlooked seven years ago when you renovated the house? Which part? the fact that you needed this additional space right now and this addition or the
project from seven years ago. How did the fact that you would need this space to live in reasonably Yeah. get missed seven years ago when you renovated the house? Well, I am a tall individual, 6'3. I have I have two boys, one 65, one 6'2. They weren't that height back then. Did you?
They are also basketball players. People People are entitled though. People are allowed to come with new applications to renovate their home. as frequently as they'd like. I mean, I I don't think we should What I'm trying to say is the dynamics just saying it makes perfect sense to do this. Yes.
But it didn't make perfect sense ago. Your children weren't going to grow anymore. Well, you can't you can't I mean I listen I don't have a crystal ball for that either though, right? Like who knows? Like I didn't I didn't know they were going to grow to 6'5 and bring all their basketball friends in our house and and that's impossible to to know
when we're talking about parentable kids. I don't know. Well, here's the problem. None of that is relevant to what we're looking at. And when I read the opening statement, I I intend for people to not spend too much time talking about personal circumstances, but by allowing you to go through it, kind of open up the the discussion
about, okay, well, how do we wind up getting here? Sure. It really isn't relevant at you, your height of the kids, and all the rest, even even necessarily how you use the house. It's for us about the structure itself, and it's about not undermining the zoning regulations, as they said.
And so the the truth is that all of the zoning has been reviewed many many times. There haven't been any changes which will permit you by right to expand the house in the way that you're proposing today. We have done things to try to create some openings through the
zonal ordinance. And frankly, if you had a lot that conformed to R20, if it had a problem with the frontage, and you could argue that the house to be constructed would comply with all the R20, all of it, then you'd be able to make a strong argument, and then that would really carry the C2 day. You you would be able
to say, you are actually holding to the R20 standard. This is just an irregular lot, and we would build in accordance with what the R20 standard is. if you start looking at it to figure out where you don't comply. The problem is there's too many areas that you don't comply um in order for that argument to be strong.
And so I'm not saying that that wins the day. I just pointed it out. But I do think that that's what this is about. It's just about the structure. It's not about the family. We appreciate all your contributions to towns. We contribute as well. Um we we really just want to kind of do our job. Absolutely. So the bottom line is that
in order for us to do it, to grant the approval and to be able to say no to the next person, you have to be able to differentiate between what you have here and what they will bring in to show us. And so we need those things. And so we're we're certainly open to hearing what those things are.
Is there any landscaping that was proposed to screen where the addition is supposed to go? There isn't on the plan. And I believe there's some existing landscape between the two left. Correct. Correct.
Um I there's extensive trees and shrubbery on on the right hand side to the neighbors to the right where the addiction's going that that would stay. There's full grown trees there. There's actually quite a bit of foliage on that right side.
And sometimes when you're doing construction, you wind up uh damaging trees. Then that could be replaced obviously. Yeah. And we sort of touched on the issue of the block coverage. It's right up against it. Um I believe there was a mention possibly doing well, but it was
uncertain that we need to pick up anything from the existing structure. I mean I think if that was a possibility there's something that you can say where you're actually making the condition better. You know, everything the chairman said is is spot on about where
this house fits in this ex existing zone and the zone that are higher. I'm just looking for things that can be done to improve the existing situation on this lot. Understood and appreciate that comment.
I think it's productive. Um, and the planting one as well. I I don't know if that and I'm not sure if that's relevant to other people that are up there, but I'm just, you know, it's something that we're talking about how it's not going to impact the neighbors. Well, how is that? You know, what are we doing to try
to minimize the impact to the the neighborhood? I see something. Yeah, we need to step up to the Please identify Joe Sacka.
Um when you're driving up river lawn, you're going around the culdeac. You don't see anybody's patios. Um this does screen off of the patio. All the functions that are there.
Uh there's a um there's fireplace, the hot tub, seating area. They're sort of out in the open here. The addition it it screens it off. It's now their private space. Okay. Now,
the way that the house is laid out, you've got in the way it was originally designed, and when they did the addition, they put certain functions on the back. So, it didn't lend itself to adding on to the back of the house. You had to go out to the side with this. And
you can't, you know, as to why he didn't build this then. I mean, maybe it wasn't in his budget to add that at that time, so he's proposing it now. Um, you know, this is living room is in the front, dining room is in the front,
kitchen is in the middle, and then in the back was added laundry room, mud room, and access, you know, to the backyard. Um, but this is this is the place to to have this. And I think it screens off
the uh you know that that paddington usage back there. I think that's part of how it benefits uh benefits the neighborhood. Is there something unsightly about the patio or the hot tub? Not sightly, but I think you know it's
it is um it is you know it is visible and to everybody else around the culdeac. It is kind of a, you know, it's not like a, you know, it's, you know, you do have the houses coming around. It's not like a a linear street where, you know, you
kind of get a glimpse maybe if you're driving down the street, maybe for the neighbor across the street, but this the way this is kind of like now everybody can kind of see what's going on there. And I think by having the addition here, it it screams it off. Um, and then there's fence. There's high planting
back here. So, it's it's not something that's presently visible to the neighbors behind it. And the neighbors behind their yards front of Fair Haven Road. These are the really long lots and all the homes are up along the frontage there.
Um, Mr. Le, just to respond back, I you know, the sideyard setback I think is still Again, we're not availing ourselves. Stop zoning not available to us, but sideyard setback would still be 10 ft, which we can follow up.
Obviously, we have the issues you mentioned with uh impervious coverage in the F. Um the front yard setback while the existing structure um
is just over the permitted for the R10A the addition how far is the addition from the front corner there that's the 4135 okay so that is set back it's set back the front of the house
yeah the side bar was at the five. So you got a 14 if we were looking at the R20 if you're thankfully looking at it the way I I've looked at it and and put in context for that. We've got a 14 foot
one side and 35 on total. So what is the sideyard? How do we measure that sideyard given how it is? Is that the lear at the 2158 or is that a side? Oh, that's off the front. And then and then if you go up the side
lot line, then that that's the 11 11. Uh I'm looking our to our proposed total is 54.73 of the combined as are our plans. So that that's in excess as well of um
the R20 standard. Um, how how is that possible? How can you be 69 today, install a 25 foot wide addition and only reduce the sideyard by 15 ft
because it's going back at an angle. It's tapering back from the front. So, it's it's not as it's not as if the the side yard line is parallel to the house. But wouldn't that be the case either
with the existing condition and the proposed condition? What what is the existing sub that was that measurement isn't shown? Yeah, I don't know. No, it's evidence 26 26 feet.
That's what's on the survey. 26.3 ft, right? 630. What? That's the dimension from the existing corner of the house to the nearest uh point on the neighbor neighboring property line.
That's not sure. No, it's on the survey. Oh, okay. So, so that supports what you just said. So, if the existing is 26, the proposal is 11. That's where the 15 is. It's relative to the angle. You pick up the 10 ft because it's set that, right? Yeah. Okay. So it wouldn't it wouldn't
comply, but you've sort of noted the deviation is not great. The glor ratio is still problematic. What's the glory ratio is proposed? 3121
includes the voltage ceiling. It includes the voltage. I would pull that out. And the other question I have for you is what what's happening with this? So that's not what what's happening with the threeseason room. You're being caught up
because your number has a four in front of it. You're not you're not coming in at 3220 and asking to add a 500 foot division. You have a house that's almost 3500 ft. And part of that problem is this this three season. So what's the nature of
it? What was renovated in 2018? Is is it is it regular usable space? Is it just porch? What what is it? We bought the house in 2015. Um, fully screened room that had wooden poles down the middle. When we bought the house, the wooden poles were pretty much
breaking apart and decaying based on the exposure to the elements. In conjunction with the project that we came forward in 2016, um, I think it took place 2017, we built a master bedroom on top of that screen and porch. And at the same time, also included in the plans to turn that
room away from the full seasonal screens to ones with windows as well. did not add heat or air at that time at all and just used the room as, you know, a seasonal room per se, but didn't have to deal with the um the maintenance and the wherewithal of potentially the room
collapsing with those poles the way they were. Those pictures in the engine's report, I think that's the best way to understand what it is. Well, no, because threeseason runs can look an awful lot like rooms and and the truth is that that ordinance, you know, there's a real
fine line between what winds up folding in. And and so there's at least an argument here that it either either isn't or shouldn't or it should be dis discounted because of the nature of what that space is. And look, at the end of the day,
unfortunately, the way it sits right underneath everything else, the bulk is still there. But maybe in the new elevations, if you look at those, it's it's it's windows. It's not Are you trying the elevations, not these large windows
that could possibly be interpreted as being a street with I think we did the renovation on this back in 17 to the current state it was in. You know, as part of this project, we weren't looking necessarily to do anything with that room again.
But but to Al's point when I look at the rear elevation to me doesn't look like elevation there. It looks like any other finished space like there could be a family room doing
the script. Well, for example, there's a door there. No. Is that Oh, that door is going to remain. Which which door, Mr. Leader? Well, here's what I'm assuming. I'm looking at page seven on Mr. Rizo where which shows the back corner of the house
and I think that shows the the screened in porch. Right. Uh is that it looking? Yes. Correct. Okay. So, as I look at that, I've got um a decorative molding. I've got a door. I've got two um two traditional windows.
And then if I look around the corner, I have three additional windows. Correct. When I look at the proposed elevations and I look at the rear, I think what I'm looking at at the right rear right on the side of the garage is the door remains and I've got siding and I've got a single window
and I'd have to look for the side elev. It's the south elevation. Is that the one that it's there? Yeah. Yeah, I think there's a is there a fourth window? Four windows on the rear elevation. those three windows in the picture. And on the side elevation, you see the
door and the two smaller windows next to it. All right. Is the side with the door and the two large. So there are pulling on there, John. Yeah. On the side of the house. Are you residing the house? Is that part of what's happening? Just the area that more or less you'll
be new. So So this architectural doesn't really depict what it's going to look like. I mean, it's different siding on it. It's got cedar shade. that you got It's going catered impressions. I think they are impressions right now. Yeah.
I don't think that that's not part of the plan to change. Okay. So, let's pull ourselves out. Let me pull you out of my realm. One of the things that I'm looking at and trying to figure out how to make sense of this would be if that space was no longer counted as part of that. So if that
space was open, then that space would be a porch and it would clearly not be counted as square footage. The vaulted area, I've already tip my hand to you. I will recommend that board members totally discount that
vaulted space over there. That would pull off over 400 ft. And what you're looking at, assuming your 22, your 3220 is on the nose and correct, is that you'd be at the 3220 plus the addition.
By the way, using Mr. Wizzo's existing addition of 3479, if you remove the B67 ft, I come out of.197 for addition. Right. Well, we only did the for ratio based on that being included. I I identified that as not being the right
number that was going to be removed. What um if I could ask just for the details on what are the CR and and consult the ordinance I don't have in front of me to what extent do the the the windows
doors etc and the sun room need to be modified well to meet to meet the requirements of the ordinance I'll I'll defer to Mr. But but it's massive. I think it's something we need to work on. But I I would offer my opinion is the fact that it's
covered. It's got a um room above it. I don't know if there's much that you could do to discount the room altogether. I think we've had this in the past. I recall a property on Fairman Road that had an open uh porch in double. It's
also a property on Woodland. same situation where it was tucked underneath where it was underneath but consider we considered it a porch rather than a room. If I walk the opposite if I walk in through the door of the the the sun room
and I get into that space sure how is the exterior of the house because I'm now on a porch. How is it finished? And and if you were to remove those walls on the outside, it would it be ready to go or is it is it sheetrocked and is it like a room?
It probably was sheet I don't know specifically what they did and in terms of what was applied for in 2017. My understanding is it was sheetrocked and then windows were put in as opposed to the screens. Now I do want to throw out there this was never done to deceive anybody. Like this was part of the plans back in 2017 to fix that room and I
think we were just trying to comply and make the room safe at that point in time. But you bought the house in 2015. I did. Okay. So in 2015, I understood from Mr. Sardo because I was trying to get to 3220. There's some sort of certification in that file that the habitable space at that time was considered habitable space
was 3220, which would mean that this would have retained its definition as a for 2018. So I'm I got confused because wasn't a year renovation in terms of what happened to it? It was. Yes. So, is it finished like a
regular room and does it sort of carry through to the house as if it's a room or do you step through the the the exit from the rear of the house and come into that area and it's evident that it was at one time a porch and it just now has windows? That's correct. More the second than the first. You walk down and step on to a
stone floor. So, step into it. Um, in fact, there's a trap door in there also down to the basement out of out of there uh out of that sun room. Um trying to think what else I could give you in terms of the room itself. But yes, more coarse advent
wall. I'll tell you what, if you want to just introduce whatever we need your name first. Okay. Vanessa Greer on the other homeowner. This is my husband. Um I was just saying that the room it's the original flooring. It's like I don't even know. It's slate. So slate
flooring. I would have loved to redo it, but we the I guess we kept the slate and um also the when you were saying the structure of the wood also the screens were all flapping out. They were coming out um as well and we did fix them
initially and they just seem to keep popping out. Um what else is and then the trap door as well. So is it heated and cooled? Heating and cooling was added this year for the first time because we were trying to get to a spot where we could create the room for the family without
having to go through this process. So, we added it in March. This is after eight years of redoing the room and it didn't provide us the space that we needed for the 250 ft and it didn't provide us the privacy and so we had to move forward. So, when it was built, if it was going to be an open porch, you would have had
to insulate your floor. would have had to have constructed it in a way that would have been consistent with that being outside space. It doesn't sound to me like that's how it was done. That is correct. The flooring's never been changed and the splitter was added in March this year just to try and give us that flexibility
and it still hasn't provided the space that we need. Slider. Uh it is a double door with a one that opens next to it. Did you consider expanding that room and maybe making a 500 foot space, picking
up the 250 that you already have, expanding it back, capturing the 250 and finishing that the plus 250? Joe, we've talked about this a couple times. Um, I know it was difficult based on what that floor looked like and the footprint of the current sun room,
right? Um, I think we also somewhat need that trap door to get larger furniture up and down to the basement because the stairway is too narrow in the house. So, if we did a full family room out there instead, we lose the functionality of moving big furniture up and down the stairways. It just won't fit anymore.
Yeah. Can't that rule be converted back to a possibly any split? That's We've got a lot of comments. I think we have to um regroup and discuss how to address it. You want to take a brief break or do you
want to come back another night? Would you give me five minutes now and then I can give you chair? Yeah, but before you do that, Mr. I let's should I assume you you put on your your case and chief you have anything further regard your C1's and your C2s?
Uh I I didn't although I considered supplementing that another evening, but no, I don't presently have. So, um I'm just going to sort of look for the board to I'm looking for some confirmation of the
direction this is going because this is um it's a C variance. requires a bare majority and to the extent that um some of you that have been quiet um don't have an aversion to what's being proposed um I'd like to hear that because um we're kind of heading down
the direction of kind of rethinking the way this has been put together and I don't want to do that um if it's not necessary to obtain a bare majority I'm a little confused with what we're I mean we started talking you started talking about well ignore for a better
part of word the the vault ceiling. I'm just trying to get the numbers in my head about what So, so here's the reason here's the reason I'm proposing I'm proposing that because the reason that that's being counted is because of a tight reading of the ordinances that were not intended make that vaulted space avenue.
Agreed. And I'm telling you that it is it is contrary to what we intended to do this under the traditional interpretation of the ordinances. I don't know that we fully qualified it, but I think what's the ridge height, Mr. D? uh 178 for for
the addition and the ridge height on the house is 29. So but but even if it were off by a foot, it could be reduced and it could be brought down to where we would have historically treated it as a single story. There's no way you could treat it by by removing a little bit we can get it to
remove 200 plus square feet of it. And for that matter, if you brought it down a foot, you'd never know the difference. And so I'm suggesting to you that you consider it as a non-issue because I don't think that it it it isn't to me. and and and they're getting caught up in something that I would like to fix and I expect them will.
So that's that's that. It doesn't help the rest of the numbers because all of them have been done without it. No, fair enough. I mean I combining that and then the treatment of the sun room are the two things that that I don't have a problem. I think it balanced the house up very well. We honestly um I do
have an issue because I say wow it's 3500 ft already and 8500 ft² or whatever whatever you want to call it. But it's a big number especially with a finished basement. But if we treat the porch as a porch, which I know we have done in the past, even though it has a story above it, and we remove that say a foot. So we
remove another 170 square feet of vaulted space. In my mind, I can make the numbers justify just because of that. It's heated and cool. It doesn't qualify. And if you look at the the new elevations, it's it's clearly
not the same space. No, that's fine. That's that's honestly if you look at these plans and you can't tell that that's a for versus habitable area that's but but yes I hear you cuz that's too easy to answer is if it went back to fortune and it were completely open the
numbers the numbers would seem much better and and I've heard testimony that says yes it's here we tried to make it useful by putting the mini split in and an electric baseboard but the floor is really still stone porch floor. It's to me if you made that look more like porch
than a pseudo space that's how I can that's how I come and that's what that's what I mean okay I have a little different approach to things um you can't add to the rear of the house because uh because of the setbacks and u
I think that the basement is large and will be larger if you uh and I would try to make it fit into the R20 zone home and get rid of the vaulted space. But the other thing I would do is you have a
pretty big existing sitting area. All right. Uh if you move the addition back a little bit and you some of that sitting area and shorten
the uh shorten the um the family room, I think you could make you could get rid of a lot of the uh uh extra lot coverage and I would try to get it to fit into the uh into the uh uh the R20 zone. And
you can by using some of that existing sitting area and shortening this the uh new family room down significantly. I think you can make the whole thing fit. I came up with that thing as well. Not
that I'm an architect, but I just feel like there's a lot of space here that you can work with that maybe you do need a bump out, but I don't think it needs to be adding this much more square footage. I mean, if it doesn't mean that existing
the parameters to zone up to R15, if you looked at as an R20 because it's almost 20,000 square feet, it's even more significant. It's below the brand of I say it's 15 um setbacks especially
19. Yeah, this was done in 2018. It got through without coming to the board apparently because it was proposed as 3220. But
I think if you if you you know, unless I had a unless I had a tour of the inside of that threeseason room from the outside of this house, it it doesn't look like a screened in porch. It looks like some large windows
on the room and back it out in the So, so you've already pushed past the cap without coming here previously and now we're going farther. Well, I don't know that you've pushed
past the cap. The the zoning officer saw it deemed that to be nonal space and therefore that's why it's not. But what they're saying is originally it was a it was a screened in porch and over time they changed it from screened in porch to we fixed the screens to we put in
windows to we put in air conditioning and heating through this mini split to look at the current elevations that are proposed and it's part of the house and I I
so so it doesn't make it to R15 it makes it even west to R20. It's already exactly to the cap from the previous renovations, plus this space in the threeseason room that has been
conditioned since then in several different ways. I'm going to I'm going to take the opportunity to connect that dot with the dots over here and some of the earlier conversation about why wasn't it included in 2018. entirely up to you. Do
it in phases to change your mind to want to do additional things. That's not the issue. The issue is something different. It is that had you in 2018 worked with your existing space and configured it differently, you wouldn't have the needs. Perhaps you wouldn't have the needs today that you that you do that.
And when you're looking to add the room, it's the easiest thing. and maybe that's support for the hardship, but the problem is that you're leaving yourself with a relatively large first floor footprint, but it isn't really working the way you want it to work. And so somewhere in trying to figure that out, it it it feels like redoing
the plans to say, well, could we do it in 250? But the struggle with kind of where you wind up if you do it the way you proposed, it it it feels it feels difficult. And so I think marrying those thoughts that that's kind of where all
of this comes together is is this the most efficient way to do it and and part of that is redoing things you've already redone and and frankly that supports a hardship argument too. Um what what do you guys think? I mean, I was going to say I well, you know, I
get I get the the argument I although I sympathize with having a a smaller downstairs as well. I think it's an interesting argument that Dr. Rober and Miss Newman said about moving it back. It's not something I thought of. I think the problem is as it stands, there's
there's no actual passable argument here just to grant this for no reason, right? There's no hardship. It's not narrow. It's not shallow. There's really no having a lot too big isn't a hardship, right? It's It's incredibly nice, of course. Um, you know, and I wish I had it. I also wish I was 6'5, quite
frankly. But, but nevertheless, it's not a hardship. Um, and I think that's what's tough. And then the C2 piece of it saying, "Hey, let's let's screen it as as your architect said to it kind of feels like a tail wagon, right? Let's screen outdoor space by end of something that's
over involve what's allowed." Now maybe if you rework the plans and you come back and there's a much smaller footprint and everyone can kind of look at this enclosed porch albeit now uh you know mini split it out uh and you take
the you know vault it out you know maybe it becomes easier. I just think it it feels like a big ask but it feels like the the support for it not there. Um per and that's just that's that's my personal opinion. Um, but I think it's an interesting idea to potentially move
this back and maybe figure out a way to capture some of this sitting area. And it occurs to me too after uh Jackie have said that if you're in this kitchen here and this is shifted back, you you yes, you may lose a little bit of this patio, but you actually might have a nice sight line from the kitchen into this space as
well, whereas right now it's a little bit offset and you kind of don't have that sight line. So that's my uh that's feedback. So can I ask a question? as the homeowner on this and I appreciate the suggestions. Thank you. But if if you're saying we have to more or less work with
the existing scenario that we have, which is a very narrow room to begin with. Sure. Um and then start cutting into the patio and ripping the patio out just to build on this room on the side. Yeah. I mean that alone becomes a hardship I would think in itself, right? Because the cost to start fixing and recreating these problems is going to be
astronomical. But no, fully fully internalized and understanding. I I think the the point is right now in its current state it's not there at least for for where I'm sitting personally there's there's really no argument under the ordinance from a personal argument from a it's
going to balance the house from it's a beautiful area I drove it I we have friends live on Riverline all of that is fine unfortunately that's not the consideration that we have to give so I think they were just trying to put some context into something that maybe is passable um and I think going that next
thing is kind of like a little bit of a circular argument Now we're proposing something that isn't allowed and now it's a hardship because we have to do more work to get it to be allowed. I think it's kind of a little it's a little circular. Um but that's and again that's just my feedback. I don't know if anyone else said anything.
Is there as far as removing patio space and ripping that out? You are with this proposed addition really bumping up against the lot coverage anyway. It's pretty close as it is. Sure. So, as a as a prudent sense, you may want to remove some law coverage anyway, whether coming from the driveway
or the patio, that's your choice. But you got a lot of law coverage on a very big lot. So, I think to the extent that the drywall can pick up um certainly the addition, but possibly some of the existing structure, I think that will be at least
for me helpful. Yeah. So, so Marty pointed that out before. So the net benefit of being able to drop the storm water underground, not just of the addition so that it's a net zero, but rather getting more of it underground, that's a positive, and we can put that in the positive column on
C2. Um, and so that that would be relatively straightforward. I I I see working around the existing patio as as problematic as working around the existing house. you wind up with something that isn't the way you do it if you did the whole thing at once
and you wind up with arguments in support of the easy solution, which I get. It's the most efficient way to make the house more usable. I totally get that. But I it feels to me quite obvious that if you moved it back, it would be harder to see from the street. It would be even more hidden and
it would be a better location for it really where the patio is. And if you took the sun room, which doesn't really work, and figured out a way to incorporate that and then made it larger, you could effectively wind up with something like this room back there. I get that that means you're touching additional walls. I I do get
that. I'm just struggling with the fact that with the new construction in 18, it if this were 40 years old and you were saying, "I'm trying to figure out how to make this old house work." You'd have yet another argument, and that is that I'm trying to preserve this old house. This is going to this this this is a
house of a lot of character. It's not going to be, you know, some new silly looking thing. It's going to be really nice. Here's what we need to do to make it work. This house I'm assuming it's relatively new on the inside from the renovation at 18. Um, so I I don't think
you have that same argument and and it's really technical. I get it. I understand the laws. I appreciate you all walking me through what's going on. Um, the one comment from my end is with that project, the only floor space we added with the with the project was the master bedroom
upstairs. So, we never changed the footprint inside per se. Like the the four exterior walls have never changed um inside on the downstairs. So, Mr. Sorry, you asked for a few minutes. I wanted to make sure that the other board members had an opportunity
to sort of give you a sense of where they were going with this. Um, so if you want to take that five minutes, that's fine. We've got some administrative things to do. Okay. Um, thank you. That I mean, I think that was extremely helpful feedback. Uh,
and gives us more to talk about. Take five. We'll take five. We'll give you five. They're not going to close. Let's go ahead and give it our administrative finish, please. Yeah. Just a couple things. Um, excuse me. Resolution from Murphy 123.
I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as submitted. Second, Mr. Ryan, I will also Mr. Yes. Is that it?
Minute. Oh, no. I just You were done with your Oh, yeah. Uh, minutes from the August 7th meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes was submitted. I think there would not want to change to Yeah.
we need to look further into it. So, uh it was a I guess quote from Taylor who said that his house was roughly 690 which under the R40 cap, but I don't know if it was a mistake
that it's actually it's actually over but he may have thought that the cap was 7,000. So we were check um can we make the statement more vague so that we could just finish it? Does it matter? It just have to be able to testify as to
the size of this house. Right. That's what I'm thinking. Every time's valuable. It's pretty good attention. 14 kids, right? But good for you. Pretty good attention to detail. Nice. I don't think it changes anything. Let's
generalize the effort to be accurate to whether 6990 is in fact over or under our line. Here's the problem. If he still testified the way he testified,
that's okay though. That's his test. That's his testimony versus what's actually given. So then and knowing that then I will I'll make a motion to approve testimony. Over the objection. Oh, I'll second it. Left fairly soft stain.
Mr. Yes, Mr. Yes. with reservations. That's all I got. Okay. Uh let's do the dates. Yeah. Um Sheila was very nice enough to
provide the earliest uh submission of next year's calendar. Um thank you very much. I think we have everything covered. Everybody's got these um the proposed changes for the conflicts are in parenthesis. So account for the masters.
Um well, yes, it does. 16 You know it matches them. Doesn't worry that black thing over there. There you go. Look at that.
Brutal. Why is there one with the kids? So what we're going with I'm gonna I circle circle Patrick with you. Is that possible to work with these right now?
No, no, no, no. We don't. These are just forational just super early. Well, hold on, hold on. So, what's being proposed is that we give these to the burrow so they can actually put them in them by like November uh 17, 20th, something like
so you can have them until the next meeting. But the point is they won't be the formal dates until they're adopted by going to them and then pulling it back. But I would like to have these agreed by by for the November meeting. Yeah. No, I'm fine with that. I just want to pop through with the county.
Unfortunately, Mr. Your calendar does not the board meeting personal circumstances. Exactly. And so take a look at them. Anybody have arguments? Bring them up before the next meeting. All right. Thanks.
And that's all I got. Sorry. We have a break on. You want to take three notes? No. No. No. But when Mr. Shart comes back, I'll open
it to the public. They would all super messages be proved your own. No, I've got a prevalation. Who was that? Never post.
Second Giants and I said they're going to lose they're losing steam. No no giants. This is why we separated.
Yeah, you do this. You are guy in the ring. Yeah, I know. Yeah, right now. Apparently speeduss interception. He's not there. Oh, no. That's right. Listen, it's
it's the uh it's the you know the biggest loser. I have to retake this whole bunch. I mean, are you also Yes. Isn't everybody? All right. the smartest.
Mr. Sorry, before you tell me what you're thinking, I just want you to know that it does appear that we have some um some residents here and I want to open to the public and make sure that we an opportunity to hear what they have to say and the board does just in case there's anything in there that's relevant to you in terms of what we're
thinking and I also respect the fact that they've come out. I want to be sure that you will be heard. All right. No objection to that. Okay. All right. So, at this time, I'm going to open to the public. So if there any members of the public have any questions or comments with regard to the application
testimony before the board be the truth with the truth? I do. Okay. State your name for the record. Spell your last name please. Certainly. Brian Olsson Os 19 River Drive. It's the neighbor to the south lot 14. I'm speaking here as a neighbor. Nothing else. Um I support uh the project. I
think um the things that I'm concerned about are the um setback and the water. Uh we do have a setback that exceeds the the minimum. Um and I think the drywall is a great idea. Uh the Greers, for what it's worth, have been very open with us
and talking with us, uh getting feedback and input from the beginning. I think it does balance out the house. Um I think the the lot's big enough it can handle the bulk. I think the neighborhood has plenty of houses of this size. How I would say that that it improves the neighborhood um is by blocking off the
patio. It's not unsightly. It's a nice patio. There's nice all-American things happening there. But someday they're not going to live there and I'm not going to live there. I think it's a cleaner look for it to be blocked off. Thanks. Did you want to cross them? Sorry. No. Thank you.
Oh, hi. I'm Chris Cornell. I live at 50 Riverlon. So for a test for the board with truthful truth with truth. Yeah. Thank you. Um, I just I just want to say I'm in support of the uh addition ed add edition and um I think the aesthetic of
the uh design matches really nicely with the neighborhoods and I don't foresee any problems with it with it. So, thank you. Thank you. Welcome. I swear the testimony for the truth about the tree. I do. You state your name and spell your last
name for the record. Okay, sir. Douglas Dowy D U T Y I live on 30 River Lawn right next door to the Greers probably one of the oldest families left on Riverlon Drive
and we have seen a lot of renovations over the years my wife and I including our own but the Gers in my opinion have done spectacular job in making their home a major improvement to the neighborhood and I foresee them doing with this
addition the same thing and only having a positive impact on the neighborhood and the community and I think this board should approve your project. Thank you. Hi John Calder um Q Ter
will be the truth truth. Yes, sir. And um I'm on 11 river lawn, so I look directly across and I support the project. I'm going to see this addition and I think it's great
that it's going to be closed off and that it's going to be balanced. It'll be a good good view for me. So, I I approved the design and I'm a newer neighbor, but right away they were very open and great neighbors and I think it's going to really help kind of the
culde-sac area that we live in. Very um very excited to kind of just, you know, be here to support them because I think it's I think it's a really good project and we should approve it. Thank you. Thanks. Good evening.
Test money truth. The whole truth of the best truth. I do. Brian Murphy Murphy. Uh I just came to show my support for the Griers. I fully uh support the project. I've lived on the street for uh in Fair Haven um in the Fairman Historic District for uh 16 years now. So I've
seen a lot of projects go through. I've seen projects been denied. Um I spend a lot of time walking my dog back on uh on Riverlone. It's been a part of my life for a good chunk now. I've never lived in any place longer in my life, which is kind of odd to say. This project is uh is fits the street perfectly. I spent a
lot of time back there. I'm always walking my dog back there. Listen, this is a scenario where I have an enormous amount of respect for the town and how things are constructed and how lots are constructed on and the size of of habitable square footage and everything else you guys go through and the metrics that are very important. These are the
kind of projects where it is em it's making the town better. It balances out the house. I I live behind the Greers. Like their back of their property is fantastic. It's beautiful. It's well done. Uh it's private. It keep kind of keeps between where Brian Olson lives and I. Um they have a beautiful spot
back there. This has no impact at all on back from the street from my area, from Brian's area. I think this is a great project. There's no reason why this shouldn't be approved. It's one of these situations where it's a home on a on a large lot balanced out that like I think it was Ryan said
it before the renovations that that the family has made before have only embraced it and made the street even more beautiful than it already is and arguably is the best street in the town. So um I support this. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, thank you. So, I took the break with
the applicant. We reviewed the comments and um considered that we're going to request an adjournment and give it more thought and come back with something that um hopefully incorporates the comments we received.
Okay. Um Mr. Shart, when when would you like to come back? Um December. That's I I think that's probably reasonable time just to just for a plan revision, right? Yeah.
Uh and before you say anything, you got to recognize it takes a little bit of time to put the paper, but what what's the the meeting date? December 4th. So,
so can I talk to him? Uh, or do I need to address the audience? No, you don't have to address. Okay. You privately with your attorney saying that especially about
I didn't want to show the truth. Um, right. I thought that's what Yes. Yeah. discussed that. Um, I guess I can I just summarize some of the comments we received just
confirmation of what we discussed before the break. Um, so I'm going to put them together in in no particular order, but um, and recognizing that some of them are
divergent from each other, but um, you know, the cathedral ceiling, we're not necessarily so hung up on that, that we got to look at the sun room to see what we could do to bring it into compliance, what would be considered
near compliance I'm so sorry. I I I couldn't possibly let it be super easy. So, with regard to the vaulted ceiling, my suggestion would be that you evaluate the existing ordinance and not the 30 in above the floor level and that Mr. Daly be prepared to represent to us that he
would um measure it in a way that it would comply with the ordinance without that 30 in. And so, the board is going to consider it as it considers it. But I've explained to you the the origin of the change in ordinances and that it
wasn't intended to cause people to never be able to do it all the ceiling. I don't know whether or not that final number is 17. If it's eight floor joist 73 under the roof choice, I think that's the way it's done. Um and so I don't know it may be six inches. Um but that's
but that's the way to deal with that and then the board has to consider it. But you've heard what I've said about what I would ask them to to put in. Yes. Correct. Um we also focused on the sun room and what it's improved as today, what would have
we have to look at where we need to change to get it to be considered not habitable um and address that. You can go two ways on that. it could either become fully not habitable um or you can do whatever you want with it
because the way that it's being brought into the application now it's being included as traditional living space and so there's no bar on me doing anything with it if you were to be approved tonight at the 4,000 plus whatever it is that that's based to be conscripted
in terms of how you renovate it. It sounds like some of that's already been done but just to be clear. Yeah. Uh well, I I was talking about it earlier is option one and option two, but uh option one being that if the square footage comes out, you you
mentioned a number of around 4,000 square ft as being a bar that you were looking at. Um, and we're trying to work with that. Modifying the sun room to do that, the cathedral ceiling, another point to do that, revisiting the proposed addition size,
all in efforts to get the square footage down. Well, then then your number is 37 and your number is not 41 and change. So, yeah, I I that was my observation as I was looking at the map that that feels like an easier exit, right? Um, and then there's other
iterations and comments about whether to slide the room back or incorporate into the home in some other way or incorporate it into the the sun room in a way that modifies it and also reduces square footage. Yeah, I think you've got the lowhanging fruit. I think what you've heard is that
to the extent that that front yard setback were closer to what was required in the R20, it also would be further hidden if it slid back. you've got a setback at 11 and change which wouldn't line up with the R20 which would be 14. If you could come in and say that the
addition would comply with the author standards, that would be an argument that you could make in favor of the of the C2. Understood. And then there was other comments whether you chose to go from that regarding planting, screenings, drainage, all
plantings and screenings help to mitigate the visual impact of the addition. With regard to the drainage, there's a lot of attention on this. And so what's been said is that to come in at a bare minimum and say there would be no additional drainage because we're going to put all of the
addition underground or whatever you want to do. There are other ways to deal with it. But even better than that would be to capture more rain water from the existing structure, get that underground, and now you've got a net positive in the effect. It's not just neutral, but you're actually creating a benefit also would count
over the C2. positive for your seat and I like I like what the public has already said right and better balance of the house that's a positive for yeah so Doug is saying that you know all your all your residents from riverwan um
has spoken highly with regard to the addition the aesthetics and the way that they feel about it so it would seem to me that you would want to retain that positive feedback from the neighbors by sticking with something along the lines
of what you got. These tests to the aesthetic, that's a benefit to the others. Going back to your C2, yes, it's it's a little tricky. It's a little tricky. One other ask from from my end. If we cut the space of the room in its current
form and turned it to its 25 by 20 room instead of 25 by 22 and that got us under the 4,000 with the sun room, does that get us anywhere? So in conjunction with some of the other suggestions as well. So so what what you've done is you just shifted it right into an area what I want to do because we don't really
negotiated it. That isn't really the idea. We're actually trying to construct your proofs. Yeah. So that the board could support it and vote in favor of it. But to answer your question under that analysis, if you were to make it smaller, then you're asking for less. Your negatives are less
and therefore your positives don't have to be as strong. And so if the addition shrunk in size, then would that be a benefit? I guess it works. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. So, um, so we we have the December date. We
would ask to be carried without further notice. So, look, so we don't have anybody on for November except for Mr. Akens matter, which we just pushed. If you think you can do this at lightning speed, sorry, Mr. Dailyaly. Um, you we can put you on for November, but what I would say is that we need to know in
advance because we would want to put somebody else in there if you're not going to make it. So, I ask you to tell us what's that date for November. 13. Well, can I would need what date would you need? 10 days prior. To the chair's point, we have a lot that
aren't necessarily complete yet, but that likely will be. So, don't don't take the date if you don't actually think you're going to be able to make that date. If you want if you want December, you've got it. Okay, we'll put you right in December. If you want to try and flirt with November, what I'm saying is please provide us the courtesy
with a heads up if you're not going to make it. And by that time, we may be scheduling people into December. So, it may be worse to do that. I don't know. I'm I was going to suggest for purposes of carrying on the record without further notice, I would take the November date and tell you within the next two weeks
if I could do it or not. And then at the November meeting, if I was going to carry again, I would announce it at that meeting. Or is that Yes. Yeah. I want to notice we need to give a date today so the folks that are here are you know correct. So that's why I was suggesting November and I'll let you know promptly so you can know whether or not we're
going to go forward or go to November so that December I apologize. Did someone just tell me if that doesn't work? I think that works. It works. But the point is too if you wait a little bit too long then December is going to fill up quick and then you're going to lose out on December. Do you want to push back to the next month?
No. No. I mean, yes, you're right, but no, we we'll figure it out. We'll we'll get you in December, even if you push back, but but let us know in the next two weeks whether you're going forward in November and then and then we'll move you into to December if uh if
you can and and we'll get you there. You you're first. Appreciate that. And thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Extension time. Oh, extension. Yes. granted. Oh, I'm I'm going to make a motion to
carry the GRE application to the November 13th 14th 13th date um with the stipulation of extension of time to act. No requirement. Mr. Jesse, yes. Mr. Ryan, yes. Mr. Forte, yes.
Dr. Lawford, yes. Mrs. Newman, yes. Mr. Setti, yes. Mr. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments at this It's already in class. We're just going to open the public quickly and then
we're going to close. Nothing. Okay. Let the reflect time. Mot 16 13 Venty model.