Okay. Well, okay. This is a regular meeting of the Fington's own board of adjustment. Adequate notes. This meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. At time of the board of reorganization in January this year, the board adopted it regular
meeting schedule for the year. Notice schedule was sent to and published in the Aspberry Park Press on January 31st, 2025 and the tours on January 23rd, 2025. This notice is also posted on Bolton board hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by
the statute. Copy the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of code. Copy the notice also been sent to members of the public as a as a requested social information and according to the statute adequate notice have been given. The board secretary is directed to state
before proceeding with a formal meeting tonight. I would like to say a few words to the applicants who are experts in the audience about the role and authority of the pra board of adjustment. 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 landing law judicial nature and the
members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the merit council. Zoning board does not enact the bur landing laws and regulations. The bureau council does that. Zoning board does not enforce the landing slots of the bury. This is the responsibility of the bureau code enforcement officer. This board deals appeals for relief from the requirements of the Burough's land
use or denials by the building officer. An applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal landings law and the fairing ordinances by requiring certain by satisfying certain required standards
of proof. The board has no authority to wave these requirements. Further proof is always upon an applicant to show that he or she is entitled specific specifically if requested. The applicant must prove that the deviation from the regulations purposes of the ordinance would substantially outweigh any
detriment of its own plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land are not intended or authorized to review temporary or any personal situations. Roll call, please. Mr. Mati, Mrs. Dangelo here. Mr. Ryan,
here. Mr. Forte here. Dr. Walker. Mrs. Newman here. Mr. Canal here, Mr. Mr. Please join me in the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for it stands nation. Okay. Um, we're going to be taking the Hopscotch realy matter first, but before we do that, I understand that the Hagy matter, which is listed as the second matter in new business, uh, Mr. Here.
Step over, please. That the board secretary confirmed jurisdiction on this matter. Yes. So, chairman, board members, Mark Akens on behalf of the Hagerty family, I'd ask that the matter be carried to the
October meeting of the board without the need for further notice and that council deemed my prior notice by certified mail publication in order and the board may retain jurisdiction without further notice. Uh, stipulation of extension of time. Yes, sir. Uh, Shill, what are we uh what are we
looking at in October? Um, we just have one other application scheduled. Okay. Looks like we'll we'll put Hagerty on uh for October. Anybody have any questions, concerns? Anybody want to make a motion? Make a motion to carry the Hagerty
matter to the October meeting without any part for the notice based on stipulation or attached contact. Second Angelo. Yes. Mr. Uh yes. Mrs. Newman. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Cetti. Yes.
Mr. Ver. Yes. Uh Mr. You're also hearing the Murphy matter. I know. I just want to point out to you that we only have seven matter members in attendance tonight and you know that Mr. Ryan is going to refuse for your matter. So you only have six. Yes, I do. I am Miss Olson definitely
communicate that information to me. Yes. Great. Ready to proceed nonetheless. Okay. Great. Thank you for the accommodation, ladies and gentlemen. You got it. All right. We're ready for Hopscot realy. All right. Can we bring anybody up to testify? We'll swear the name. We're
going to bring our um engineer, architect, and planner up. Want to swear one of the applicants in sometimes. Um, sure. Doesn't matter if they all were sworn. They don't talk. Everybody's been previously sworn, but we can swear
the testimony before the board will be the truth, the whole truth, talking about the truth. Thank you. I do. Okay. Same directions I've given you in the past couple of meetings before you start speaking. State your name spelling your last name. I'd like to be seated
now. I have some additional exhibits like tomorrow. You need two letters of August 22nd, 2025 from inside engineering. One in response to CME and one to basically talk about changes from the initial
application. Like to mark those two letters of one exhibit as A24. like to mark the revised engineering submission of August 20th, 2025, seven sheets as A25. Like to mark the shore point
architectural revisions of August 22nd, 2025. That's A26. A27 will be revised architectural store point A sorry 82125 and then we have
an additional report of ZV4 CME report is September 2nd 2025 that's the 4th engine Mr. this out. I would also like to mark package of exhibits for certifications
for our board members that do not all read and listen to the uh miss the tape of the hearing uh that that they missed and reviewed exhibits. We just marked that as CV5.
Do you have any additional units? Um, we have something rendered. No, no, we do have we'll have one one one exhibit that we have a slight modification on. Mark now or you want to wait till you
get Let's mark it 828. I guess 828. Can you identify the exhibit for me? Uh it's a revised set of drawings with two uh points of clarification that were noted in J's letter C.
I'm sorry. Date uh the date. I didn't change the date on the drawings, but it's still the 2125 drawings for sake of What do you have a hand hand change? Had you change? Uh you know, I actually did revise it and added some points of clarity that
with the same date with the same. Anything else? I think that'll be it. Mr. Go 826 protect plans and then is 827 the response letter? 26 site plan, 27 is the architectural,
28 25 is insight plans. 25 is the revised insight engine division. 26 is shore portal architecture division since the initial plan. Then the revised architecture say 27. We we we did two submissions. We did the
submission of the changes and then we did a narrative submission of the changes from So which numbers did the narrative? Uh I'm not quite sure the way he described them, but I think we have all four. could be A26. I think we have all four covered. Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Bruno, can I ask you for two things before I get started? The first is could you please list out for the board the variances that are triggered by the application and then independently can like verification
as to whether or not the proposal reports to the R40 requirement. we sort of I sort of identified at the end of the hearing last time um that we were using all the R30 numbers. So hopefully somebody confirmed where we are relative to our 40.
Okay. Uh just by way of introduction, Michael Bruno on behalf of the applicant, this is a carry from uh your last meeting of August 7th, which was a carry from your meeting of July 10th, 2025.
Uh the applicant has made um significant revisions to the plans in response to the comments that we've heard from the board trying to address the concerns that were raised. The relief required at this point
uh is for variance for your habitable floor area where 5100 square ft is is permitted. We are down now to 8,000 Um, help me with this one. 981.
981. Uh, which is a reduction from the original submission of um 11,827 was the original house design that the applicant requested. So, we've reduced
it to below 9,000 square ft. Um, and that's inclusive of the sports court. Without the sports court, the house itself is 7,831 square ft. That is the the variance we need. We do need a technical variance for the height of the fence where it's
48 in and 42 is permitted because of the pool safety standard, but that's a small section of the fence and that that's a carryover that we're keeping. So all other variances have been removed. Uh there was a variance for height for the garage and there was a variance for a
fourcar garage. We've reduced that to three. Um we've we've made multiple changes and we're going to go through all of those now for you. But those are the two variances that are left. We are not seeking the R40 upzoning
uh because we do not comply with the sideyard setback for the R40 zone. on one side there's a 25 ft requirement and uh we have 23 point something for the principal structure
for the principal structure so uh because of that we don't qualify for the upzoning floor area well that yeah obviously but that that would be that would increase the floor area that would permit it uh if we did
have that setback So, uh, we didn't we didn't seek the upzoning because we didn't qualify for it. And Jordan, if we looked at the R40 standards across the board is the only, um, deviation from the R40 standards, both the floor area and that one side setbacks, everything else fine.
I did not already do a comparison. Um, don't you have to do it on the spot, but if you could do it as we're going and and maybe we we have that we our engineer will. All right. Great. I mean, it's it's we're not seeking that. So,
um, but we can testify as to what those what those items are. Okay. Um, so what we'd like to do is we we'd like to kind of go through all of the changes that we made um since we started the application, in particular since the
last meeting. Uh, I'd like to have the architect describe the changes to the building, which I think was the most critical issue that we heard, the size of the home. Uh, we've made substantial efforts to reduce that. Um,
as you heard, without the sports coat court, it's under 8,000 square feet. With the sports coat court, it's 8,900 and some odd square feet. Uh, but that's a substantial reduction from the original 11,900
and some odd square ft. Um, we'll have the architect describe all the changes to the home. We've done a couple other little tweaks trying to address comments like views from the river, uh, enhancing the architecture in that regard. Uh and then we'll bring the engineer up to talk
about the site changes that we've made to try to address all the issues that occurred with respect to the site set back to sports court coverages, storm water, etc. Um a multiple of changes we've got
approaching 30 changes that we've made since the initial application all in response to your concerns that were raised. Um, we've made a herculean effort to try to accommodate your changes and still build the home of my client's dreams, which they've worked
very hard on. Uh, trying to make it fit on the property beautifully. We think it does. We think it's going to be an enhancement to your community. We hope after this presentation you feel the same way and you vote to approve it. So let us let us uh introduce the the architect and go through
the conversations he had with the applicant. Uh how we came about these changes, how it reduces the square footage, how we tried to improve the look from the riverside in particular because we heard that comment. Tried to move the sports court a little bit
further. Uh issues as to noise reflection and the the the garage door accommodation. Now it's away from the neighbor trying to address those concerns and we'll go through Mr. Rizzo's letter too and he's raised a number of issues he wants to hear testimony on. So let's start with uh
Justin if you if you could just identify yourself again and let's um let's identify the conversations you had with the applicant and all of the changes that you made. Okay. Uh first of all my name is Justin Calbert uh Shortepoint Architecture the architect working on this project open
intelligence. So, um, you know, we've made a lot of changes. Do you want me to start by summarizing from the very beginning or just let's start with the latest? Let's summarize from the beginning and then let's focus on the latest because we did testify at the last meeting those initial changes, but let's summarize what they were and then what you've done
with the applicant to try to further address the comments that we heard from the board. Uh, okay. So, the previous uh previous meetings we uh removed 490 feet of the garage footprint. we were able to eliminate one garage bay. Um that basically took one of the variances that
we were asking for off the table. Um the garage roof was redesigned in order to comply with the town's height ordinance which enabled the area or should I say the vaulted space above the garage under the roof line to no longer be considered part of the floor area. Um and that that
actually made a reduction of 1790 ft just with that uh modification to the roof line. Uh the sports court accessory building was reduced in width. Um and that reduced the square footage from 1344 square feet to 1296.
Um the sports court building was relocated previously um back after the first meeting. Um mechanical equipment that was previously located in the sideyard uh was relocated to be closer to the house and further away from the property line to you know avoid any
negative impact. Uh the total floor area was proposed then was 9,988. The first application was 11,827. Yeah. The changes we made to the plans since the September 4th meeting, we kind
of I'm sorry, August meeting. Yeah. After the August 7th meeting in preparation for the September 4th meeting, um we had a lot of conversations and what we wanted to do is preserve some of the architectural elements of the house and we really liked uh the overall composition. Uh but we did want to be sensitive to the fact
that you know if we could reduce mass on the water side of the property that would be a benefit to both you know the application it's going to look great um but also have more uh positive appeal from the water. So, some of our moves
were taken in that stride. We also relocated uh one of the bedrooms and bathroom suite on the east side of the house to the area that was the uh vated space above the great room. So, we wanted to preserve the intent that we
wanted to have a great room that had a ceiling height that was elevated, but instead of having a double height near double height space, we actually increase the ceiling height from the standard 10 foot to 11 foot just at that great room. So, what that enabled us to
do is to utilize the space above it um to put some of the second floor program and kind of overall condense the plan and push parts of it inwardly. Um there will be two steps up when we exit from like part of the hallway to the area that would be the great room. Um
and this is the set that was submitted. This is subject to the changes that you're going to describe. We'll get that. Guess So this area which would be the footprint of the break room below now has uh bedroom 3 which was previously on this portion of the building over here.
So where whereas that previously counted as floor area and was not being used at all. Correct. You're now actually utilizing it. Floor area doesn't necessarily change by that because it already counted but you're taking advantage of space. That would be true. But we also reduced
the size of things. So any net reduction would have to be in addition to you know we were already getting utilizing that space numerically towards the calculation. Now we're actually utilizing it and we have a reduction on
top of it. So, um, we made a lot of modifications, uh, to principally this side of the house, but in general. And what's the top? Is the top looking at the river as you describe these? Yeah, in in the plan right now, this would be the side that's closest to the river to be east. This is the river
here. Um, the master bedroom, we actually pulled back 3 ft from where it previously was. So, it's 3 ft less in length. Um, bedroom two on this wing here, previously was all the way out here, is by foot reduction. So, it's
actually pushed further back in. Um, bedroom number three, which is now centered above the great room, was previously in this location here. Um, and actually this whole footprint was kind of occupied by program elements
that have somewhat been relocated. We changed the flow of the hallway. Well, let's go back to that bedroom. But what should that allow you to do by relocating that bedroom? Did it allow you to shrink the footprint and reduce square footage? How did how does that affect your design?
Well, um, by relocating the element here, we were able to kind of put a covered balcony on the side um, which doesn't actually contribute to the floor area, but even that the balcony's tucked in about 5t from where the outbounds of that room previously was. So it is
conscious effort to you know subtly reduce the massing of the building um vertly you know so and what's the thought behind the covered area now instead of just plopping that off um you know typically style these waterfront homes you see excuse me a lot
of shingle style residences covered balconies and stuff future what they do is um they do cast a shadow they have a depth to them it's an element that is aesthetically positive terms of the the effect of the view,
especially from the water. Um, you're going to see that balcony, but it compared to something that's a flat enclosure. Um, a covered balcony does have a lot more of a, you know, it helps to reduce mass, the overall visually.
How many total balconies do you have now? There's uh there are now two covered balconies on the second floor and there's an additional uh portion on the first floor that was not in the previous. So let let's get to the covered balconies because that was raised in Mr.
Rizzo's letter and how you calculate whether or not in fact some of that should be calculated in square footage and what was your what was your thinking behind that design? What what does it add architecturally to the home? And uh let's look at an
elevation so they can get a uh the board can get a sense for how that looks. And as you do that, you just describe as you were designing this and speaking with the client, you know, what was the mindset of of making that space covered
space and what kind of feature does it add to the home that you've designed? Um there was a lot of parts to that. So, I'm going to first respond to to Jordan's comment. Um, and because it kind of all ties in together. So,
you know, it basically what I did is I I tracked where the the line of 30 in the floor happens and there is some space in this this area as we discussed that will be added to the to the footprint. I I haven't noted on the second floor plan and the exact square footage of it. It's
you know less the footprint of the gym which as our discussion. Let's go through the overall concept and then we can get back to the technical square footage. Let's let's do the overall reasoning behind your design. We did we wanted to keep some of these roof elements that are, you know, really
integral to the design from from the start. Um a balcony in this position, it's a nice additional element on this facade that's going to, you know, look towards the, you know, kind of your entry. Um it has a lot of depth to it and it's
kind of a typical element that you would see in a lot of high shape style houses. Is that the river facing elevation? This would actually land facing elevation opposite. Well, that's what I thought. So, so which side of it is the
There's two chairman. There's two balconies. One on this front side. We're doing the front as an example, but we're not talking about the removal of the bedroom on the second any longer. talking about the description balconies generally. We're going to get to this. We're going to get to the second one. The first one he's describing is the one in the front
of the house. And then we're going to show you the one in the rear which related to the bedroom that we had just talked about to see how show you how that affects the design. But they're both actually on the same side of the house, the balconies. Is that correct? Uh well, one of them faces this one faces uh
No, but what I'm saying is they're both on the same if you're looking they're on the same page. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The rear facing balcony actually sits in two two elevations though. So, right. So, it goes um sorry, keep going. Uh so, you have this element that has a
a recess here. It's going to provide another break in the elevation. Uh point of shadow, uh point of interest. Uh it centers over some of the elements below it. Um we created it as you know you step out from the hallway into the the
cover balcony and the uh back sorry the uh plate the the wall is actually located um at full plate height. So it will be at the stand standard second floor plate height 90 um to the point of where we
discuss I would I would just generally say table the technical stuff. Okay. Because it is really technical. You might lose some people. So continue with the overall elements and then Okay. Um
get Let's go. Let's go. I think you described that. Let's continue with the changes that you've made to reduce the durability. So, I'd like the board to understand the changes that the applicant has made so they understand how we reduce square footage
and how that affects the design and at the same time I think you think you've enhanced it as a result of those changes. So, keep going on all of the changes. You want uh since we were talking about the balconies, you can finish that. The other balcony um the one that was
previous uh is bedroom three. Um you can see it from the east elevation here. Um on the side this is looking from this is the east elevation. So you're looking from property. Yeah. Um this balcony actually kind of sits on
the corner. So you will see it from these from the river side. Let's describe it first and then we'll flip it and show it from the river. Previously, you know, you had these kind of two volumes and they actually projected a lot further out. Um there's
a depth difference of about 5 ft from where this balcony is now versus where the wall from the room previously was. So it's all been in an attempt to kind of condense the plan inward. You know, program elements relocated on the second floor, build in that void that was in
the middle and kind of push down the perimeter. And all that does is it helps to to try to reduce the mass of the house visually from the exterior. from an architectural perspective. Is it an enhancement or is it how would you describe that? I think it's another point of character.
Um it's it's definitely an architectural element that's going to add more interest to the side. Um whereas opposed to a flat wall with a couple window penetrations, it's got more interest to it. Has a higher level of detailing between the railings, the columns, etc.
Um so yes, it would be a positive addition. Now let's flip it over and look at it from the river. So point to the bedroom area that you just described. It'll be right in this spot here. This actually that little pieces.
So from the river, uh just describe what you're going to see and some of the architectural enhancements that you've worked on to try to create a view from the river. You know, as I was saying, we did push the master suite back. you know said
this is now going to have somewhat uh receding from the line where it was previously. This as well pushed back further from where it was in the previous design. Um and the overall you know there's still looks like a lot of
lines and a flat you know plane either but in three dimensions it's it is a visual a pretty decent visual uh change in the massing on that side of the house. Um with the relocated elements in the middle, we tried to create a new
kind of element here that fills in uh the initial framework that we have for the house. It has roughly the same composition as the original design. Um still holding a lot of these center points and volumes that were initially contemplated but you know
again with relocating program there's you know some new opportunities and we're you know getting really excited about how this elevation play out. And how does it all tie in? You have is that a covered porch on the first Yes. elevation. So, how how does that feature tie into what you did with the the
bedroom? Um, well, originally we had a roof plane that kind of started at the main ridge and actually kind of flowed all the way down. Now, it's somewhat interrupted. You do have a line here. Um, but again, it's they're going to create shadow
lines. It has another, you know, visual appeal to the back. um versus just a simple roof plane. It still accomplishes more or less the same uh the original intent which was kind of overall reduce the mass of the structure you know visually by carrying your eye from the top to bottom. It's just done a little
bit differently. So it's a modification. Okay. Uh you want to talk about the public portions more or you want to get into the balance of the changes that we made? I think that's probably all I can say about the balconies for a moment.
Let's cover quickly what Jordan had raised an issue as to whether or not we're measuring the covered balcony properly and whether or not square footage needed to be added to to the uh the home as a result of the covered um
balcony. Let's let's just quickly go through how you did that calculation and why does it need to be added? Um yes the calculation for the covered area so that it's not included in the habitable floor area calculation.
Well basically as you know Jordan pointed out and letter the height of anything above 30 in above second floor under a sloped roof even um will be adding towards square footage of the home. Now Jordan had identified this
area question where the roof kind of comes down off that front balcony. Um and to that point there would be 33 square ft that would be additional since the uh the chimney chase actually doesn't you know contribute that. Now
when we design when we uh contemplating this balcony here this wall is actually located roughly symmetrically at a full plate height. So essentially it's a flat ceiling with no tapering or anything to the to the uh ceiling. Now, if I'm
understanding what we kind of discussed, if this actually was pushed further over, it would actually not have a connection to the second floor anymore. Potentially, that could be, you know, uh, yeah, it's it's exterior covered balcony, then it wouldn't count for. And
the reason I didn't include it because I really assumed that really the only conceivable way to utilize the space if there was space would be from the covered document which also there's a couple other points which we can circle back to. Um,
you know, the ceiling was intended to be flat, but if it had a pitch to it, it really wouldn't uh be a negative and still be more or less utilized. The same would have no change to the exterior. So, are you proposing to add the 33 ft
or you proposing to extend the covered balcony all the way to the chimney to illuminate? Um what I did is actually updated the numbers to reflect that fail since we just talked about it using so um
but if if it was something that help application we could make that change. So you could you could reduce it by making that alteration that you just described. Yes. You don't see it as a benefit to your design? No. It's an indifferent change. It has
no negative impact and it's all exterior space. It's all exterior space. It would only be adding to this uh the covered balcony. Um and it would not be represented on the exterior elevation. If you're standing outside of the house
from the driveway, you would see no visual change. Okay. So, just to summarize that response, the covered porches added small amount of square footage. Our intent with this whole exercise so we could reduce the
square footage. When we came up with the covered balconies, we thought it was a magnificent feature that would enhance the design. We got Mr. Rizzo's letter question whether or not it raises uh an issue where you have to add some square footage. That's the 30ome square feet
that we're talking about. It's exterior, but technically the way it's calculated, you have to add it in accordance with Mr. Rizzo's review. we can remove it if it was a concern of you by us adding some square footage. Uh so we're willing
to remove it and we're stipulating if that's concern of the boards. We will remove it by redesigning it which won't have a major impact. Um but we don't think it's it really it really doesn't accomplish anything. So
we'd like like it approved as it is, but if it bothers the board that we added some square footage, we will revise it so it doesn't. So with regard to the second floor, I understand you've relocated bedroom 3 to the center, an area that was already counted. You um replaced what had been
there, the bedroom with a covered porch. What is the net reduction of square footage on the second floor as a result of the changes that you made? It's it's uh in the low 600s. It's like 68 648. Okay. Removed from the second story. Yeah.
Okay. And I'm was looking for string dimension back here. When you look at the uh north facing elevation, what's the length of that fire elevation? You would be questioning from one extent or the other.
Yeah, but you're looking at the um the south south facing elevation. I was looking at it from sorry were a little bit more this guy. It's in this guy. That's right. That's we scale.
What's with a lot of water? 235 ft. I'm I'm scaling it off site plan. Oh, it's easier for me, but it's about 110 ft. Far.
Yeah. out about 109 108 or something like that. It's pretty close. Yeah. So, what's your response? My my response is like 109 109 ft. Yeah. Out of chimney to outer chimney. outside
chimney outside chimney. Yeah, we're really close. So, sounds right. I have a follow up on the setbacks, but why don't we talk about it when you're ready to talk about the let let us get through the balance of the home and uh the other changes that
we made and then we'll come back to all the questions. I don't want to get bogged down like we just did. Yeah. So, let let's keep going. So, with all of the modifications we've made since the last plan and not the original plan, but there was an interim modification, right?
What is the current size of the home exclusive of the sports court? Exclusive excluding the sports court is 7,831, you know, with the only potential, you know, that 30 odd foot differential we're talking about.
Okay. Our number is 7030. Let's get to the sports court. What did we end up doing with the sports court? Sports court, we actually um shrunk it in two directions. So, we took a foot off the width. Uh the proposed footprint
is now 25x 46. Um square footage went from 1296 to 1150. Okay. So, so the total with the sports port and the home is how many square feet? Uh the total is now 8,981.
And that's a reduction from the last application which was previously it was 918 which is a reduction from the original request an application which was 11,827. Okay. Oh my god.
Um where are we at with floor area ratio? Floor area ratio uh the proposed is 008. We were previously 009. I mean what's permitted? So that's roughly 53% of the permitted
permitted floor area ratio. All right. Any other changes to the home? We did make modifications to the first floor. Um you know the biggest change uh was the office. We actually pinched it in u in order to free up some space to create that porch but also to reduce
square footage. Um, we also made some other minor modifications to the hallways and spaces that could stand to loose a little bit. Okay. So, those are all effort by the client to get you to to reduce the size of the house and
still keep their dream home. Yeah. We try to maintain as many of the aesthetic and components of the house that were initially there. Um, try to keep some of the similar ideas that we started with. Yeah, that was the entire All right. U
questions of the architect. Is there anything with regard to the design that you can point to that um will actually allow this home to live larger than it looks? Um one of the
things that I think when there's an overage that we're focused on is is that overage? So, is there anything that you incorporated into your design that's intended to make this house feel like it was appropriate for the zone? If we're
going to use the R30 standards, standard is 51. I think that's right. So, is there anything that you've incorporated for that purpose? Not quite sure. I understand the point that you're trying to get to, but uh what what's the question? question is
whether or not the designer has utilized design techniques in order to make the house appear to be smaller than it is in reality. Okay. In order to hide the fact that it is in excess of the square footage. Well, you know, uh during the first
meeting actually gave testimony about the overall composition and how we you know contemplated the design. One of the things we started with was to have, you know, a strong roof line that helped to bring the eye down from the top of the h building down to the first floor. So, we we do and have maintained a lot of those
elements. Um, one of which is kind of what we were discussing with that that balcony that originally was always a roof element and it kind of started at the same point um where you have a ridge starts up high and actually tails down to you know the first floor uh facial
line. um concepts and and tech techniques like that were employed a lot in a lot of the high shingle style houses um typical of the waterfront and that it's a trick to kind of help reduce the mass visually. So that is a concept
that we did bring to the table as far as how we approach the design. I think the the original testimony that we provided was the lot is more than three times the required size. So, the testimony we've been submitting is that it's in
conformity with the intent of the size of the home for a lot of that size. So, it's more than three times what's permitted, but it's not more than three times uh the size that is allowed. It's much less.
We talked about if you had a subdivision, and I know Mr. Shabetti said, "Well, that's going to be hard to get, but we have the size to do a subdivision." If you had two fully conforming homes, they would be much more coverage and much larger than what you have here. So, you have the
applicant agreeing to restrict any further subdivision. So, that will never happen and reduce the size of the home to something that will be smaller than if you were able to get a subdivision. And and in proportion, we believe uh to
what should be there, it's nearly half of what your floor area ratio provides. And that floor pla ratio is there to make sure that the size of the home is not too big for the size of a lot. Here it's only half what you guys think is permitted. And I understand you have
this overarching maximum home size and I'm going to get into some of the thoughts about that in my conclusion. But we think based on the aerials that we showed and the surrounding properties that this is well within the size and
scope of what's already out there. You have an opportunity. Can I finish? Between last year and now to give us the numbers on that, but you refuse to give. When you say numbers, what are you talking about? The numbers of the surrounding homes. Yeah. Well, we have them off the tax
records and we provided some of them, but they're difficult to get without without doing a study on those homes. So, we looked at the aerials. We showed you the aerials and and we think it's in proportion. So, that that's the testimony that we provided. I'm I'm not looking to argue with you, Mr. I know
how you feel about the application, but I'm looking to make the case that we think I'm not talking right now about how I feel about the application. I'm talking about how I feel about your testimony. Okay. Um, we we've made the case that it's in proportion to the size of of the
lot. And that's, I think, responsive to what Mr. Chairman is asking about. How does it how does the house fit on the property, all of the other setbacks, it's compliant, the height is compliant. The only relief we need putting aside the the technical relief on the fence is
is the size of the home. And we've made tremendous efforts to try to address the concerns that we've heard. We think it's a little bit too big. We think the view from the river is not is not appropriate. Move it away from the neighbor. All of
those things we tried to address in in with a lot of effort and it to at the same time maintain the character of the home that we think is important for this important property. So, it's a long-winded response to your your question and we have a lot more to
present and and if you give us an opportunity to do that, I hope we we convince you that the changes that we made are appropriate for this board to act favorably on this application. The architect's going to provide testimony in terms of relocation of the
sports court things that our engineer is going to do that and and we'll get into Mr. Rizzo's letter. He he's outlined a lot of conditions, all of which are acceptable if this board were to approve this.
So, um, any other questions of the architect? I just clarify the 33 square feet on the second floor we talked about, is that included in the overall? Um, no, it's not. Yeah.
And some of the changes you made, I think you sort of traded inside space for outside space. And I can understand that that's probably softens a little bit compared to it does a wall. I am recognizing some of
the things you pulled in from the second floor. But can you tell us a little bit more about where you actually reduce mass um to that point? Um actually just bring up my one drawing here.
Um specifically on the east side uh I know you're not pointing at the the one balcony. Um even in that particular location it's still a net difference of about 5t from where the wall used to be on the outside. Would you mind?
Sure. Even uh where this balcony is was previously walked five feet per. Okay. So there is still a net difference on top of the net reduction in square footage to that effect. So as I said all
those uh areas question these three points specifically and mostly importantly on this side we all step back. We're still a net reduction of square footage and distance, you know, physical, you know, separation from where it previously was even where the
new balcony is. So, okay. Thanks for that. Sure. There was also testimony they pulled back the math by three. Yeah. And in the middle, I think they pulled it back by as well. So, the depth from the front
Jar a technical question and a technical comment but I want forward to you know have a chance to ask questions first. So before we move on to the next witness as well. Any other questions for the architect before so the 33 square feet in the front I understand that take a look at the back
too and I'm just going to switch this charge. The other points that you did note uh was where this roof comes up. There's so this is the back side of the house. This is the rear side of the house. Riverside. Um these three points um I
have the square footage broken out. It's one and a half square feet. One square feet. One square foot one and a half square feet. It's just a little differential between where the actual wall is and where the line of 30 in. I do have that noted on the elevations. Okay.
And nothing in the for the master this back bedroom that that roof actually like about four inches above second. So what we're talking about is outside of the the walls for the house the roof slopes are greater than 30 inches in some areas. So even though it's not
usable floor area, it still technically counts for floor area. Um so it's following the whole conversation. Yeah, it's really just the architectural features and the the slopes that's contributing to this. If it was a straight up and down house, um it wouldn't even be
we're talking about 35 ft or 33 feet. Total total it's 38 33 and then you know a handful. So thanks. And then the other thing is is more of a comment. Um Mr. Bruno talked about reducing the garage doors from four to three and we talked about this
last meeting and tabled it a little bit. Um, the ordinance talks about providing no more than three motor vehicles in a garage and there's three garage doors and the plans show three cars in it. I think technically you can likely fit more than than three cars.
Um, so whether that's just a a comment for me or possibly necessary, but I just wanted to point that out for your consideration. Thank you. Okay. Um, let's call the engineer, Jennifer White, Inside Engineering.
Thank you. Have an opinion as to whether or not? My opinion is technical nature of it would be yes. I don't know if anyone else wants to interpret it differently than I do. It's cut off and symmetrical, right? And not notched out. Is that what you think?
Uh it has that notch that I think theoretically is where you could probably So if it was it's deep. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And the testimony was that you know we're going to use that area for the garden and um
Yeah. Yeah, I guess anybody could jam another car into a garage. Uh but the intent and uh whatever protections you would want because you don't want the car in the garage. You'd rather it have it in the driveway, which doesn't make sense to me, by the way. Uh we we're
willing to live by most most I've got a garage where I've had to park my car. So, you know, you're going to have situations like that. I I I just wanted to know whether or not our engineer had an opinion as to whether the technical barriers are needed.
I mean, garage floor area is excluded in the calculation. So, I think this probably goes to the mass and volume of an oversized garage. For the guy who's going to write a resolution one way or the other, understood. Understood. Just trying to plan my day.
Understood. Um, move on. Okay. Our engineer, uh, Jennifer White, licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. Uh, Insight Engineering is my employer. I've been
licensed for six years. And you've been sworn in qualified at previous meet. Okay. And your office made further revisions to the site plan. Yes. All right. Why don't we go ahead and identify all of the changes that have
been made to the plan? Yes. And then um indicate as you testify what they're in response to terms of what we heard from the board so that they they can get some um uh understanding of why we made the
change. Okay. Um we've reduced total sight disturbance from 0.996 acres to point uh 980 acres and uh this was in response to reducing the size of the house. We were able to
bring in the limit of disturbance. Um one garage bay has been eliminated. Um this increased the front yard setback from uh 228.46
ft to 242.4 43 ft. Um the sideyard setback also increased from 21.23 ft to 22.96 ft. And those are both in exceedence of what is required.
Yes. The combined yard eliminating the garage bay and reconfiguring the east side of the house uh increased the combined yard setback from 77.62 62 feet to 79.94 feet.
Um, which is how many more feet than what's required? The minimum required 15.94. The minimum required to 64 ft. Thank you. We've reduced the size of the sport court building from 1,344 ft to 1,150
square ft. Uh we've increased the sideyard setback from to the to the sport court building from 22.75 ft to 27.22 feet to the nearest corner to the neighboring property. Um from the
further corner we've increased the setback from 28.59 ft to 32.82 ft. And so that that difference is because the lot line is on an angle. So it's measured on an angle. Well, the sport court is not parallel to the
sideline. It's at an angle. Um, the distance and those are both in exceedence. So, the side that the uh distance of the sport building to
the principal structure decreased from 33.27 ft to 20 ft. And that's because we brought the sport court building in a little bit. And that was in response to some of the comments we heard about. Can you move it away from the neighbor? Yes. Uh the maximum height of this Fort
building has been reduced from 15.94 ft to 14.83 ft and the accessory ground floor area to primary ground floor area has been reduced from 29.9% to 26.9%.
Um total building coverage has been reduced from 9.23% to 8.73%. Habitable floor well not h floor area was reduced from 11,827
square ft to 8,981 square ft floor area ratio and that's that's inclusive of the sports courts. Yes. And how's that broken out? I know the architect testified it. The main house has been reduced from 10,483
square feet to 7,869 square feet. And the balance is a sports court. Yes. Um the floor area ratio was reduced from.11 to 08. And what's the permitted maximum?
Uh 0.15. The pool has been reduced from 61t by 30 feet to 51 ft by 30 feet, decreasing the area from 2,234.68
ft to 1,630.19 ft. And doing this increased the rear yard setback from 74T to 81.43 ft. The sideyard setback has increased from
60.69 69 ft to 70.69 ft. The total driveway area has been reduced from 9,574.79 ft to 8,981.77 square ft.
Um, we reduced the pool patio on the east side from 3,00 Well, we reduced the side. We taking in the pool, we took in the patio. So, the pool patio has been reduced from
3,317.93 ft to 3,44.43 square ft. Um, we've provided the locations of all the mechanical equipment and all the mechanical equipment is located in a
compliant location. Um, we've relocated the fence. And how far from the property boundary? Um the minimum is 27.47 ft. Okay. So all all further away at as in a
response to the request of the board to address that concern. Yes. Uh we've the fence in the rear of the property has been relocated to be more than 50 ft from the water. Total impervious coverage has been reduced from 25.94%
to 24.12%. And this is uh as numbers 27,773.90 ft to 25,820.66 square ft. Okay. um variances. What's what's left in terms
of relief being re requested? We are requesting relief for the floor area of the house and the 4ft fence within the front yard. In addition to those changes, previously the applicant had agreed to consolidate
the lots to prevent u any subdivision um and to restrict any further subdivision. Uh they've agreed to to a restriction that the attic will remain as proposed and will not be converted to leasable space for rent uh as any condition to a board approval. and the
applicant agreed to restrict that but the proposed sports court building will not be used or converted to a garage uh at the request of the board or livable space for livable space. Um the oriented the the opening doors that you've raised a
concern about reflecting into the neighbor's property are now to the they face west side. Yes. Away from the neighbor. Yes. Okay. Uh any other changes that we want to address? And did you have the
opportunity to review CME's letter of September 2nd with the review of the updated plans? Yes. Okay. Uh can you address uh any open comments that Mr. Rizzo sought testimony
from you as the engineer? Um so pertaining to the uh soil boring labels I will make those more clear on our plan those locations. Yeah you don't need to go through do you will you I mean they're simple would you comply
with all the technical comments on your number five? Yes. Okay. Um and then other than that the sports court as you mentioned was moved further off the side property line. Um there was testimony in the last hearing about a
landscaping plan. Is that something you're planning to provide as part of compliance? Yeah, we we've agreed um that there will be a landscaping plan and soundproofing measures subject to your review and approval for the sports port. That was an issue that was raised for the noise
issue. So we've we've stipulated that we'd agree to that to that. uh the soil test that you just indicated we've agreed to. Um infiltration rates, all all of those things you guys will technically take care of. Um and I guess the last one was outside
agency approvals. We just we just got cafe approval. Yes. So that's now in. So it's um I think that addresses everything that you've raised. Okay. I ask that you picture behind you is accurate. Uh, is that a reflection with
all the changes or is that does that incorporate everything you just described? Yes. So, why don't why don't we why don't we describe this because we I don't think we introduced this rendered one. You want me? Yeah. Why don't you pass out the small ones so they can see them and then let's talk about this rendered
exhibit. This is this revise changes, right? Well, you have the overall but you don't have the colored one. So, we're going to we can mark it. We can mark the color one. Uh
829. 829. Can you point out the changes for the driveway as well? Sure. Can you see this? Okay. You want us to move it or? Now that I have this, that's great. Um
shaking. Yeah. Everybody see this? All right. You want us to try to relocate this? We're used to Okay, go ahead and let's let's show the change to the driveway. Just my initial question.
This area here on the house was slightly and then moving in the four court building over here. That's where those are where the numbers came out. Thank you. Are you okay with the driveway configuration the way it uh kind of
skews a little bit? um is if you wanted to to change that at a later date, you're adding disturbance which puts you over the threshold. So is that something that comfortable with now? Yes. So this is this exhibit represents uh
the ch all of the changes that you just gave an narrative on. Yes. And I think it's um if the board has any questions after looking at the activity, we're happy to try to respond. I'm not sure if this is directed best to
the engineer or the professional. Is there any screening or fencing proposed around the mechanicals that's on the east side just out there in the lawn area? I'm looking at correctly. I think our landscaping plan was
designed to screen and buffer that and we could we're going to submit that and it'll be subject to Mr. Rizzo's review and approval from both the river and the sidewalk. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Can you identify the as I understand it
from the beginning of the testimony that there is a single setback variance which would be required if we were looking at this in accordance to the R40 standards. Can you identify whether this setback here on the left side
it's at I believe 22.96 and it would be 25 for the R40. Sure. Um, this setback here is 22.96 and it would have to be 25 to meet 140. Did you get a chance to look at the
Yeah, I agree. The the R40 um they don't meet it because of the side property line and because of what but otherwise just to be clear this lot does conform to all the R40 standards for upon other than those two. Yeah. So, so the decision to not pursue
opport but we wanted we wanted this home as originally presented and now as redesigned based on everybody's efforts. Uh and and this is what we're seeking and hoping you'll consider and approve.
But the opportunity doesn't apply unless you confirm everything you wouldn't be here. So there's no question that you're you're deviating. I just wanted to understand where you satisfied or not satisfied the standard, right? It's just it's just that one
corner in the size of the home. Just want to make sure I understand the where the house sits sort of crowns, right? You're at about a 23 foot elevation from the ground. Yes. Okay. And then it drops off to the
And yes, I'm back. The roof line 35 ft higher than 23. That's what we're going to ask from the water. 23 ft up and then 35 the top. Correct. Um not the chimney but the top of the room.
How tall are building? Building heights measured from average existing grade. So I'm just double checking. Our average existing grade is I think I gave that to you at 23. You confirm
it's 2305. And we're not adding um we're raising the grade a little bit around the house but not more than a foot. So it still sits about 23 23. Yes.
And then height of the building about uh 35 ft above that correct. 58 I don't draw that conclusion one way or the other. I just wanted to know you get to draw.
Did you and again I was hit some other things and I apologize my following. Did you go through the reduction of the patio area? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? All right. We'd like to bring our
planner up to kind of summarize u the application, the relief, the justification, and then I'll I'll conclude and um ask that you proceed. measurements.
Hi, good evening. My name is Father Alen. I was previously sworn in. Um I am a just as a review a professional planner and an AICP. I've worked with Beacon Planning uh since 2008 and I've been licensed actually this is my uh 10 year anniversary this year.
Congratulations. Uh so to walk through the application I know we've had a lot of discussions about it and I know there's concerns regarding the upzoning and the one sideyard setback. Um I do want to note uh the building uh the front yard
setback is 242 ft. um where uh 50 ft is required and the rear to the bulkhead is 106 ft where 30 ft is required. So there are substantial setbacks to the front and rear of this building. So I know there's concerns regarding the massing but we have to
remember that this massing isn't up against these two property lines. And when we talk about the sideyard setbacks um yes there is a pinch point at the garage that is a lower structure. So its max height is 20 ft and that pinch point
is only at the corner. So that set back increases and we when we talk about the R40 district I know that um it would require a combined uh sideyard setback of 66.5 ft where the applicant is
offering uh 79.94. So yes, there is a one pinch point but overall we've actually exceeded the standards associated with the R40 district for the sideyard setbacks. Um, with respect to the I know there is also
concerns regarding the sports court and its setback and possible noise. Um, as was related by your professional, uh, the accessory buildings actually have a smaller set sideyard setback requirement and he was asking for one that's associated with an outdoor court. So,
this is an indoor structure and the applicant has this has agreed to provide some sound hoofing to help the neighbors. But I also want to note that this this garage doors along the front of this are oriented to the inside of the property. So when they're open, the
sound isn't reflected isn't going to the rear or to the neighbor. It's going into the property. And those garage doors face the garage doors of the actual garage. So it's it's kind of being contained in the site. It's not um not that I am a an acoustical engineer, but
I did want to point out that these are forward into the site and not towards the neighbors. Um with respect to the massing of the home, um the applicant has taken steps to reduce that the size and the feel of that. Um as we stated, the second floor portions of it were
brought in. Um there was open covered balconies proposed to help soften the appearance. I know there is concerns along the river frontage and that facade. Uh but there is the first floor has a covered porch um and there are variations. So it's not like there is
just a solid wall that someone is looking at from the river. Uh there is variations and again that building is set back 106 feet from the bulkhead. So um not from the property line or from the riparian grant but 106 from the
bulkhead. So the massing is somewhat diminished visually by just the distance that the home is from the rear property line. Um with respect to the square footage of the home, I I know there are questions regarding um other homes in
the neighborhood. The problem I ran into, and I'm sure that you will agree, is that tax records don't necessarily conform to what your standard is for what's measured for habitable floor area. So doing an
applesto apples comparison is very difficult. Uh particularly when you get to second floors, bolted ceilings, things of that nature. So instead, I looked at the tax records. We looked at what the first floor was measured out. So what is the footprint of the home?
And so um uh I would love to be able to say that I could tell you about one hands but unfortunately their tax record is too new and it hasn't been updated with that information. Um if we were to look at uh 15 hands
which is block 78 lot 11 uh the first floor has a square footage of 5,470 square ft. I'd like to note that our first floor square footage uh is 4,275
square ft. Uh we're looking at um uh 72 Pine Cove Road. So these are properties uh that are located to the east east. I want to say east. It's a little
bit skewed. Um 72 Pine Coen Road has a first floor um of 4,668 square ft and 78 Pine Grove which is block 78 lot 13.03 has a first floor uh area of 4,17
square ft. Um so there is you have the tax records is that what you're looking at? Yes. So the tax records actually give you a footprint for the first floor. They say first floor area. So, it's not a perfect like how we would measure, but usually they give uh a livable first
floor. So, you're you're you've concluded that in looking at the total square footage is listed in the tax records that it's not indicative of the size of those homes and that the first floor in comparison to this first floor is a
better place for us to look to try and figure out whether or not there is conformity to the neighborhood scheme. Yes. Because unfortunately with second floors as we've run into with the 30 in, it's not easy to really compare what that second floor square footage would
count as. So particularly since some of these tax records may predate some of your zoning changes with regard to how it was calculated. So at least at the first floor, you could have a footprint of what would understand of what's going on, right? So, do any of the tax records
that you look at um show you a house that is um as large or in excess of what this is? Uh including the second story. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Um so,
do you mind if I grab my cell phone, do some quick math? Do you need a calculator? Yeah, I'll do it on my phone. Okay. And did you finish with the footprints that you wanted to identify for us? Uh so I was going to name a few others that are in the community. These ones
were close to the subject property. Uh but other properties such as uh 568 Ridge Road. Uh block 67 lot 35 has a first floor story of 5,170 square ft. Uh 85 Graange Avenue. Uh,
block 22, lot 48, has a first floor of 4,156. And, um, 191 Lewis Lane, block 79, lot 22, has a first floor story of 4,756 square ft. Is it safe to assume you comb the entire
town and that you've identified footprints that are larger than your footprint, and we should assume that that's all there are, or did you have specific properties that you were looking at? So I did look um
so tax cards are a little bit tricky because when you pull down the summary it only gives the overall it doesn't give the first floor. So you have to go tax record by tax record. So I wasn't able to go through the entire community and compare all footprints.
So do we know the do we know the zoning of each of those properties? Yes. Um I'm going to go in reverse if that's okay. Yeah. Um quick question before you the last house we mentioned a 4,000 square foot range.
Yes. Is that a multi story? So um the last one was 91. Sorry first floor. First floor. And it says multitory.
Yes. It says the upper story is 4,364 square ft. and it says the lot and it says I mentioned to him that that's the address of the house point that everyone was obsessed with the last meeting. Okay,
that's a big house. Uh so then 85 uh 85 Graange Avenue has a second floor of 3,476 square ft and it is located on a property that has 2.95 acres.
Um how much it does? That's why it's that's why it's a hard comparison. Um uh the total if we add up with how they calculate it uh the total square footage would be
7,632 square ft um uh just for the home. Is it safe to say assume some of these homes are older they're not taking advantage of add bonus space or the basements are probably a little less
efficient in this house? It's un that almost as safe to assume is how the tax little buzz is probably it's fuzzy because it's uh you know the home that was on this property before uh it was demolished it had a taller
height. It was like what approximately 38 ft. So I don't know if that attic was usable. So it's it's not clear. That's why first I focused on the footprint and then if you'd like we could discuss the second floor, but I think anything else
gets a little bit more dicey with how they were used. How many how many addresses did you identify? I have tax records excluding hands. One, two, three, um, six. Okay. So, the six properties
that you've identified have um footprints that are similar to this. And I think that you would like us to conclude that those houses are similar to this. And so, loosely speaking, this house won't be the biggest house. Fair Haven, those houses are equally sized.
Is that is that fair? Is that more or less? Yes. Although although a purchony and some other features vary a little bit on the edges, correct? Okay. Can you refresh my memory of what the existing house was, but the tax record set? I think the overall house was something
I believe that's accurate. Um, the footprint for that. So, there's actually info too on the addic and some of that other stuff on that tax record for the the house that was uh knocked down. So I think last
time it lived to about 21% larger than what the tax record was right. So whatever it was on there 8,800 it lived like you know whatever that math is 11,000 and change. We we we testified at his July meeting that it was 88.41. Okay. So I think figured out that it
lived to about 21% larger. So So this house if you you look at all the space right and you net out the sports board it's going to live like almost 14 and a half thousand feet right? And it's, you know, whatever whatever that number is, uh, you know, sub 8,000, you know,
apples to apples, right? So, it's going to live dramatically larger because there's all this other space that can be utilized that, you know, previous older homes. They didn't have the advantage that that they have with, you know, more efficient basement, right? If you look at the basement here, it's basically the
exact same square footage as the top floor. It's super efficient, right? Um, yep. I would agree, but it's it's possible that older homes still have full footprint basement. Um, it is, but they're unlikely to be used like that, right? And I think you also have the bow square. I think the point
I'm trying to make is that not to evaluate what you're saying, but it's the square footage as counted as what's going to live. It's going to, you know, count sports, right? This house lives at just under 16,000 ft, right? It's pretty significant. I would venture I guess and
say most of the warehouse you identified don't live anywhere close to 16,000 ft zoning or acreage. U some of the homes yes you we there are older homes in the sample but um for example
um 568 Ridge Road was built in 2018 though it's not an aberration that is just limited to the older homes. Uh, but it's in the R40 district. It's still within the residential district that we've been asked to compare this
property to. Sure. But this is still the R30, right? I guess that's the jumping back to your your promise about the first floor that so the proposed house is what 4,276. Uh, 4,276 on the first floor.
Okay. Again, we have the old house was on the first floor. Let me I'm gonna try and pull up the tax card. For some reason, it's not within my um I was just more curiosity just the house was very symmetrical. So, it's probably very similar to the you have
the 41 or 4,400. I think it's probably two or three stories next but presumably that's equation probably 8,800 divided by three. So pursuant to the tax card
uh the uh the first floor was 3219 the upper story was 2862 and then it showed a a half story at 2760. Yeah. So it's a so it's a threetory building. So
so these comparable 4,000 300 square foot first floors. One of those could potentially I mean we're this is still just one of the aerial images that Mr.
Bruno was alluding to before but that 4,300 square foot house could potentially be like a 65 ft square, right? So, so it would affect if you were looking at it the way you all look at it
from the ground, it would be a 65 foot wide house and and that's the that's the open space that it would take up whereas this 4,300 square ft takes up
over 120 ft from one side and I would so so do you feel that that's a fair comparison? Oh, I feel that comes into a lot of architecture. I mean, you could do a 65x 65 house, but would you want to see a 65x6?
I'm not asking that question. I'm asking the question. So, a lot of air light and open space, which is one of the main things that we're talking about here, especially with the the overage on the above the cap of square footage in the house.
You could put that 4,300 square foot first floor potentially in something that's 65 ft wide. And and and yet here we have it packaged in something that's
120 by 110 110 and and diagonally across here maybe 130. So 140 or so. So, so the open space around this
is I mean in the space that this takes up just horizontally is is two times what some of these other 4,300 foot first floors could potentially look like. Right.
Well, wait a minute. I I I Go ahead. Can I pass out the aerial that I passed out the first time? I'm not sure if you still have it with your packets. this previous and Mr. As you look at that, I I don't think you can lose you can lose sight of the fact that the
lot is you can lose you can lose sight of the lot, you know, but but the lot is is is more than three times over. I'm not talking about the size of the lot. I'm talking about the size of the house. Well, in in terms of size and scale, in
other words, this has nothing to do with scale because we're talking about a cap. So, I'm not talking about a correct. But from from a visual perspective, so for example, on a 40,000t lot, which the R40 requires, you can put a 6,900 square foot home would
comply. That's going to look a lot bigger than the home that we're putting on, the lot that's more than twice the lot area. So that's the point we've been trying to drive home that yes, you have this
maximum habitable floor calculation which caps the size of a home you can put on a on a property, but I don't we we're asking you to don't lose sight of the fact that we've got so much acreage and and we're so below your F because I think
the whole point of the cap is that there may be much larger lots where you could build a 80,000 square foot home based on the ratio and that's why we have a cap. So it's the whole point of this exercise.
So if if I may jump back uh so if you look you remember what the question is uh the the dimensions of the home. So if you were look to look at the area that I provided you'll see that homes along this riverfront actually are kind of
expansive towards the riverfront. So it's not an unusual shape that's being proposed. um it is common and with respect to the cap I do note as you stated previously that we're talking about light air and
open space so the applicant is giving very large front and rear setbacks. So it's off the property, it's off the water, 106 ft to the bulkhead where 30 ft is required. And the sideyard setbacks, although we have a pinch
point, those sideyard setbacks are larger than that's required in the up zone of R40. So, your R40 district would require um setbacks of 25 ft
and would permit um 25 ft uh on the on a lot with 40,000 square ft. So, we are improving our sideyard setbacks. They're increased over what's required in the R40. So, we're set back from our neighbors.
Yes, we Yes. 25 foot side setback. So, There's one other than the pinch point other than the pinch point our combined sideyard setbacks are 79.64 ft where only 66.5 ft would be required. So we did increase them. So we are
respecting our sideyards and our front and rear. You handed this out. What what did you want to tell us about this? Uh that was just to show that the building footprints along the the waterfront are kind of elongated to take focus and be able to take advantage of the views of the waterfront. So they're
not they're not like square shaped. So I know that you had um recited by lot and block I think the two neighboring houses. Can can you just for the purpose of comparison because I I do think that the comparison is is relevant for sure.
Can you take us from the house that's all the way on the left which is the new one I think at one hands then the next one which is immediately to your right. So, and then maybe the two or three to the other side like like based on the tax cards, what are these houses in total? What does the assessor say the
size of? So, the one way to Sorry, I'm sorry. You're welcome to give me the footprint as well if you think that's a better and safer uh frame of reference because there's more consistency. I would agree with that. Uh the one to the left, one hands, I do not have the information for the tax records having
been updated uh to reflect it. That's a informing house anyway, right? Is that correct? Well, she wouldn't necessarily know that, but we know that because that applicant came before us. They they then withdrew their application and the house is going up. So, the people uh 15 Hance, which is the one uh right
next to it to the west of the subject property, has a first floor um footprint of 5,470 ft and the upper story contains 4,854 square ft. So, can I just ask you about that because um is part of that
footprint the garage uh the garage is actually listed uh separately as a detached garage. There's a attached garage and a detached garage listed in the um tax card. So, I believe the garages are
usually listed separately. Uh when we go to 78, 78 immediately. Uh yes. Yeah. Um it has a first floor of 4,17
square ft. Uh the upper story is actually stated to be 995 square ft. Um, and then 72 Pine Cone Road, which is the one immediately to the west of that, um,
has a first floor square footage of 4,668 square ft. What's total? Um, it's not actually giving me an upper story. Doesn't give any square footage at all. No, not for an upper story. I think
that's a lower slum. I think that's a lower slum house. Okay. So, so working backwards then the the total square footage of the house that you just mentioned is what number? Uh 72 Pine Crow Road. Uh the the first floor, the first story is labeled 4,668
square ft. And there is no second floor. And I assume the tax card gives you square footage. So you assume it's 4,100 ft. Same story. It's 4,668 I believe. One story. All right. So 4,600. The the next house moving backwards is the paleo home. You said that was
78 Pine Cove Road. Uh that is a um first floor story is 4,17 square ft. And it says the upper story is 995 square ft. It does note a cathedral ceiling.
Um so the tax card says it's about 5,000 square feet. Yes. I don't even think that's right. The square feet of variance was less than 7,000 square feet. That might be renovation.
So that's why I was kind of limiting my initial review just to the be here here's the problem. Selectively working through some of the analysis that you think is relevant to us is fine. I'm trying to add context based on how I would look at it just to make sure that I understand the context of what
that provides. So, we know it's not 5,000. So, we'll put an aster on that. The other one now immediately to your west total 15 hands. Um, it has a 5,470 ft first floor and a 4,854 ft second floor
10,000 plus or minus. It's also a 80y old home, right? Yep. It is an older home. And then and then we don't have the other one, but we know it's conforming. Do we know what um uh one hence the zone is? Is that R4? Would you know that? I do not I believe it's still R30, but I
could be mistaken. [Music] Yeah, that's right. I'm going to take your word for it. So, it's R30. So, that means that house has got to measure 5100 ft of whatever gimmick they use, but it's conor.
Okay. Yep. I agree. And then perhaps they still did it come before this board. It did and then they withdraw that word. I will say one hand is on a property
that reportedly contains 1.78 acres right. Yeah. But uh our property is 2.455 acres. You're still conforming to the cap. I think what some of these other people here are trying to get at is it's a it's a skinnier lot than some of these.
Right. And the one here to the west, it's an extremely old home, right? It probably predates the zoning code. probably a Franken home, right? It's been added to over time, I'm sure, without the appropriate uh channels. And I think that's what
I it's but my point is it's you have home over here, right? That's same zone. Maybe it's up, maybe it is. It's still much smaller. You have a home here that it's probably 80 years old, pretty or 50 years, right?
Right. got these two here which the the numbers are unreliable so it's a hard not sure not sure what to take in the data excuse me is Mr. pay all behind the sign on it back there. There you are. Dave,
what is the Do you know the square footage of your your revised house? You saw me swear the testimony before the board to be the truth. You have nothing but the truth. I do. State your name for the record. Please spell your last name. Uh Dave Po is Peter. A l o 78 growth.
There you are. Uh our above ground square footage is 69.90 just under the R40 uh limit. That was what our application was for. Our our uh I also understand the one hands property be in excess of 7,000
square feet above ground and 8,000 below ground. So you're talking about a much bigger house than what it appears from road to the river. Um yeah. Is that is that the question Paul? Yeah. Yeah. Specifically your house but Oh sure. 69. Thanks. because there's so
a disconnect between the renovation and so one hand you understand is in excess of 7,000 heard just generally and you understand that their basement is 15 no 8000 without witness yeah okay so that's that makes sense um
thank you sorry we have a spot yeah we're there Um, I just want to make sure I grabbed everything. Why don't Why don't we try to summarize from a planning perspective the board's justification to grant the relief that
we're seeking? So the the home proposed and I understand there is a cap on square footage. Uh but there is the size of the parcel can help mitigate any perceived impacts by the scale of the home because it's on a much larger
criteria that you're discussing. You're not talking about hardship. No, you're talking about a C2. So, it presents a reinvestment in this property and at a scale that is at least on the first floor similar to homes in
the area. I do understand some of those homes are older, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute to the character of that neighborhood and how this home will continue that. Um, as I said, the front and rear yard setbacks are far in access of what's required and we besides
the pin point pinch point at the garage, we meet we exceed sideyard setbacks uh for the R40 zone. So, the home is not being overbuilt on the site. Uh, it is appropriately scaled and the architecture itself helps diminish any
any concerns regarding a McMansion or something that'll be visually intrusive along the waterfront. There are setbacks, there are balconies, there are overhangs, and the home itself, as I stated, is 106 feet from the the bulkhead. Are there any additional
questions I can answer? How does Okay. How is exceeding the cap to begin with, but exceeding it to the degree that you are, how does that benefit
the zoning ordinances and plan here in in fairing because the home is not being overbuilt. It's being appropriately scaled visually to the site. So, but the cap was developed understanding that
separate from the cap there's a ratio and that's what controls it relative to the size of the site and the cap just controls it relative to the period. I understand, but there are homes along this waterfront, as I've stated, that have larger footprints, and I will be
keeping in character with that. The I understand there is a cap. However, the parcel is large enough that we're not we're not scaling a home to the perfect size of the lot. The lot is what, two and a half, three times the thing. We're
not asking for that. Uh we are asking for additional space. Uh and the lot can accommodate it. It's not. Um, and I understand that you disagree, right? I'm I'm just asking, doesn't the fact that there's a cap and
the fact that the the governing body hasn't changed it, I say anything to the fact this has nothing to do with the scale of the property itself. I don't think the ordinance can address every situation within the community,
which is why we are here. There's always going to be there's properties that have unique features. In this instance, this is not one of them. This is one that is extremely oversized for the district. The unique feature is not a hardship and not all variances need to be granted
pursuant to a hardship. Right? So, but when they're not, there should be some benefit to his own plan and the ordinances exceeding the cap and exceeding it to the degree that you are.
How is that a positive for the zone planned in in Fair Haven and because it's a continuation of the visual along the riverfront. there was very much concerns about how this home would look. And if we look to homes on either side, they are wider along the
waterfront. And so this is a continuation of that configuration. So I I view the positive and negative as working together. And the idea is the positive thinks outweigh the negative when you're working on flexible state. The struggle that I have with this is
that the lot is straight. And so whenever the light is screaming, you have an opportunity to fully reform. There's nothing you're working around. There's no accommodation of trying to preserve something. With regard to the legislative intent and whether or not because the way I think about SC2 is if
the council were here tonight and this were presented to them, they would agree that the zone plan as represented by your plans for this home is consistent with what they think would be appropriate if they zone just for this particular model. That's the way I think about it. But the legislative history in
Fair Haven, there's been no change to that gap in 20 years. What there has been is there has been a a concerted effort to provide flexibility for larger lots by doing a couple of things. One thing is to create this opportunity to
construct in the basement. One hand is a terrific example. They came in, their first hearing was an awful lot like the first hearing here. They left and they never came back. I am not surprised to find out that they found a way to utilize up to 8,000 square feet of subterranean space in order to not have
to get a variance because that's exactly what the ordinances tell them to do. The other thing that we've done is we granted the free third story space. So, as long as it's at 1/3 and it qualifies as an attic the way that we've outlined it, you get all of that for free. The basement's free, the attic's free. On
top of that, we implemented the upon ordinance. I was a part of it. It made a lot of sense for this applicant to know that they weren't limited at 5100 square feet because they were in R30 if they had a larger lot that conform to R40.
But we don't have an R50 zone or an R60 zone. The limits that have been set by council have been in place an awful long time. I struggled with the conclusion that the size of the lot and that's really all I understand that it had. You do have setbacks running fast, but how
could they not be given the depth of the lot? Your sideyard setbacks are effectively what the requirements would be in an R40 when you're this oversized. They're not remarkable. There's just nothing about that that leads me to believe that if the mayor were here tonight that what he would say
is that this is the appropriate size house for this lot because there's been no focus in trying to accommodate Mr. Bruno's view of this which is really that the ordinance is a little silly in that it creates this artificial cat. I just don't see that. Is there something
that I'm missing that you can help me understand where you conclude that that is the appropriate way to see this particular C2 variant? Um I believe as you've mentioned there's not an R50, there's not an R60. So the the community hasn't been able
or I'm not sure the reasoning behind it but they haven't um address these types of partials that are larger. They have limited everything to an R40 without recognizing that there are different characters uh and there are different lot sizes that exceed
that. Um, and so when we when we look at a I'm sorry, when we look at a 40,000 square foot lot, your maximum is 6,900 square ft and the zone. Therefore, your ordinance envisions that a 40,000 ft lot
visually can accommodate a 6,900 ft home. the zone then it doesn't permit it doesn't continue that logic to the larger lot sizes. True. So when we say it's appropriately
scaled, what we're saying is that visually you had the zone had anticipated a 69,000 ft home on a 40,000 foot lot. Visually, this would be similar and it's not as big because we
didn't scale it up with respect to uh lot cover um floor area ratio or anything like that. So, does that it it does and and I appreciate the response. I think this is the heart of the matter. I really do. I think the
entire thing turns on this. And I think that when you look at this lot, the lack of context because it is so large in Fair Haven where we have very few lots that are this large, it's kind of hard to grasp it. But we can look at R5 and with regard to R5 in Fair Haven, that
requires that 50 ft wide and you have a you have no no less than 5,000 square feet. So 50 by 100. At least 50% of the R5 lots in Fairaven are considerably larger than that. Most of them by 50%.
So they're 50 feet deeper than the 100 ft. The ordinance is the ordinance does not say in R5 that you go to 2200, but if you have that excess lot, you can build 3,000. It it it intentionally does
not. And so when I apply that logic here, I'm left to assume that it was intentional and it's not a lack of zoning for this type of lot. It is a an overall scheme that basically says they're only going to get this big and
to the extent that you have more property. the solutions that I've mentioned before, the upzoning, the opportunity to come in for a varian for sure um I think are out there, but I don't know that just the size of the lot alone.
Can I ask a question? Yeah. In the R5 zone, would you be able also to upzone? Uh yeah. So there is that option for that home or that property that is over R75? You go up one zone the same way you can go from R30 to R40. You can go from
R5 to R75 and you go to 3020 if you fully comply with the requirements of the R75 lot size and your proposed residence completely conforms to the R75 standard. Short the front yard setback, but we don't need to get into
you're talking about are like 50 ft wide and 320 ft deep. Well, you're not going to zone on a 50 foot wide because if our 75 requires more lift, I think it's 60. But there is that option. There is. And if someone were coming in to you with a lot size that met even
above the R75, they would probably discuss that zone with you and what is permitted in that other zone at that lot area. We actually we actually direct them to do that because the fact is that our community standards are established in in in table
C. That's it. Um that's the standards as we understand them. And so as we look at what you're presenting, we have to reflect on that. And so since there isn't anything above R40, I think the context of that is at least how I'm looking at what you're proposing and
there is no relief when you're triple the size of the minimum lot. And in an R5, if you were making the same argument, we could have three 2200 foot homes and therefore we are not asking for 6,400.
That was bad math. 6,600. We're only asking for 3,600. And if they had scraped the lot and they were putting it in and what would we do? It would be good for we we don't see that.
So what I am saying is that let's say you had a 5,000 a 15,000 foot lot in a 5,000 foot lot in a 5,000 foot zone. Yep. 15,000. Yeah. Uh five Yeah. 15,000. It was three times the size. Yeah. Right. Comparable to this.
Then you would go up. You would say that you are allowed to upzone one, but chances are the applicant will come in and show you the zoning regulations controlling a 15,000 square foot lot and say we need X, Y, and Z. Sure, they they absolutely would. And
there's lots on here. I'm sorry, but we are not afforded that because your your ordinance has not addressed it. No, you're afforded the R30 to the R4. Yes, but as I was saying, the R5, if it was three times larger, they wouldn't
present you the R75. They would go up another one that considered that 15,000 square foot lot. Yeah. Part of the problem though, I I hear you, and that they would make that argument, but the lead from 75 to R10, it's just 200 additional square feet.
And and the point that that gets at is that there is a consistency to the community scheme, and I think you're hearing a lot of it from Al. I think there is a desire inside of these ordinances for homes to be consistent to the neighborhood. And I I I'm actually trying to get out your planning
testimony. I'm not trying to preach it to you. I I I I I accept your arguments that there are homes in Fair Haven that are larger. I accept that there are homes in your direct proximity that are similar in size and scale. I accept that because
you told me that's true. I think there's other factors to be tied into it and I think I've shared with you what my concerns are about that. I understand and I do want to reiterate that with this respect to the scale of homes in the immediate area, visual continuity is a consideration for the
board. Mr. Chairman, I I' I'd like to u sum up because I have some points I'd like to make that go to the heart of this issue and I think it's important that the board give that some consideration. I mean, are you done with your planning
test? Were there any additional questions for me? No. Thank you so much. So, I mean, we we we we've been arguing uh the importance of floor area ratio. Uh we're continuing to argue that Mr.
Sati's pointed out the importance of your your caps. And uh I'm going to ask the board to to try to have an open mind as I make some of these arguments because I'm not looking to argue with you for the point of arguing. I'm I'm looking to argue
with you to try to convince you that you've got more discretion to consider the floor area ratio when you consider this variance and not just a habitable floor uh limitation for this property. And I'm going to explain why I believe
that to be true. Your habitable floor area uh uh caps uh are pretty unique. Um that case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Uh it it it related to a property on
William Street had to do with a 5,000 foot lot and the developer got a subdivision u for 27500 foot lots. Your cap was 2200 square ft. So the maximum you could
allow is 2200 square f feet. And the developer wanted to do uh he wanted to take advantage of the floor area ratio and I think the houses he wanted to do was 2700 square feet. uh he couldn't reconcile how you can't
look at the floor area ratio and have it overrule the cap and the cap should be unlawful because the municipal land use law set up that the floor area ratio takes into effect how big you can go on a lot if it's bigger than the than the
zone that that case went all the way up to the Supreme Court highest court in the state 2020 uh 2003 or 2002 to something like that. It was Burrow of Rumson v Burrow of B Rumson Rumson
Builders versus Fair Haven. The court found and they the court wrestled with it. All all three courts wrestled with it and it finally got to the it got to the Supreme Court and the court the argument that the plaintiff made was there's this is inconsistent
with what the land use law provides. it just come off the the heels of the Manaliban case where towns were trying to take out unusable land in terms of uh coverages that if it's wetland you can't count it for density and so forth and the court overturned the town's trying
to do that. So it was it was along the same lines that you were trying to do more than the municipal land use allowed you to do. And the court the the burrow said, "Well, wait a minute. We don't want McMansions on our smaller lots. We don't want these lots
overbuilt. These are small 5,000 foot lots. We want people in our community to be able to buy these homes and live here. And if we don't have this control, our homes would will no longer be affordable.
who found that argument to be lawful and and valid and and a valid reason for upholding your law, your cap. But it related to one core issue, which is you want to
preserve affordable housing for people of lesser monetary means in your community. And in fact, you cited burrow employees that you didn't want to have burrow employees not be able to live here because people were overbuilding on these lots. And they found that to be a
lawful reason. Now you look at our lot has nothing to do with affordable housing. In fact, only the richest of us all can afford these waterfront lots. These are among the most valuable
properties in the entire state. That logic doesn't apply to this property. Now, you've carried over the cap, as if it should, but I would argue for you with you that it's unlawful. I'm not saying you don't
have it and you don't have to follow it because it's your ordinance. But I don't think it's lawful as to this property because you don't have the the zoning justification to say we need to have a cap here because we want affordable housing for this property. You don't have the same arguments here that were
valid on the 5,000 foot lot. That's why I've been asking you to take a look at the floor area ratio that your your governing body put in the ordinance. That's 15%. We're half of that. This this house is appropriately sized
for this property based on what your ordinance says. And but for this arbitrary cap that you guys came up with and I don't know how you came up with it for waterfront properties, we wouldn't be sitting here. We'd have a conforming application. So I understand you have a
cap and I understand that you have laws to uphold and that's your job. But when we ask for variance, we ask you to understand the legal arguments and the justification for it. And in this instance, you heard a lot of testimony
about the planning support for it. You could you could upzone to 40,000 square feet and put and subdivide the property into two lots and put two 6900 foot homes here, which would be much more intrusive than the one home that we're
putting here on this over 100,000 foot property. So, I'm asking you to to consider that in your deliberations that it's justified for this large lot. I understand the cap is important to you guys. I I get it, but I don't think it
should be as important for these larger lots because this is a unique property. The cost of construction is a whole another ball game on these properties. The cost of acquiring the properties is a whole another level. Has nothing to do with affordable h housing. This is a fluent people that are very successful
that have the opportunity to live here and bring a great ratable to your town and I don't think you should discourage it especially when you've had the input that you've had and all of your concerns have been addressed the best we can.
We've made almost 30 changes since the original design which we thought was magnificent. all in response to the comments that you guys had and I understand we haven't gotten all the way for certain of you. But based on what we just talked about and the purpose of
that habitable maximum habitable floor area where where it originally originated which on small lots and trying to make sure that residents of this town can stay here and not be mcmansioned out of it which was a valid reason and the court found that you
don't have that here. So, I'm asking you to consider all the facts here. The fact that you could put two lots with 6,900 square foot homes, which doesn't make any sense here. The fact that the the applicant is giving up any opportunity to subdivide and restricting this
property to one lot. The fact that we've tried to address all of your comments to try to accommodate and come up with a great plan that we all can be proud of. and my client really wants to live in town and he is doing his darnest to try to make a plan that they love that you
can love and that this can this board can approve. So, we're asking you to please consider all the changes that we made. Please consider all the planning arguments that we made. Please consider the the legal argument that I've made and distinguishing this property from
the R5 properties where where it is a valid reason and the court supported that. This is a little different. This is not about affordable housing on this property. This is about doing the appropriate scale home for this property. And because we have a larger property, we can do it a little bit
bigger and still make it magnificent and still smaller than what it would be if we subdivide it and put two 6900 ft homes there. So, I'm asking you to consider that in your deliberations and we're asking you to please approve this application this evening. Screw I'm not
trying to needle you, but is the isn't the Romson estates case effectively about the floor area ratio and not cap? No, it's fine. Well, no that it's about the the plaintiff argued it should be about the floor area ratio because that's the scheme on the municipal land use law,
but the court found that no, uh this is a valid reason for having a cap. the the desire to have affordable housing and not force people to buy McMansions and and get pushed out of town is a valid zoning reason. And for that reason, the
court agreed to uphold your ordinance. And so in surrounding towns, there's no square footage caps in their ordinances. They don't have caps and little silver and Bronson. I I don't know. I don't know. But this this I've been in a lot of towns. This is the only town I see it. And and this is this is the only town where you don't
really reconcile floor area ratio. What do you do with four area ratio? You ignore it. No, we don't. Well, of course you do because we're half of what's permitted and it doesn't matter. No, I think I think what matter is that I think let's just let's just
Yeah, let's just level set. I think I think you can talk amongst yourself. I love Listen, I love the house, right? My business is real, right? I love I love the house. I would I would build it if I could, right? side. It's nothing against the uh the monetary value of the house and and I and I recognize how much
it costs to not only acquire this but but build it, right? I recognize it more acutely than you may realize. The various pieces that Mr. Shetti, you know, is getting very emotional about is that there guard rails to protect
against exceeding certain pieces of development in different situations, right? So perhaps the wall was configured differently. maybe you would hit a different gap. So there they're guard rails and it's framework built for that piece. Right. I want to I want to give you just some thoughts of where where how I feel about it. I think why don't we hold that?
Okay. We have it open to the public. We have the public a little direction. I I I just want to Mr. I just want to explain to you that in yard 10 gone if you have 100 by 100 lot which is fairly standard in river oaks you have both a
3220 cap and you have a 28.28 floor area ratio limitation. So even though you can build to the 3220 at the calf the floor area ratio brings you down to 2800 square ft. The idea behind it is that the floor area ratio is
supposed to keep things in check. You have this cap and the floor ratio is supposed to identify when you have an issue with regard to density and I understood that a material element of the runs estates case was the application of the floor ratio as a debarance requiring a super majority of
the pool. We can leave all that for another time. Um, I think that your point is well taken with regard to the fact that it was litigated and that the substantive arguments addressed by the bureau to the court were focused in large part with regard to affordability and your argument is that that shouldn't apply here. I think that all
correct. Um, I'd like to open to public. So, are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments with regard to the house? Uh, Dave Po again, 78 road pa Yeah.
Um I did want to I feel like I wish I had a joke here. Um I did want to quickly offer support for the applicant and the application. Um I I don't want subdivision and McMansions on the lot next to me and I only really just thought of that in the
last five minutes. Um they be mansions. Sorry. It's occurred to me that they'd be mansions, not McMansion. Um first and foremost the the plan compared to the home that was previously there it centers everything on the lot and that's and in my mind that creates
the light air and open space that I think we all seek and from my perspective that is the primary kind of benefit to from my side u personally Mr. Don has been very communicative and accommodating. Um, you know, examples would be sports courts, uh, mechanicals
being moved, etc., etc. Um, I do think the landscaping plan is extensive and dense, and as a former Sha Tree guy, I appreciate that. Um, sports court, I I think that generally I think anybody in the neighborhood would prefer an indoor
uh, version of the sports court as opposed to the outdoors. So from a neighbor perspective, I think that's that's a plus to be considered. Um I think uh the president with one hand is kind of interesting. Um I think that
Mr. McDonald's lot is is considerably bigger, too. And I think you're kind of I think the above ground square footages are comparable with 7,000 versus 7,800 roughly for the primary structure. Um and then uh I think Dr. Lawer's part from last meeting um regarding kind of
the aesthetics from the river. Um I think he made a really good counterpoint about you know things fitting in um from if you were going past it and you look at the different houses that are on the river. Uh I think the width uh I think my house would actually be wider than the proposed. I don't actually know what the number is on mine, but um my my lot
is more narrow. Um and I think I would be wider than their proposed uh house. So st looking at the two next to each other, they would be very comparable um or match at least. And I think um just in general, I think the the application uh it beautifies the neighborhood
neighborhood and I'm I'm very happy to support it. So any questions, Mr. No, thank you. Any other members of the public have any questions or comments? Tell me swear the testimony you're about to give the board be the truth of the
truth. I do. For record Santos, 92 Pine Co. Spelling your last name, please. S A N T O S. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Do you live at one of the houses we've been talking about today on Pineco? Are you on the water? I'm I'm
right next to Dave. So I'm I part of my property uh I'm on the east. So So we were talking about yours with the uh with planner as being the easterly eastern most property on this mountain. Yes. Sorry, I didn't hear that. It was hard to hear in the back. Okay. Are you on the water or are you south?
I am just south. So I don't think it was one. Oh, sorry. No, sorry. So our our uh our backyard basically um we're kind of sandwiched between the two properties between the applicant and Dave 92. I believe it's 1306. Yes.
Yes. They bought Dave's property is your address or Okay. Um so just a couple questions. Um one I mean I think the application looks great. I think the house looks great. It
is a big lot. Um it looks very pretty. Um so I have no problem with that. I have a couple questions about the sport court and the noise mitigation. And I know you had mentioned something I guess in your letter about
um identifying soundproof materials for the sports court building. Is that something that's going to be forthcoming at some point? What what it actually is hasn't been identified. Other than that, it would be provided. It's a resolution compliance. Okay.
So, it' be soundproofing the building which which does have three garage doors facing through the the west. And then there's a landscape plan which sounds like it's developed but we haven't seen it yet. Um and that would include
a vegetative buffer screen ideally like evergreen trees. Um so that the visuals would be produced from the property directly to the east. and I guess some of your property as well to spread this out. Yeah. So, we our our property wouldn't
necessarily be looking at the court, but it will be hearing it. So, I guess my only comment would be um I know you had mentioned um specific attention to the vegetative buffer between the proposed
port building and lot 1307, which is Dave's lot. I'd really like to see also some attention for us and even the home on the other side, the Blues, which are they are um 25 H Road on the west side of the property.
Yes. Because I I I know she couldn't be here tonight, but I know she had some concerns the garage doors opening. Yes, they will be opening to the other garage, but pickle ball's noisy. I mean, it's whether it's indoors, outdoors, it's a
sound that carries. I play it. It's fun. I like it. You know, I'm not saying we don't want the court, but I feel like we just really should be taking some specific measures and um just some research on how we can make this so it's enjoyable for everyone, the people
playing and the neighbors around. I think I think uh if this board were approved this, the applicant stipulated that they would move soundproofing subject to Mr. Ridzo's approval and we have a very robust landscaping plan, but they would certainly take into
consideration the buffer with your property to further try to address the comment that we heard. Uh those types of comments the applicant's agreeable to enhancing it subject to Mr. Rizzo's review if this board will approve.
And then my only other question the fencing um on the uh I think on the recent plan there's again it was hard for me to see it but is it a 4ft fence all around the front? So currently there's a six foot fence
along the front border. Is that changing to 4 feet or is that staying as six feet? Um, so the testimony was that the fence in the front between two side property lines is being replaced with a 4ft tall
fence and then the fence in the rear is being replaced. But along the sides is remaining as it is today. So I don't know what it is today along the front. If it is six feet, it's being replaced to a shorter fence. It's four feet. Oh, that's along the where the entrance is the south side.
Okay. Um and then along the side like we have a 4 foot fence or basically four feet because of our pool. So there'll just be another fence on the other side of that or so so Mr. Riz really not the right person to answer this question. Okay. There there was a fence that was requiring of a variance which is the
reason that we discussed it because there's certain limitations on height nature of fences in front yards and around pools and whatnot. I think if your question is about what to plan, there's no proposal for a variant. So, anything would conform, but the applicant's here and I think you're welcome to ask the applicant what their
intent is and maybe they can give you some information. Okay. I mean, it's not important for the scope of tonight. I know it's getting late, but just wanted to mention a few things. Thank you. Thanks. Any other comments, questions from
public? Okay. reflector. Mr. Bruno, do you have anything further in closing? I think my client would like to uh address the board in closing and then uh that would be it. Okay.
As I've mentioned in the first meeting, Nancy and I really want to come here and live here. Uh, we respectfully request this board to approve our project. If there are any issues with the sports
court, Nancy and I are willing to not build the sports court and just keep the house as is. We would love to have both, but if the board feels that because of
the total square footage because the sports court adds to that, we can live with no sports court. I'll have to go play pickle ball somewhere else. Um, but we really want to live in this town. Uh, it's been two
years since we've purchased this property, costing us a lot of money, real estate taxes and maintenance. Um, we really want to sell the house that we live in in Chester and move into Fair Haven. Like I mentioned, you know, we want to be here for the rest of our lives. I
mean, we've been in Chester for over 40 years. We don't jump around. Our grandchildren live 15 minutes away. Want to spend time with our family and we love My niece teaches at the Fair
Haven school, grammar school on hands, you know. So um we love the town. We want to live here. So removal of a sports court uh would make the habitable area 7869 which is
less than a,000 square feet which would be permitted under the upzoning uh I think that with the more than two times the size of the upzoning the 40,000 square foot um the the testimony you've heard as to
the justification for the relief for that little less th00and square feet over the uh that the upzoning uh is even you know more greatly enhanced obviously and so uh if if that size continues to
be an issue of board's concern uh I think the removal of sports court gets us to a point where we're hopeful that gets the the necessary votes if we don't have enough for the uh total
application. So here on the test sports court was 11,1,150T rest 7831. I think that's right. I mean we had the debate over the 30 some 30 something
that that that that's right 7831. Yeah. Plus or minus 30 for the Yeah. Thank you. That that's a really substantial change to what's being proposed. Um,
so I think the board can deliberate with the understanding that the applicant is willing to remove the sports court to the extent that that sways a vote in the direction of approval. And I think that's what you're asking for the application to move forward with the
idea that it all is being requested and that as we're deliberating if we've got a hung vote that we can pull the sports board in order to get that moving to the park. Yes, we're hoping we were persuasive enough that we don't have to remove it, but uh we don't want to walk out of here with denial and uh that
would be our last gas effort to try to get you to see uh the merit of this request, this application. Okay. Um so yeah so so there were a series of things over the the meetings that have been um sort of offered up
with regard to um acceptable conditions um on an approval. And so I think we should make sure that we've had a handle on what those things are. Um and and Mr. Mr. B, I think you should confirm that the things that I guess that that Doug's
got are all are all acceptable all the way back to the last column with regard to some landscaping I guess with regard to community. I have my list so I think I'll follow along. Let me go through what I have at this point in time additional concerns. Please address
those tried to develop these over the last three hearings in no particular order. Um the applicant is agreeing to additional landscaping and screening around the uh generator the HVAC. They would uh make sure that the
freehole of soils application would be provided. I don't think we have that at this point in time. Applicant has agreed uh to provide dry wells to capture runoff for all roof areas and submit those plans to the engineer for review and recommendation. Applicant will
comply with federal ordinances and obtain permits for removal of any trees located now where the generation AR applicant would be complying with all D regulations. Uh outdoor lighting we haven't spent a
lot of time but there was a representation by the applicant that it would be low landscape lighting examples would be submitted to the engineer for recommendation approval. Um the sports court has now been shifted uh
with regard to the sports court. There is not specific identification of the sound proofing but the applicant has been confirmed this evening that they will be doing things to provide for sound proofing and that they be reviewed by the year and follow the recommendations of this. There will be a
consolidation of two lots and restriction on future subdivision. Restriction for the sports car from being used as a garage or residence or I can say hable area. Put that in. Um
That's what we've done. Reduction of the patio and small and pool area. I believe those are the conditions I have today. Is there anything else? Anybody else had recollection for a condition? You have land. So, did you say landscaping? I I think you said
mechanicals, but the sports court to the extent that that's the case and then continue down towards lot 13.06 plus landscaping screening to the west lot 11. I I think what we'll do is we'll put the landscaping plan in for review
recommendation. I think we should be able to expand that. Okay, that's that's what I would be reviewing it for. But but some of the context for the agreement to add additional landscaping directly to the sports court to the extent that the sports board isn't part of something that I don't think that those particular
conditions would I I'm going to read it as though it's all only at this point in time. Those would be the conditions you know assuming sports court is in. If not obviously we wouldn't have conditions concern that you did in there about the
drywall. Yes, we did. I think it's already been placed on the site plan and passed as to the particular engine. You're still going to have to make sure that capture sufficient runoff and those types of things for those capitalizations. What's that standard? What what did we talk about? What did
for the new construction everything from the roof needs to go underground? Yeah. Nothing for the patios, etc. Correct. That's what they're showing currently. So, so that's that's the municipal standard and and that's um that's already we don't need it as a
condition. We could reference it, but that's what and I have one more recommendation and I I mentioned this at the first hearing, but this project is right on the threshold of being a major development for storm water management, which is one acre of disturbance. Um they're proposing 0.98.98
acres. Um, and that's something that's really difficult for any burough office to track in the future as far as what's been previously disturbed versus a brand new permit or something that's a very, you know, small amount of disturbance. So, I have this in my letter on page
five. It's at the bottom, but uh, the recommended condition would be that the approved limit of disturbance is.98 acres. If any future disturbance occurs on this property that combines with any past project to exceed one total acre of disturbance, property will exceed the threshold of a major development will be
required to provide the necessary storm water management. What would that be? So they'll need to meet the three prongs which is water uh quantity reductions. So basically taking a 210year storm and reducing that significantly by deping it
on your property and infiltrating it. Um you need to be water quality which is um uh basically taking all paved areas and treating it whether it's through infiltration or filters or some other type of structure or or
product and then groundwater recharge which is taking a set number of you know volume and putting it into the ground. It's a lot more a lot more involved than just saying we have a drywall that captures all. So, but it's easy to see where the line's been drawn right at the one acre
and they've they've really worked. That's exactly the point. It's very clear. But part of the problem I have with with putting it into a resolution is that the suggestion that you would do all those things because you wanted to add a small patio what that application might be to rethink the
drainage on the entire property. Could that be accommodated? Treating a driveway that isn't pitched and designed to take the water down on your ground. Um, I mean, I know you don't see this often because we're not talking about disturbing more than one acre, but you'll need, you know, above ground
basins excavated, you know, to the ground. And it's not necessarily just roof. It's you can put yard inlets and pitch it to a basin. It's a state requirement. So, it's it's involved. All right. Well, let's take that under
adisement. Okay. Um, you've also heard I'm sorry. Additional condition maybe. And should I bring it up now or Well, discuss I I would like to make sure everybody knows what they're voting
on. This would be included in a resolution. We're going to state in the positive for approval. So if you have an additional condition that you think so it was was either agreed to or we should discuss let's do that. Um okay so when I looked at the property via boat and I had a chance to look at
it from land appears to be it's a net or fencing that goes underneath the dock past the high water line. Is that permanent structure? I just heard that for deer. For deer. Yeah. No. Um
it's not permanent. So from the high water line to the low tide line that is state land is public trust that can't be impeded. So that needs to be removed. And if you're trying to keep deer out, God bless you.
Stop them for a month. Be full employment. Okay. Let me just if you could elaborate on the sound of I they have not committed to anything so I cannot write about it.
Oh, I'm your lawyer. He's the man that would recommend soundproofing. And that's why what we're going to do is have them propose those types of things and have our engineer review and make recommendations to whether or not that's appropriate to do. Okay. So the offer is to implement
reasonable soundproofing measures so as to attenuate noise from the pickle ball activity the and the mechanicals and the mechanical. Yeah. So what they would do is they would submit to Jordan that part of resolution compliance particular plan and Jordan meets uses discretion as to
whether or not they've achieved a reasonable standard. Um and so it's loose um because there hasn't been any testimony to help us understand what they might do. Um but that's that's if you have anything to add as to for example
uh a noise standard of property line which we have ordinance it's about or anything maybe that you might try to establish as to what reasonable might be under so I don't know how how much u to go into this depending on how the vote goes I guess but I did some late night diving
like a ball of decimals and um And it's there is precedent across the country of towns limiting limiting it um like noise or limitance. So it would be you know not after certain hours. Um and
then in some towns they even limit how many hours in the week you can do it. Um, I think that's more for the public works, but considering that it's in a neighborhood, um, I potentially limiting, you know, making sure it's not
like late night um, um, as noise. I guess it would be bugged in with noise. Well, I mean, you would have your regular noise or it's still a municipality pickle ball not withstanding. No. Yeah. What I mean is um you know I
don't I think it could be louder and we don't really have any precedent in town for it and certainly not allow it could be um I ask you to share your deep dive so he
doesn't have to do that will guide him regardless rather than rather than commit to something right now because I I again I don't speak for the apple I would think they would be reluctant to commit to anything if they hadn't done the same research. But I'm not I'm not saying that isn't
something that George I think you should certainly take into consideration. So Mr. B when we deliberate we're going to stop communicating with you with regard to what it is that we're doing. But if we reach a point where we're talking about those sorts of issues, you know, just kind of get my attention, you know,
bringing back. I want to sort of ask a question with regard to the garage because it's occurred to me throughout that the pickle ball court is a garage. Um it also occurs to me that the garage could
be used for pickle ball. Um I understand you can't do them both at the same time, but I don't see any reason maybe short other uses for the garage, but is there a reason that you wouldn't want the flexibility? And I don't know that we would even other than the fact talked about it so much. um wouldn't want the
board to acknowledge the opportunity to strike it and create some sort of opportunity to on occasion put the net up and use it for pickle ball in which case maybe we could build in some of the things we talked about and make sure that you were comfortable that you could
do that. I wasn't expecting any last minute suggestion to remove the pickle ball court all together. So I'm just tip off. Um well I think we were hoping that having the the pickable enclosed is a big step towards
the noise issue and then we on top of that we understand there still could be some noise that we were going to use whatever efforts are available to diminish that noise even further and then whatever buffering was available subject to Mr. Rizzo reviewing it to make sure it was a sound plan. So, we
were happy to do that. If all of a sudden you're worried about us putting it in the garage, uh, and you want to add a condition as to, uh, that kind of thing, we'd be fine. We don't have any plans to put it in the garage. We We're, you know, we're just trying to get through this evening.
Yeah. I just want to make it clear because I've been I think I've been pretty clear on the garages throughout. I I don't have a problem with the oversized garage. I didn't have a problem using the pickle ball court as a garage and I didn't know why you didn't want to offer up the invitation. I understand you want the approvals. I'm trying to find out whether or not you
would want us to specifically mention in any resolution of approval that has been contemplated and and that it would be okay to the extent that the attenuation issues were addressed the way that we discussed that that would be that would be great if you if you decide to remove the pickle ball court. If you put that in
there, we we wouldn't have problem with that. We wouldn't decide to remove it. That would be no. When we talk about it, the issue is that this being presented as a poll plan and when we get to a straw poll, we will
figure out whether or not there's enough um support for this as it sits. And then if necessary, we will then do another straw poll without order and see whether or not that gets it there. And the applicants indicated that they would go either way if they wind up with their
Let me address one other matter. I think we have outstanding as to whether or not Jordan's been that the garage technically needs a variant because it can accommodate four vehicles. I ask that you address that under the standard
and I'm going to give to you. I also ask that you address in your comments sports court or nays so far. um you're dealing with not a hardship variant, not a C2 variant, just C2 variance. And
I'm principally focusing on the the cap under the applicable standards variance can be granted if the benefits of deviating from the zone ordinance in the sense not following the cap
substantially outweigh any detriments. The applicant must show that the proposed design is an improvement that will better serve the public interest. Okay. I also agree with the chair's comments earlier to try to give you
because because the flexible C is so custom made to the application. It's what they're proposing. I also agree with the chair's comments that if mayor and council would have the opportunity to take most
this would be a better design alternative than they'll be having in place at this point in time. Any questions about that? In a sense, it doesn't just benefit the property only, but it has a benefit to
the community at large. The planner addressed that comment, Mr. Shett's comment of saying you know what benefit does this have to our zoning ordinance by not complying with act
response to that giving you the reason for the why that question was made based upon the statute okay I just had one clarification on the discussion from before the plan also shows that they're picking up some of the patio drainage and getting into the
drywall as well. So I just Good for them. Good for them. I think I So then the engineers review would be the implementation of the drainage plan that's already been incorporated which would include access. Where do you see that?
on plan uh page 37 next to the pool there's patio drain the way I see it Jordan it's running into the drywall it's to the east yeah I think you're probably right I thought that was just a roof leader
um but it does have a grate on it I don't think that's going to pick up very much at all um but that's that's fine it just was a point that it's on just the roof area to the extent that that's backwards radiating I got
So could I could I start off your discussion by telling you that I think that the removal of the pickle ball court is compelling. Um I think that there is precedent for this board considering the size of the notwithstanding exceedence of the cap. I think examples of that where we're
scraping a lot and starting over um are a little bit harder to find but they exist. Um the consolidation there is no consolidation. So just the deed restriction on further subdivision I think is a material give not that it's in any way clear how you would subdivide
it. But I think that we learned on Gillespie that relying on an oversized lot to support a house um and not restricting it can lead you to a 51 subdivision. Um and not that I think that this applicant has any plans with
regard to that. Um so from my perspective um I see the deviation from the 6900 foot standard on up zoning by 900 ft in light of the totality um as an
ask that is not outside of reasonable all things considered. Um, I've spoken a lot and I didn't mean to necessarily jump anybody else that wanted to say a lot, but I did want to sort of just make that point to you that um to me that
that is compelling. No, I'm done. I'll piggy back on you because I have the same note, the lack of subdivision, even though there's no foreseeable way that that could happen. You never know in the future. And I do I do think that that's one of those chips that Doug has
told us about. Um and I and I also agree with another improvement um which would beautifification of a lot. I think they're um I think it's beautiful design. I think the landscaping is huge. I I think moving away from um the the
the sideyard to the east is um I mean I know it's already been wiped clean but I do think that all of those things are are um go along with that the demonstration is
definitely a benefit um you know I really appreciate the efforts that you made to accommodate us. Um I think some of the changes that you made address my concerns uh are the impact from the river. U you know if you take away the
pickup court uh you know you're looking at something that's not a huge ask. I really don't want you to take away the pickle ball court. Um you know I think it kind of blends into the property. Um it's really not visible from the river. you
have to your testimony, you do have a large lot that I think can accommodate that. Um, you know, the other benefits, uh, as Daniel said, I think your landscaping plan is, you know, it's it's going to be
beautiful. Uh, it's going to be a showcase. um and just the overall design and you know the way it stands now I can support it in totality. Um, and I also think another benefit, I think you guys could
be a great addition. [Music] Uh, from the beginning, I was just trying my best to um wrap my head around the size you were asking for. Um, I think you created a little
bit of an uphill battle for yourself. Um, because I think what you present today is finally reasonable and the arguments that I kind of came up myself with myself just to reason through
um what kind of size Mikey Natho on here is similar to the arguments that um at least um Miss Allen came up with. I had dug on my own. I have a list of even more properties here and their sizing.
So, um that um I'm glad that the board got to hear some of that. And I think that the centering of the lot is a huge deal as well as the um thought that went into the
architecture of this. I think it is in keeping with the waterfront view and um for that reason I think it does help beautify our waterfront
and um I'm torn about the pickle ball court um because indoors can make it louder um but soundpting and potentially once all closed enclosed
would help. Um, I suppose I'd rather that than an outdoor fort. Uh, so I'm not the best scenario for that. But I think that being able to separate out the size of the principal house
um which I forget where you landed at was under 8,000 is very helpful that you were got to that number. So the extra 1100 square foot of the pickle ball um I don't think affects
big picture as much as it did in your original rendering. So you've got an indication with regard straw poll as to the feelings on the pickle ball court. So why don't we move in this direction and you I'm sure touch
on on where you if if you're in the front. Yeah. So, you know, I think it's obviously conflicting, right? I think the hard numbers, right, are are telling everyone one thing. And I kind of agree with Jackie. I think made it really
difficult, you know, just asking for a lot and then reducing it heavily. I don't think you know it's never a negotiation point particularly for me right and I do this regularly is that that holds any weight with me personally because I just think it's easy to ask for a lot and then reduce it
and say hey you reduced a lot right I don't so that take that for what it is I think arguments by the planner were good you know it's still a little bit of a struggle I think it could be easy to say hey if we had R40 why are we still
exceeding by x number of square feet I do understand the loss large. I think the subdivision argument is thin. I don't think it's possible, but it's it's a nice proper and I think it's one we're going to accept. Um or at least I would, you know, kind of require the pickle ball court. I want you guys to enjoy
your property. I don't that's not an issue for me. It never was. I think it's overall about the size of the structure. That said, like, you know, it's not uh there's the hard stuff, right? Just kind of the science of it. And then there's the art of it, right? And I think the applicant I think you guys both are, you
know, uh genuine and earnest and you know I think you want to live here. It's it's it's a beautiful house. It always was even when it was larger notwithstanding the mass. Um so that's kind of my I I think I think it's a very earnest application. I think we've done a good job trying to prove it out. I
think some of the arguments were a little fuzzy and thin, but nevertheless it's you know directionally you've tried to prove as much as you can with with what you have. Um and and I appreciate all the the work you've put in. much
already been said, but um I do appreciate the efforts that the applicants have made to get to where we're at today. It's certainly a lot different than the application that came in in July. I thank you those um you know, we've had a couple
applications that come before us where there was proposal to knock a house down and you have a blank slate and my initial reaction is white chain to comply. Sher, you brought up on a couple of these, but you got to look at what you're getting back in return. And I
think some of the things I'm getting back in return on this one is the centering of the house on the lot, which I think is important. Um, and I I think you know, Paul brought up the river the lot during his application. I think getting all this runoff into a drywall
is also good. Um, another thing that this sort of has stuck with me is that all right, you know, if if using the existing structure and so come in and renovate it and add up to it, I think by and large
would have said, okay, I think we could work with that, but it would be right up against the lot to the to the east anyway. You know, it's just not in the best spot in this lot. So, I think moving to the center means something to me. And I don't necessarily think that I
think the lot can sustain a house of this size. I mean, you had a house of similar size that was there for how many years. I think this is a lot if there's anywhere in town going above the cap. And believe me, I'm not taking the cap away because a lot of
the reasons that stated, you know, and I'm not loses the state's case, but there's a reason why the CAP is still in place all these years later and why the governing body has chosen to keep it there. That
being said, even it's within our jurisdiction tonight to make an exception and I think based on everything that's that's happened aggression this application, I can support it. Um the pickle ball court I'm a little bit torn on. Paul, you said you
don't think you're going to be able to see it from the river. I'm not sure about that. Granted, you're you're looking at the side of it, but don't you think you're going to be able to see? You would, but it's not going to be I'm looking at it. You know, it's not going to be a straight line and then all of a
sudden, boom, it's going to be offset and back a little bit and back. And I also think you probably don't even know what it is, right? You probably think it's a freestanding garage. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, I think the worst thing that could happen, I'm not saying the applicants would do this, but they could probably put a cord somewhere else on the property, not
and that's going to be much worse for the neighborhood than not if they disturb more than one acre. That's what they deserve. It's just a lot more work. Who would want to do that? They can they can do what my neighbors do to play pickle hole on their
driveway. Then it's not always fun, you know, and and sorry touching on that if they go above the acre is compelling to folks that if you take the the sports court out of this that you're backing off of that threshold somewhat by whatever that amount is so that they're
not quite up against it. So that maybe something that don't say, but it's the next applicant that comes in with this property way down the road that they're not up against that one acre. Does that matter to people? I don't doesn't matter to me. I think just comes with the
territory, you know, then just understand it's part of the the work you're going to do, right? You have to find place for I mean I sort of any development, right? I mean, I think on some level just having this closer to that 6,900 in in
total probably means something to me. Um, but I think I said enough. The only argument or proof that I heard, excuse me, that intended to be a benefit to someone
other than property owner was we're not going to subdivide it and put into 6,900 square foot homes. Well, you could. Yeah. I mean the the the idea that you could
subdivide this property is just so close to impossible. You couldn't as a matter of right. You need a variance of some sort, right? But why not say, okay, we could subdivide it into 20 R5s and put 47
44,000 square feet of housing. It's It's just as No, I I hate to tell you, but you could put a public road. If they had the right to take you from here back here, they could make that argument. Somebody could make that. That was what I was concerned about. It is a private road that no one really
knows. I mean, well, well, the question is whether or not they have the property rights. If they if they were capable of think about the last week, if they were capable of building an RSIS compliant public road through the property and then further subdivided, the argument would be that
the lots that they're creating could sit down with lots of the argument would be this is our 30, there's no R5s, but we've seen some pretty weird things. And so, you know, not as a matter of right, subject to whatever it would take to get through a board, but it's possible.
So something that's possible but not probable is the only positive that I've heard. Possible as far as as far as the C2 variances. Let me add to that. I I think that some of the positives that we're talking about the landscaping, improving
the drainage, beautifying it, all those things that's going to that's coming. All those things come with anything you put on this lot now that it's been scraped clean. and and and I I believe the applicant when they say they want to move here and I know it doesn't sound sincere but I I want the applicant to move to Fair Haven. So whether but
whether they did or didn't somebody's going to put a house here because you like the character of Fair Haven build a house that fits the character of Fair Haven. The character of Fair Haven being it's got a cat. So So that's where we get right to the
heart of the suit. And so I think that it's It's clear how you feel with regards to cat and I think that that's and I'm not and a couple of people have told me tonight how I feel about this. I
don't particularly appreciate that but yeah I I I think that the cap is important. Do I get emotional about the cap? No. Have I ever voted to exceed the cap? Yes. Rarely
I get emotional about an initial ask of 110% above the cap. I get emotional about an 80% ask of the cap. When you consider dropping the pickle ball court, you're still looking at a
50% ask above the cap. Above the cap as it exists, not above the up zone cap. Still 15% above is if you ups. I'm sorry, I was doing bad math again.
50% over the 50 over 50%. Yep. It's It's 50% of the initial ask, but it's 50% above the cap. Yep. Okay. Yep. And I'm not saying it's not a beautiful
house. You know, I'm saying even if you drop the pickle ball court, it's 50% above the cap. So, I totally agree and the truth of the matter is that I really worry about the zone plan. And so, some of the things
that I can't forget are when people walk in and they say, "This one's 37, this one's 38, and you approved them before, and therefore we should be able to get here." That was the other part of the the argument that I had problem with. If you want to say, well, we've got aerials and this looks consistent with the aerials,
but you've had several months since the first meeting. Not not just since you started planning this, but since the first meeting, you've got several months to go do the research beyond just what the first floor is of some of these
houses, but to do the research and find out some of these have been constructed recently. Could you get the plans and find out what the asbuilt square footage is? Absolutely. But the only reason not to do that is because
you don't want to show those numbers. I I generally in my mind I generally agree with that. Certainly one hand is available. All you need to do is an over search. I don't know what they would give you in terms of copies, but I know you can go look at them and you can certainly figure out what the numbers are. Construction plans. I'm sure and at
times do you need to infer that information isn't made available that it is being selectively presented and when we spoke to the planner we talked that through we talked through the tax record and I think we did a decent job of providing context to um the arguments
that she wanted to make and I understand that argument but I feel like there's a flaw as I explained before whether you're looking at an aerial of similar properties or whether You're looking at the first floor
square footage of similar properties and that is nobody that that has nothing to do with the air light open space around the structure. You're looking down from the top. It is what it is. It's two dimensional.
If you're looking at it from where we see these things, that same first floor area, like I said, could be 65 feet wide and and that's what of the air light open space it's it's obstructing or it could
be 120 130 ft wide and that's what of the airlight and open space it's obstructing. So I I don't think that that argument carries a whole lot of water for me and I I feel like it's it's flawed. That's that's my opinion. Again,
I'm just sharing that would be I I think you're right in pointing out the other ways of looking at it. I think you're right in sort of accepting that with a grain of salt as to what the argument was and the different ways to look at it. And I think that both perspectives are valid when evaluating
this. Um, with regard with regard, what I would have done is I would have upzzoned this to 69. I would have stayed on the number and then I would have come in and I would have asked for an oversized garage and a pickle ball court. I would have been there and frankly I would have approved it, I think it would have gone through in a single meeting. I think the problem is
that it started with a different philosophy as to what's appropriate. But I and as much as I think that the pickle ball court is better than the 900 ft in the house at this point in where we are and with the applicant recognizing all of our concerns, they've moved it the
way they've moved it. I don't feel strongly enough to vote against it without the pickle ball court. I will not vote in favor of it with the pickle ball court because Marty of what you said. It's just that it matters. The cap does matter. The zone plan matters, but
I am able to see the larger lot. I am able to see the benefits that are unique to this particular application. There are certainly worse things that could go here, even if they're new. And to me, on balance, that flexibility is a reasonable amount of flexibility to give
to this particular project. So I with me stating that clearly I want to go around and and I know that we've got you're good with pickle ball court. Yeah. You're good with pickle ball court. Yes. Good with the pickle ball court. You're close.
Um yeah I'm I'm fine either way. Whatever pickle ball court it's it's it's four or three. I've got four. So do you guys want to have any discussion? And those of you that are about to make a motion to approve it with the pimple ball court, do you have any um discussion with regard to
conditions on approval outside of what um Mr. Kovat has already listed? Um are there any other things you want to discuss before you make your motion? I'd like to say one more thing. It's just a comment more than a discussion.
Sure. and that is that I wonder how long it's going to be even though there is no precedent set by this decision before we're going to see this as a comp in front of this board.
It's a fair listen, it's a fair comment. That's my worry with the fact that it was scraped to begin with, right? Is that we've almost and and I haven't been here long so many other people, but I've never seen a situation to date where it's scraped lot, right? So, imagine if this lot just sold for what your
applicant bought it for, right? Just land value. We wouldn't this this would never this would never go down. This never, right? It would be build it conforming. We don't want to see you. Don't come here. Come here. There are people who come here. It's it's lasted 20 minutes. They realize it's a
non-starter. They walk out and those are for smaller lots. Yes. Right. Where a deviation is a much larger mass. And and I and I recognize the mass here. But I do share Al's concern in that and that's the concernation I've had this whole time. It's not that the house isn't
beautiful. It's not the lot's not beautiful. The size and all this stuff. It's that this is something that would never we're making a very specific uh you know exclusion for you. And you can almost you can almost use it the other way. You can almost say well if
you didn't have the dollars to do this you couldn't come here and make that argument and we wouldn't make that argument on an R5 for a house that's still a million and a half $2 million house in town. Right? So you can almost make it both ways. And that's the conservation I've had this whole time is if it's scraped, it should conform
because that's the it's not that it shouldn't for this particular one. It's just that's the looking glass we take it on every application that comes in here. And why should we act different on this one? And that's and that's my conservation with the whole thing. It's not that none of the stuff. It's not that the arguments that were made
weren't great. The neighboring houses aren't huge. I get it. I'm I'm a real listen, I'm a real estate guy. I build to 15,000 ft, right? We have to look at the ordinances as they sit because that's our job. That's what we're here to do and we're here to do that to avoid being a, you know, a
total circus where it gets so far out of control. We don't know who we are anymore. And that is kind of why I felt like that to begin with. I've voiced my opinions and they can make great arguments. I think the applicant is so sincere and genuine and I think on earnest they want to live here. Um, and
I'm supportive of of where we've gotten to. But I I just wanted to make that known because I don't want to leave Al hanging out there. No, I completely I mean I brought that up and everyone yelled at me for saying the word president and and I I hear you. There is no however. Sure.
Um however, it's like I said, it's the numbers that are the concern. So for me, the pickle ball court being separate makes me feel better about it. Um, and the fact that the the number is now down under 8,000 for the house makes me feel
better about it. Um, and I also think that this is a very unique property there. I mean, yes, there are other waterfront properties in town, but the majority aren't waterfront, and
this is a this is a unique waterfront. So that's how I helped me make my decision. We don't have a waterfront zone to give us guidance. You left trying to make our own decisions about what's reasonable given location which the most beautiful
lots in town. Well, I think that's what we're doing here. That's I think that's kind of the underlying con because that this then becomes that distinction. the distinction that and then this then becomes that new and the other thing not to use for president but you know we look at every
case as an individual and I always have a problem like basing my decision on what might come down the road. Uh we don't know what's coming down the road. This is what's in front of us tonight. If something comes down the road and someone's throwing
a giant property or giant house and wherever it may be, we will deal with that. This we also didn't take it lightly. How many meetings have we probably hour push hour 10 now? Um at least hour nine.
Um, you know, we have discussed this for a very long time and I think that this design and this plan for this piece of property when they came in, no way. The changes that they've made, uh, the accommodations that they've made. Um,
and I agree with Miss Mrs. Dangelo, the way the pickle ball court separate from the main building. I think, um, and more to your concern, you know, if it was further up or attached to the house and you saw it from the river, it would be like, "Ouch jeez." But since
it's back and there's probably going to be, I'm imagining some kind of landscaping between the river and there and it is considerably, you know, it's far back off the river. Um, so I don't think that that is a huge issue. It might even be down the back slope, but
let's not get into that. That's not a problem. What about the square footage though? the square foot, but that's if it was because it's not going to say it's going to have just 8941 numbers. I remember
I'm kind of looking at them as two separate two separate pieces and I know we might disagree on that, but the house is not far off from some of the neighboring neighboring properties. even if it's two two separate pieces and even
if the decision was made in order to get an approval here to do away with that building recognize that you're still 50% it is but that's but it but it is and you know some of
some of it was portrayed in a way that I didn't really appreciate but it is a very unique lot and it is a probably one of the premium lots in town and to put some constrictions on it.
You know, I I think it it can accommodate a lot of things. And yes, we do have rules that come to us, but we also have the ability to make exceptions. Yeah. And a lot of that is with trade-offs. And I think we have a lot we have a lot of trade-offs here and there's a lot of
benefits. Uh number one, you know, they're not going to subdivide a lot. Is it is it very unlikely? Be honest with yourself about somebody that's who gets the waterfront lot and who gets the landlock. Al the way thing the way the way real
estate is going in this state. Very unlikely that it's going to be subdivided, but it could be. So it could be subdivided into into 20 R5s and it'd be a $15 million project. Great. Then you want that on the river.
No, I'm saying it. That's ridiculous. And I'm saying there they're ridiculous things happening every day and we we don't we don't know anything for that to be a benefit. Well, I'm contradicting myself. We I don't like to say what if, but what if
things change? Is it better to have one house that's oversized than something else? Very unlikely. And I'm just saying you just said it's a unique lot and it's a premium lot. It's none of that if you subdivide it. Well, but but you know, but we don't but
we don't know what is going to happen. So why don't we this is if sorry if if it's approved it's never going to be subdivided. All right. So let's stipulate either one of you going to change each other's mind. So that's fine. Y and yang that that's fine. You give the ying and yang. I think you got enough votes. I
think that the question on the table is whether or not there's any further discussion with regard to conditions that's necessary. And if there is, then let's have those discussions. And if there are none, I think we're ready for a motion for somebody that was comfortable with regard to the approval, including
I have one more. Okay. Um, adding to the lot being unique and I think part of the point of the cap is so that you don't monress
um, houses a lot. One thing we don't quite have to worry about the waterfront for this particular land is that it's not on a main road. So, you don't you don't have to worry about how it's looking to the road as you're
passing by, walking to school, everyone driving past, and um how monstrous it will look to the public because it kind of just is the waterfront uh that you take into consider
consideration when you're considering how we need a cap to keep um houses from being and
since we have the water pump there homes on the water and that's where I'm guessing and if if that's consideration should resone the water they have No, no. The
truth is that the C2 bearings provides an outlet to a property owner that doesn't see the zoning that lines up with what they think is a better opportunity to develop a piece of property. I think that's exactly where we are and I think that's that's fair. I I I believe the policy of the council
and not changing it says something, but it doesn't eliminate our ability to consider this project as well. So, so why don't we get back to the court, right? So I'm I'm not, you know, as acoustical engineer, right? And
nor do I know what would satisfy neighbors, right? A few neighbors that have come up and they have concerns about sound or whatever. So I I think someone will have to work with the appropriate engineer to solve whatever
that problem is so that it's as it's it's as mitigated as possible from the neighboring homes, right, that'll hear it. Um I I don't feel strongly about the pickle ball court one way or the other. I'm I'm fine with it. I want them to enjoy their house. Pickle ball court is never the issue for me. So I'm not quite
sure the appropriate way to make motion deal with that. We don't know the exact stipulation of what should be included. So you've heard we've heard the conditions. Yeah, that's what's going to be included. This will be reviewed by the engineer and they talk about his recommendation. There it is.
Before we get any further, um if this is to be approved, there's also the 30 something square feet that we discussed. Um would you be comfortable um me verifying that to be now and the resolution you memorialize and inserting that new number?
Yes. Which would push us over 9,000 square feet. Was it going to be the new number or is it going to be the open cover deck? So let's So let's not get caught up in something silly. It's not a lot of square feet. It's not traditional living space. The alternative to them adding
the 38 square feet to the number is to open it up and keep it as all open porch. It's getting caught up in an anomaly. Make the call, but let's not get Yeah, totally agree. I just want to make sure that you know that they'll be adding. I I assume that the people that want to vote in the affirmative believe that the
38 ft is minimized. Are we not a change? No. No. I will make one question in your at CME. Is there somebody that's equipped to look at posting mitigation or you just, you
know, ask Yeah, I'm going to have to take what's presented and go from there. Okay. Can I suggest that the way this get gets handled is that the applicant consults with somebody with regard to this and submits to you a written report that explains what they're going to do with a conclusion, somebody that's
qualified who I don't as far as we understand it not yet been retained so that you can rely on an expert or quasi expert um that they present to you a plan like an opinion essentially essentially what it is. Yeah, I totally agree with
that applic I'm not going to I'm not going to set you I'm not going to set the standard. The point is that I think they need to provide you with a fully baked design. You can look at it for reasonleness and if you have questions, you come back to us and we'll deal with it. But I think
we should put it to the applicant to propose their attentuation measures and you're looking at it from reasonable standard letting us know if you have questions. Totally agree. Motion to be The motion to be framed with the applicant seeks various wave
relief to construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage, porches, rear patio, modified driveway, dwelling, accessory sports court building, ingground pool and fire pit. Um, we've heard the conditions.
A yes vote is a vote positive for that application. May I have a motion for that? I make the motion to approve statement. Second lot easier. Mrs. Angela, yes.
Mr. Ryan, same. Mr. For Yes. Mrs. Newman. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Sh? No. Mr. Leer? No.
Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. four plus one. Thank you. Well, good luck. Thank you for
Thank you. Can we Well, we definitely need a comfort break, but it's it's it's 10:35. Mr. Akens, can you come forward? So it's obvious given the hour that we're limited in terms of anything that we could do started. My question for you
is whether or not you have some discrete subject that you want to try and 10 or 15 minutes more. So if you provide some I'd like to start. I only have one witness. Um Oh yeah. Our cap is measured by dozens of feet,
not thousands of feet. So So Mr. I I I would I would be remiss if I didn't provide you the courage of doing something, but there's there's no question that we're going to shut this down throw this beyond 20 minutes. So
that's fine. And please be mindful. Oh, I'm very mindful of it. If the board's willing to hear me, I'm happy to make the presentation. And I'm grateful for the opportunity. All right. So I'm sure you're all very tired, too. Three minute comfort break, please. [Music]
Yes, [Music] about this um and is not participating Murphy application. We're now at Murphy application. Thank you, chairman. Thanks for your witnesses. Please do at this. We're just William
Miller. No applicants. Applicants. No, I don't think we'll have the time and I don't intend to call them. Do you need me again? Will you have jurisdiction? Yes. Thank you. So swear to testify testimony was about to give before the board of the whole tree. I do. I'm going to ask you to state your
name. Spell your last name for the purpose of the record. William R. Miller III. M I L L E R. I will tell you that while we're off and back and I agree to exhibits, I will provide those with the secretary later. Basically, they run from A1 to A5 and
then two planned one reports from CME1 and C2. I'll make sure the secretary has that and I stipulate my concurrence. Thank you, coats, chairman, board members. Good evening. I'm so sorry, Mr. Chair. Can I just run through the checklist items
super quick? um in general or overall I don't take any exception to these um which is why they're here tonight. So it's completed u completed checklist which I completed myself not an issue. Um notice to property owners and notice
to be published in the newspaper um that's been done at this point. Um and then the outside agency approvals which are Mammoth County Planning Board, Freelcd, um County Health Department, um all appeared not to be applicable for this application. And then, uh just a list of
variances requested, um which I have basically summarized my own list. Um so I don't take exception to that either. Any questions with regard to the um as very good chairman, board members, Mark
Aens on behalf of the Murphy family, uh the Murphy family, consisting of five, purchased this property at 123 Maple uh in 2023. So, they've owned it for about 2 years. The original house was built in 1980. Uh it currently contains an
ingground pool and a rear shed. It's located in the R5 zone. It's a slightly larger uh lot at uh 70 roughly 7,600 square ft than what's required in the R5 at 5,000. That's because of the lots
deps depth. It's it's 153 feet deep. Uh whereas it's 50 ft wide. So that's where the excess square footage comes from. And not surprisingly, the proposal before you this evening is to add a small two-story addition to the right
rear corner of that existing uh 1980s uh residence. Um Mr. Murphy works from home and so the proposal on the first floor is to add a relatively small office for him and then a relatively small fourth bedroom above. When I say relatively
small in terms of the size of the bedroom, approximately 12 ft by 16 ft. The applicants meet the lot coverage, building coverage, and F on this property by a significant measure. The applicants are seeking a maximum floor area variance, C variance by exceeding
the 2200 foot cap by 133 square ft. Some simple math, and you heard my perhaps my introductory comments that here we're talking about scores of feet, not hundreds or thousands of feet. But if you take that 133 feet over the two floors and you divide it by the two
floors, it's about 66 and a half feet per floor. Just to kind of put the application in perspective for the board's benefit. With me this evening is William Miller, the project's applicant. He's been sworn may place his credentials on the record. Mr. Chair, please. Um, good evening, Mr. Miller. Do
you possess any licenses from the state of New Jersey? Yes, I'm an licensed architect since uh 1983 88. 1988. Terrific. And have you given testimony and been recognized as an expert with regard to architectural issues? Yes. In the state of New Jersey
before planning and zoning boards. Yeah. In most towns in Mammoth County, Ocean County, uh some in Somerset, uh Morris and uh Mercer. Chairman, Mr. Mill, have you ever been recognized by any boards in Fair?
Yes. Yes, you have. Yes. Okay. And you're familiar with the Fair and how it calculates square footage and blah blah blah. Yes. Yes. Better than blah blah blah. I'm sorry. Better than blah blah blah. Yeah. Okay.
Question. Any questions with regard to Mr. Mill's credentials? Okay. Thank you, chairman, for qualifying Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, can you orient the board to the Murphy residence um existing conditions and in more detail what we're proposing with
this evening's application? Okay. So, um initially when I spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Murphy, they ex exh explained that they were having a child, a a new baby. Um, and they were looking
for a an additional bedroom. Um, in addition, Mr. Murphy works from home. Uh so they were looking for work space for him which would be outside of the realm
of uh family room um living room kind of space. So um in analyzing the property um it was felt that an existing
corner of the of off the rear right rear of the house uh where there's a void uh adjacent to the deck and behind the uh existing dining room. uh we could square
that off um and and put the addition there. Um the idea, part of the idea was to also be able to take advantage of the deck from the office that we could um access the deck from the office. And uh
on the second floor to uh extend a hallway from the existing upper hallway uh to the new bedroom in the rear. um and take advantage of the
uh of the common wall between the new hall and the existing bath. Uh otherwise uh if you can if you're looking at the second floor, there's dash lines showing uh where demolition of closets would be.
If we if we had lined up the walls, those closets would become uh isolated and unusable. And you're continuing the plane on uh that side of the house that currently meets the sideyard setback.
Yes, we're extending the the right side uh in plane and uh again uh at the first floor we're extending the deck in plane. Okay. So, we're just squaring off that east or that area. Right. And then on on the left side,
right, we currently have a non-conforming condition at 15.7 feet. Correct. Yeah. The um where 16 ft is required in terms of the combined side. Yes. The initial survey that I was given from when the Murphy's purchased the
house did not give a dimension of the corner of the deck. It only gave a dimension in the front of the house. So, uh, interpolating the dimensions on the left side, I'm sorry,
on the right side to the property line and the one dimension we have on the left side. Um, I made a judgment plus or minus to get to that 15.7 squared or linear feet. Linear feet. Okay. And the left side is
the north side and the right side is the south side. Just so Exactly. We can orient the board. Exactly. Sorry I almost drifted off but the the number that we are taking through Mr. Miller's extrapolation is what is 15.7 where 16 ft is combined because 16 ft is
required combined. Yeah. So 15.7 is existing and you look at the first 15.7 is existing. You look at the first sheet on the the existing site plan. Yeah. Back left by the deck. It says 6.3 ft.
skews in a little bit. Mr. For that's 2. It runs in a little bit. It's not perfect. That's 6.3. I'm sorry. And then on the right side of the house, the right side of the house, the front is 9.4.
That is 15.8 ft existing. However, the addition in the back right is 9.5. So that's 15.8 opposed. Got it. Both both sides skew a tenth of a foot or something. Again, that's in order to keep the plane. Yeah. No, understood. If
No, it's not explained. It's an odd uh average remaining. I mean, 15.8. I'm sorry. 15.7 exists and the proposed proposed is also 15.7, but the variance is for 15.8 because of the skew.
So, it's drifting in an inch over that distance back. Correct. Mr. make that you're comfortable using numbers based on this extrapolation because any approval from this board would have a number in it and it's all subject to verification and at some point if we find out that wrong
so yes the answer is yes based upon the prior survey and the extrapolation that's done by Mr. Miller. Yes. Because the existing foundation is the existing structure is there and if we continue in plain we don't have an issue on the north side and as long and we have plenty of room on the on the south side.
So I don't see it as an issue. There's no sideyard variance that's created. It's just the combination of the two if you will be the distance what it may. Yeah. Look the lack of accuracy is minute with regard to what it could be by way of a deviation. Right. Right.
We're holding that line. Right. So, so the deck the deck is there. We're not changing that on the north side. And the plane of the house exists on the south side and we're just extending that plane. So, if we stay in plane, if it's a tenth of an inch one way or another,
1.2 in, right? A tenth of a foot, excuse me, 1.2 in, that's that's what's at play. But Mr. Miller is confident that that we're way over in terms of the single sideyard setback requirement on the south side. So that's not an issue if we stay in
plan. Only going to get better slightly on Thank you, Mr. Yes. Correct. Thank you. Okay. And those are the those are the two variances, right? Um so Mr. Miller, um can you describe the existing
materials uh and and colors and condition of the house? Yeah, the h the existing house is typical wood frame construction. Uh it is on a crawl space, not there's no basement. Um the um attic
space is minimal height and there's a uh um a pull down stair to get to it. There's no full stair. Um there's uh it's like I said woodframe construction. Exterior siding is um I
have a picture of it here is vinyl sub is is vinyl siding. Um and we intend on matching the materials. Same thing with the uh uh fiberglass
shingles on the roof. Okay. Now, the current square footage, right, the floor area is currently at 2007, correct? So, theoretically, that's that's not correct, actually. It's actually less. Um, so I can kind
Oh, sorry. I was reading off your letter. Yes. So, the four area numbers in my letter need to be updated. Um, my numbers are based on scaling the plan on the computer essentially, which is what I would do for 90% of the projects. Mr.
Miller said that scaling may be off by a little bit, which was 30 square feet in this case, but has all the dimensions on the floor four plans. And being that it's pretty simple shape, um, for the most part, it's rectangular. Um, we then
recalculated all the square footage based on the dimension shown. and it came to be what is on the plans on the cover sheet. So the existing is 1,967 square feet and then the proposed is less than what's in my letter. It's 2333
square ft. Right. So and and I know we had had conversations and thank you for clarifying that for the board, Mr. Rizzo. I know we had had conversations and you had conversations with Mr. Miller to that effect. So, we're over again, just so so the board uh is is
clear on the request, we're over by 133 square ft on the cap of 2200 square feet. So, that those numbers you gave originally were based on the corrected number after Mr. Rizard looked at. Correct. Without a revised letter. Correct. But but but as a result of
conversations, chairman. Yes. Yes. So if you take that 133 square ft and you divide it over the two floors pattera if you will it's 66 and a half ft per floor right I don't have any further questions for Mr. Miller at this point
so um Mr. Akens the assessment of the proposal has to qualify under C1C2. What's our argument and can you support? And do you want to talk about the design waivers also? We could talk about the design waivers. Right. So, um if you if you refer to
page four of um the uh review letter uh identified as ZB2, um we've got a requested waiver um with regard to the residential parking being located behind the front sideyard setback line, the front yard setback
line. I guess we're all a little tired. Excuse me. The addition of the fourth bedroom requires three parking spaces behind the front yard setback line whereas no parking spaces are proposed behind the front yard setback line. So that's the first waiver. Um and then the
second waiver is uh a fourbedroom dwelling requires three off- streetet parking spaces whereas one off- streetet parking space is provided. Those are the waivers and then with parking there's also the RSIS component to it as well. um RSI
basically says that the municipality cannot require more than um it says for this case four bedrooms it's two and a half spaces so we'll round that up to three spaces and then it gives exceptions if there are off street parking which I guess you can
probably speak to and how many spaces or how many vehicles can physically fit in the driveway uh regardless of what a dimensional space be said like in reality how many cars can fit in your your driveway. So, two smaller size vehicles could fit
in the driveway presently front to back. Front to back. Yes. And if it was three bedrooms, how what's the resistor? 2.0. Okay. So, we're talking about a half a park as well. Round it up to one. Round it up. But for the fourth bedroom, yes, technically
those are the those are the numbers. That's the waiver request. Yes. And the waiver is triggered because of the increase in bedrooms. And then is there street parking? I I would I would note there's uh there is um with the driveway width of approximately 10 to 12
feet, there's 38 to 40 ft of frontage for parking. So that you know is potentially an additional two spaces right in front of the house on street. On street is there um on street parking on both sides of that street? Yes. Yeah. And it faces the public
works. So there's no houses on the other side. So public works is on the other on the other side of May. Yeah. Okay. So we we you know we would analyze this on a on a on you know flexible C basis
that the benefits outweigh the detriments and it's it's um it's an an appropriate aesthetic improvement. It upgrades a 45 year old house um you know relative to the neighborhood. This isn't an oversized lot. there's no substantial
detriment to the neighborhood uh because the sideyard setback well exceeds the minimum and we've got a technical combined sideyard setback which doesn't take into account or result in any substantial detriment as a result of the proposed addition in the southeast
corner if you will of the existing residence. Um there's no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan and the um the lot coverage is it's going to be some pavers. So we're we're propo yeah in order to
hold that 50% lot coverage um and and the other two the other two key metrics as well that I shared in my opening remarks as as to building coverage and of course the F. We're proposing to remove those pavers in the uh in the front in the front lawn area. Okay.
Approximately in the middle of the uh middle of the front yard. Yes. Exactly right, Mr. Forte. Yeah. Can you make a hardship? Could I make a hardship argument? Um well, you know, the the house itself
relative to um what could be built is substantially undersized at 1967. I think that was our is that our number, Mr. Rizzo? Yes. Yes. And so, um,
whenever the house, you know, whenever the house was designed and built in 1980, it didn't necessarily contemplate where we would be in terms of today's zoning criteria. I actually don't significantly different.
I I don't I don't like the I don't like the flexible C argument at all. Um, but I do I do buy into the idea that there is a hardship already here because it seems to me you're working around the existing structure. And so in order to get to a fourbedroom house, which is not an unreasonable expectation, you don't
have the ability to do so without substantially gutting and remodeling the house, which you're not proposing to do. We're not proposing to do that. There'd be no change to the front facade. Chairman, there's an efficiency to how it is that you're adding that bedroom upstairs. I suppose you could argue that the office is super but if the idea it's minimous
expansion of the house in line with the existing structure relative to side setback kind of have a hardship issue there because to misalign that or align that differently would create different issues relative to flowing the way the house it's also a skinny lot this really can't be seen from the road and it's
pretty deep and it's being tucked in the back in my thank you and I I offered that in my opening remarks as well that this this proposed addition will not be visible from the the problem I have with the C2 argument is that there's a million of these tactics and so if it if it applies here it applies everywhere the standard not
22 the standard is 23 33 whatever it is right um I'd prefer to think about this as an accommodation to the existing structure and the efficiency of being able to try and bring it up to modern times by creating a little bit of extra space without substantially remodeling yeah
which is which is clearly hardship no one should be expected to spend $400,000 in order to create 25 square feet of additional space. No, it's 133 feet of additional space. No, it's not. Where you at? Where you 133 of the cat?
Oh, the catition. No. All right, we're back to the cat. That's the truth. Is it just architecturally? Is there a reason
there's not a window on the side of the proposed bedroom? There's only two windows on the entire side of the house. We could put one there, but it just looks out at the adjacent house. It's not, you know, it's not looking in a
backyard or anything. So, so every once in a while, you see that side of the house. I I I don't think that you won't see this from street
the area that street you will see whether that whether or not there is an addition there you will see that I think you if you see it you see that there are only two windows and it looks like
it's under fen it's it's Not below 50%, but it looks like there aren't enough windows on that side of the house. I think it's I think it's easy. I think you add the window. There's some structure in the back of 127 here. It's like an orange looking thing. Does anyone know what this is?
I mean, this is the only thing with your phone in this thing that if if you were in that part of the state. I'm just asking if there was a reason not to put it there. Just when I looked at the house, it struck me that there were only two windows on the second
floor of the house and that was it. I'm advised it's a deck. Yeah. All I was trying to get in my opinion that's the only place you might be living in that Avery house or using that potentially. Okay. Yeah, I was just questioning why
if there was reason that it wasn't. That's all. Uh, no reason why we can't add it, Mr. Shiovetti. No, no trouble at all. Do we satisfy the penetration requirements as it says? Okay. With regard to adding a window, easy enough to throw it in. Let's just get out of here tonight. I get that. However,
however, rooms need to have wall and so please look at it and let's just make sure that adding a window there isn't going to affect your placement of furniture in a fairly modest. I can although 12 x 16 is decent by the way. I I can um definitely find a a good spot for the
window and still have adequate uh yeah floor plan for the furniture. There's no basement. You said is it a it's a crawl space crawl space. Yeah. Yes. And pull down attic and and no usable attic which I could also throw into the hardship although
you know getting a little but so that's all I had. Chairman right for the record. You got you got eight and a half more hours. Um okay. Um do you want to hear the existing conditions or does everybody look at
those and familiar with them? I think okay so um before we go any further I'm going to open to the public. Are there any members of the public have any questions or comments with regard to the mer? Nothing in summation other than to thank the board for the accommodation on this
very late hour. I I just want to note that I did not expect to be able to get through it. I I completely reject the idea of rushing through it. Although the comparison to what we just went through and where we are certainly makes us an impression. Um anybody feel like we
don't have time to vote for you in the back. It's a long I think uh compared to other ads in in excess of the cap ranging from 30
to 110% that 6% is not totally unreasonable when there may be a hardship based on the existing structure. Sincerely, it still exists. sincerely if you scraped the lot and came back in with the exact same square footage, the
analysis is completely different. Yeah. Um, you also got a lot more square footage, right? You get the basement, you get the usable space upstairs, right? Theoretically, you could manipulate this to much more square footage. Anybody have any problems or concerns or want to talk about condition access of
the window? A motion. I'll make a motion to approve it as is on Mr. suitable place for the window on the second story. Mr. Yes. Mr.
Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We do appreciate the accommodation. Yeah. Yeah,
they were here for 10 hours. Good luck. What a night for you. Let us let us know next time when you have a long application. moment of weakness. a little funny presenting this Senator sometimes
way too light. We don't have good night everyone. Thank you. So we haven't we haven't yet. We haven't yet. We've got minutes. So, we've got minutes. So, Jackie's gonna Jackie is gonna make a motion, I think, on the minutes because she read
them and you made a few edits, right? Or maybe you didn't because they're perfect, but you She did some research. She did some research last night. Adopt the minutes. Wait, were you here last? Sorry, I missed her. Were you here?
Oh yeah. She's certified to listen to last meeting. Yes. Mr. Newman certified. Yes. Yes. Mr.
Mr. Yes. Yes. Favor 19 River Long Drive. On behalf of American Council, thank you. You guys are really impressive. Hopscotch was tough. Um I don't know if it's toughest you've dealt with, but it's the toughest that I've seen. Um professionalism,
dedication, you know, passion for the town. It really came through. It was really great. So, thank you. And if we need uh an ordinance change for a waterfront zone, uh we can talk about that. I think um I did ask Jordan to add pickle ball courts to his list of things for us to talk
about because we don't have anything to address that. And that's something I think that if we want to be on trend, we should talk about one of the ones, but it wasn't the most brutal. I'm going to say that will be motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I I
Okay.