This is a regular meeting of the fair zoning board of adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting has been pursu given pursuant to the provisions of the last public meetings act. Time of the board reorganization of January of last year. The board adopted its regular meeting schedule for 2025 and January
2026. Notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury public press January 31st 2025 and the two river times on January 23rd 2025. The notice was also posted on the bullet board of burough hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. A copy of this notice has
been is and has been made available to the public and is on file under office of burough clerk. Copy of notice has also been sent to members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. adequate notice having been given. The board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of the meeting.
Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I would like to say a few words to the applicants, their experts and the audience about the role and authority of the fairing zoning board adjustment board is separate and independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is specifically set forth in the burough ordinances and in the New Jersey municipal land use
law. It is quasi judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and council. The zoning board does not enact the burden land use laws and regulations. The council does that. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough of faven. This is the responsibility of the burough
code enforcement officer. This board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the burough's land use laws or the denials by the zoning officer. Applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning limitations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal land use law and the
fair hit her hidden ordinances by satisfying certain required standards of proof. The board has no authority to wave these requirements. The burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to the specific relief requested. The applicant must prove that a deviation from relations will advance the purposes of
the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to its own plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal solutions situations. Roll call please. >> Mr. >> here. >> Mrs. D'Angelo
>> here. >> Mr. Ryan >> here. >> Mr. For >> here. >> Dr. Ler >> here. >> Mrs. Newman >> here. >> Mr. Lab >> present. >> Mr. Mr. later. >> So, yes, she can tell us as res.
>> Okay, >> that's why >> that's it. Okay, we've got to do our reorganization and then we'll get to you. >> Um, most of us appointed and reappointed members folks who are asking to stand. We want to salute the flag or no
>> pool. Let's hear that first. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. You remain standing. Do your oath. The state your name to the appropriate place. He will say his only board of number. We will say his only board of the member. We will say alternate line of his own court at the end.
>> I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> Swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> in the Constitution of New Jersey. >> I will bear true faith allegiance to the
same faith against each state in the state. >> And to the government established in the United States and in this state. the government established in the United States and its state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> that I will faithfully and partially and justly perform the duties of I will
faithfully and partially duties of >> zoning board member also one member >> according to the best of my ability >> according to the best of my ability >> so >> okay if you will sign just above your name >> and I will conform
you can pass those down and I will pass All right. >> Congratulations. Welcome back, Drew. >> Thank you. As I said, >> okay. Um, now is a portion of the program where I normally nominate Todd to be chairman, but Mr. Leader, he's stepping down this year as chair. So, we
need somebody to be nominated to nominate Peter and Chesky. >> Second. >> All in favor? I the opposing. >> Thank you. >> I will do my best to fill the issues.
>> Uh vice chairman, obviously I'm not going to be vice chair any longer. I will nominate Frank Forte to be vice chairman. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Frank. You uh making a positive impact hopefully.
Uh, okay. Appointments. This is your job. >> There you go. >> All right. Um, the board secretary. All right. We'll do the appointment of the board secretary. >> I guess she know the bill.
>> Yes. Yes. Go ahead. Mr. for secretary. >> I >> I'm assuming it's not a roll call that sh >> you're fine. Roll call. >> I'll just voice for a roll call for you. Next, the appointment of the board
attorney nominee uh Doug Kovets. Second. >> I favor. >> I Any opposed? >> Thank you for my appointment. I'll do my best. Thank you. Uh appointment of board of
engineer nominate Jordan Rizzo res second. Oh sorry Jackie second. >> Oh sorry. >> Uh I don't know Mike Sullivan is >> for the planner. Sorry. Uh CC CC.
First of all in favor for um CME Associates I. No opposition. And then the appointment of the board planner. >> Thank you all. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um the appointment of the board planner nominate CCH.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Nope. Um the meeting dates for 2026. I had a chance to look through this, but I'm not sure if anyone else did. If anyone had any >> issues with Drew, did you happen to see
these before? Yeah. >> In my calendar. Okay. You're good with that? We went through these two months ago. >> Okay. >> All right. All in favor to adopt uh zoning board meeting dates. >> Somebody second. >> Second.
>> All right. Approval of the official newspapers. Not sure if I have the list. >> Press start. Okay. Just so you know, we're going to be doing things also publishing on our website in quotes with a new blog that's
coming out. We will al centally let those once the state of Oklahoma says we're going to have our site off today. >> There will be postings also on our move on. >> All right. May one second from the approval of the newspapers. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you everybody and welcome. Okay. On to new business. Uh Mr. So, as you've probably been informed, due to accusals and illnesses, we are
down to four votive members. >> Four. Four. You need three to carry this. So, I am It's up to you whether you want to proceed or how you want you. Next month, I expect to have six. >> So, um, >> so we're ready chairman and
>> we are going to go >> but say again. >> Oh, okay. So, I'm I'm sorry. Sorry, I thought it was a jar of quorum, right? >> Correct. I'm sorry. You're right. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> So, if if not going to make it worse,
but you're prepared to proceed, but but so just for your Yes. You would need three yes votes tonight. >> Yes. So, chairman, board members, it's Mark Aikens, good evening. Happy New Year. Nice to see everyone. >> Um, thank you very much. Congratulations on your appointment. Um, wonderful and
uh and for your many years of service. >> Appreciate I think dates back to when I had darker hair. That may have been some time ago, too. But, uh, in in any event, um, what I respectfully request in situations like this is where we're, you know, significantly less than a full
board is they have the opportunity to, uh, at least gauge towards the end of the presentation where we stand so that if I could request that it be carried so that I would have the benefit of, if not a full vote, then at least additional votes from the board to be considered.
Um, I would ask that indulgence, please. >> Sure. >> Absolutely. >> Terrific. Thank you so much. Grateful. >> Let's Let's do this if we can. We scare all of you in charge. Anybody going to testify? Sure. Step forward, please. Please testify. If you think you're going to be
testified, >> he's not. I'm not going to call him, but we might as well get him sworn in. Matter. If you don't say anything, you don't have anything to worry about. >> Thank you. >> You still testimony. What be the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> I do. I do. A usual admonition or advice state your name before you start
speaking spelling your last name so we have actually recording follow direction with council I'll be seated now if I can a deeply marked mark statement legal basis the land
development checklist only board of adjustment application as A1 >> A1 that's one >> uh A2 Two will be the architectural clock plan, floor plan, elevation tape sheets prepared by
and and architects dated February sorry revised to December 18, 2025 as A2 meeting plan by Liber Associates revised to December 17, 2025.
A4 I will be the survey prepared by George Anderson LLC dated at 11725 sorry A5 will be the zoning permit to
June 11 2025 A6 will be color photographs of the subject to adjacent properties. Um then we will also have ZB1 the CME letter on the signature of George Lizo dated uh
10 2325 um ZV1 Z2 letters for January 6 206 um and I'm going to mark as a
7th which is the December 17th French 25 letter from me and Lbury Associates responsor engineers 10.3.5 report for the signature warberry with attachments their soil
test and die well submissions >> what was that that number sorry >> that's A7 A7 um do you have any other exhibits >> can we mark them as we go >> we can mark them as we go next one is going to be A8 for you for your little reference >> yes thank Thank you,
>> Mr. Rizo. Do you have any waiverss that the applicant received initially? >> Yes, please. I had two that I flagged in the checklist. The first one is the um a draft of the notice to the the residents. Um and as I understand that's
since been submitted for review and it's is accepted. Um so I take no exception with that. And then the second one is the freehold sedd application which I expect will be required. Um, so I would just ask in testimony that that be discussed and should it be required that
they do that as a condition. >> Correct. >> All right. Um, I do want to note just for purposes of of this proceeding, we did take jurisdiction of this matter. Uh, back in December, uh, an issue was
raised concerning the notice. Um there was an issue as to one matter during the review period that not had not been specifically addressed in the notice. Having reviewed the notice finding what I would carry I it's inappropriate to
really designate as a cash law but it is specifically designed for a situation where we don't anticipate all of the variances are required. Uh Mr. is being being very good at what he does put in that language of and or any other
variances and or waiverss that may be found during the course of these proceedings or words to that effect. Having done that, I find that the notice remains adequate uh to adequately full informed about what we're doing here this evening. Um I think that covers all
the procedural things that I want to address and we'll leave the floor over to Mr. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Kovatz. Again, ladies and gentlemen, Mark Aikens on behalf of the applicant. Um, ladies and gentlemen, this application involves an existing uh single family one-story
ranch at the corner of uh Kemp and Laurel here in the burrow. It's situated on undersized lot of approximately 9,865 ft where 11,500 ft² is required in the R10B zone. Uh the lot is not surprising
non-conforming as to frontage both on Kemp and Laurel at slightly less than 95 ft where 115 ft is required. Uh the residence currently is also um non-conforming as to the set back to camp the front yard setback to camp at
25.5 ft. Now what's significant is the existing foundation of that resident establishes the setback for the new building. The testimony you'll hear this evening is that we are preserving and reusing the existing foundation of that single family ranch in connection with
the pro proposed 2 and 1 half story new residence. So that generates a lot of the metrics that we're talking about. A new covered porch, covered front porch is proposed at a 17.5 foot setback from Kemp, which is something that we believe
when you view it will you'll deem it appropriate relative not only to this particular property, but the properties and homes in the neighborhood as a whole. Um, around the corner from Kemp uh on the Laurel side of the property, there's a proposed new single bay garage
set back at 25.5 ft where 26 ft is required. Again, you'll hear testimony from our engineer and planner as to that rationale. The key theme that you'll hear this evening is that the applicant is reusing the existing foundation. Um, you'll hear testimony specifically from
our architect anticipating many of your concerns, as I hope I have, that is this foundation suitable and appropriate to be reused. And the answer you'll hear from the architect's testimony, not just my say so, is that yes, it is. And that's significant because nobody wants
to get into a situation where we base this entire presentation on re reutilizing the existing foundation. We find out for whatever reason it can't be utilized, right? That's nobody wants that. We don't want that and this board certainly doesn't want that. So we will
show you as a result of the testimony and the exhibits that the result will be a very aesthetically pleasing proposed new 2 and a half story residence for this property again utilizing the existing foundation. So, with that, um, I'd like to call our engineer, uh,
Elizabeth Waterberry, have her sworn, or she's been sworn, have her qualified, and just give a little background to the board as to what exists on the property presently. Um, and, um, some some very fundamental um, engineering, site engineering.
>> Good evening, everyone. >> Okay. >> Would you place your credentials on the record? >> Sure. Elizabeth Waterberry. I'm president of EM Waterberry and Associates situated on Prospect Avenue in Little Silver. I am I've testified before this board. I testify before
boards from Mawa down to exit two on the turnpike out to Park uh Princeton. And here I'm the West Long Branch and the City of Long Branch Zoning Board Engineer. Um a professor at NJIT, an adjunct professor. I am also uh an
instructor at Ruckers where I change where I um train the zoning officers and the board secretaries and part of their courses for their certifications for the whole state. >> Thank anybody have any issues with credentials? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. Uh, Miss Warterberry, having established your credentials as a licensed engineer and you're also a licensed planner, can you review with the board the location of the applicant's uh, existing residence and talk a little bit about what's proposed? >> Yes. And I have a couple of handouts for
you probably for talk existing by starting out with the uh, aerials that would show I have extra definitely extra copies because I wasn't sure how many would be here tonight. >> Terrific. So if we can have them >> A8 would be an aerial of the
neighborhood as a whole. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, here's No, those were large here. Here's the two. Thanks so much. >> Uh the the the uh the large scale is A8.
The zoom in is A9. >> You want to mark this at the same time? Uh yes, that would be great. We're on A10. >> And then uh A10 is a foundation exhibit where I've tried to show you know the existing foundation road. Can I describe
Oh, I have >> I can I have it available. >> Yep. So we can talk about the existing uh versus the proposed and what portions of the foundation are remaining. Oh,
>> okay. Why don't we start with um A8, which is the small scale of the neighborhood. >> Yes. I was just making sure they all had because they were still handing >> Thank you. >> handing out. >> Okay. So what you have before you is you have one exhibit which is the large
scale aerial area A9. These aerials were taken from the Mammoth County GIS or 2023 uh aerials from near map. Uh they show that they were done in May of 2023. It's
a leaf on so you can see the leaves that are on the trees. Uh D a lot of times you can see difference. deep. He tries to do them a leaf off so they can see violations. But this shows the existing conditions of the property. I was out there today. The pictures that you have in your file
and I have some others if we need them show that we have the footprint of the existing house uh and which has a driveway that comes in off of Kemp Avenue to a onecar garage right near the corner of Laurel and Kemp. And you can
see where the red car is situated is in front of the extension of the house. That's just a onecar garage. So that portion of the house uh has a um lesser support to it than obviously the main part that has like a basement etc to it.
Uh and so with that you can see um the location of the house. We have a house opposite us on camp Avenue that I just wanted to on Laurel Avenue that I wanted to draw your attention to. and that one in particular because our drive will now come off Delural which is now a
secondary street. So that you can see that we'd be uh not quite opposite their drive but doing the same type of arrangement. Uh on the A8, right? Did I get that right? >> You did. >> A8 is the surrounding area. And that for
the most part I have pictures of some of the houses in the neighborhood and I just wanted you to get a sense of how this particular lot uh lies. uh along Kemp Avenue and within the neighborhood. I will offer to you that on our side of
the street, right on the western side of Kemp Avenue, that is the R10B zone. When you go to the eastern side of Kemp Avenue, it's the R10A zone, which is very similar with just some minor
differences. Um I the lots that are along Kemp Avenue uh with the exception of a couple are mainly all the interior lots are 100 by 100 lots. Ours kind of come out to that but are limited in their frontage because of the curve at
the intersection of Laurel and Kent. The zone permits interior lots to be 100 foot in depth, 100 foot in width and 10,000 square ft. The corner lots however are required to be 11,500 with 115
uh dimensioned 115 rather than 100. So in that regard we are lesser than the interior lots because if you were to square it off and not have a little rounded area at Laurel and Kemp, we would probably be the 100 by 100. But
because that comes out of it, you know, we're we're under the 100 as Mr. Akens had indicated at like 9865ish. So, um, we are non-conforming in our size. We're non-conforming in our frontage. All because we're mainly
because we're a corner lot and these lots were probably put into place prior to um um maybe the ordinance was uh enacted. However, I will offer to you that one of the things that had happened in one of the other master plans was
there was a recognition that there are many areas where the uh lots that exist maybe don't aren't quite in keeping with the layout the layout of existing lots. The lots are required in the zoning ordinance are not quite in keeping with
the lots that exist. This is uh and that ordinate the national plan acknowledged that and you can see here that this is one of those cases. The other exhibit that I provided to you uh I have up on the board which is sheet
one. Was that marked into evidence or was it just because it was submitted >> a uh it's part of A1? >> Part of A1. So sheet one you have and that is basically just the existing conditions which just replicates in a you know line form what you have on the
aerials that I provided to you. What we had proposed was the uh construction of the 2 and 1 halfstory house with a garage a onecar garage that comes in off of Laurel Drive
with a double wide drive. Uh we one of the exhibits that I provided was at 810 >> 810. So A10 uh was an exhibit and it's easier to see actually on the exhibit that you have because it tinted better than on here was one that is called a
foundation exhibit and it's if you look at the one that was handed to you that's going to be much clearer where there's a solid red line that's existing foundation that's being reutilized that our proposed dwelling for the most
part is over top of that area. You can see in the back of the home, the home widens out slightly. So in that area, we are creating a new foundation. The areas that are in orange are the locations of the new foundation. Most of those relate
to the garage and then just that back wall of the house. The green relates to the supports for the uh porch, the wraparound porch. You can see that the wraparound porch on the uh common
property line at our side yard uh with lot two. So I'm pointing to that area that common property line with lot two that the foundation of the existing house is being utilized for the porch on that side the outer side of the porch.
So actually our location of the dwelling in on that side is actually inset from what it exists today. In the front we have the dwelling itself is set back at 25 1/2 ft. Uh the existing has a set
back of 21.9 to the railings that are on the uh front uh landing and that was noted in your engineer's report. We have our house being set back at the same spot, the main part of the house, and the architect will review that uh more
that's being set back at that point. To put anything on the front of the house that has a roof to it uh requires a variance. Um because the existing house is at the 25, we were required by Mr.
Rizzo and by your ordinance to provide the prevailing setback for it goes a couple of houses over because I think it's 200 f feet and these lots are 100 ft wide so they only go a couple houses down and along uh Kemp Avenue it was at
uh 26.1 ft >> right >> so the existing house at 25.5 although your zoning schedule says that the setback would be 25 ft the existing house was at 25 and a half. We're maintaining that for the dwelling, but
to put anything in front of it then, you know, creates uh exasperates that particular variance for it would be for the open porch. And the architect's going to speak about that design more. So you'll see on the frontage along
Laurel Avenue that you there is a dashed part of that foundation that's shown as um being removed uh in this uh kind of goes around the words covered porch in that location. That part to be removed is the existing garage.
So the main part of the house is actually the back of that covered porch. We have uh that foundation being used and just a little bump on that first floor, the rectangle that's by just below the letter H um with the solid is
the location of the existing chimney that will remain in the proposed condition last. And then we have, you know, the three sides of the porch. Uh, and then the porch in the back that has its new supports, which are certainly less um
less impactful or less uh required than it would be for the uh basement and foundation for the house, which is the red. >> And again, there's no basement underneath that covered porch, right? >> No basement under the covered porch. There is an existing basement in the
house, >> right? We do propose where the house bumps out uh to just extend the basement to the end of that. Not going any deeper, but just there's so the part that has the red all where the existing
footprint was has a basement under it right now. That basement's not out of the ground. That basement's >> Let's Yeah, just for the record, let's call it seller. >> Seller. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. So, you're going to send the seller to the rear. >> Yes. To the new foundation line in the
back. It is a seller. It barely comes out of the ground. And um the architect can speak more to the height of that. Um we're not looking to it's not, you know, these days everybody wants a 9 foot and or 10 foot cellar below the house. Uh we
do not have that. We're not looking for that. We're not overdigging. Uh I will note that it says in Mr. Rizzo's letter which is right in the ordinance that any new uh seller or excavation would have to be 2 ft above the seasonal high
water. Uh we have indicated uh that we will be doing uh soil boring. Should we get approval, we would do soil boring, we need to do it for whatever drywalls are being installed to recharge roof water. And at that same time, we would also confirm the location for any
extension of that basement. But it does, it says that's only required for new basements. If there's some issue with that, then the old basement, I believe, is allowed to remain. So, we have our uh house that's proposed with the wraparound porch. As I noted,
there's an existing basement below on the I guess that's like the southeast corner, right? On that southeast side, we do have where we propose stairs down to the seller area. Thank you. Sorry. Stairs down to the seller area. So they
are shown. All of that is outside of the required setback. So the porch, the dwelling itself is now at an existing condition sits at 11.6 ft off of that property line. In the proposed condition, the house itself will be 16.8
ft off. So, we've moved the house further from the neighbors and the porch edge of it would be at uh basically um at 12.1. So, slightly more than what exists right now for the full house. And again, the porch being an open porch
with a roof around it, no railing. That can be confirmed by the architect. So, that it's not a, you know, a solid wall or something that would be >> You are replacing though whether it's moving that back. You're replacing that with the air conditioning and the generator though which currently sit to the rear of the house. I live around the
corn. So >> right now they I don't believe they have a generator. They do have an air conditioner. >> There's a generator. It's uh it's to the rear of the house on the Laurel. So >> So one of the issues that we have is that with this bumping back and then with the garage being on that side
currently the garage is on the side of the house and comes out to camp. So, they've been placed on that side um in order to connect easily to the basement area and because everything's been pushed back. >> I'm just pointing out that you're you're replacing. You said we're improving, but you're not improving because you are
replacing that. >> I'm improving with the structure and obviously the generator and the AC units are within there. That's one of the variances that I was getting to. Thank you very much. And they're certainly much smaller. They do have their own impact of their own nature, but they're
much smaller than the whole side of the side of the structure. >> Does your does your u second floor go over the new porch? >> No. And the architect will review that again with you. and he has an example of a
home that's very similar to what we are proposing that would show plus he has the uh exhibit you know the elevations provided in his plans. So I'm I'm looking at Mr. Bower saying
if I representing correctly he's to kick me. So, we have our house, we have our garage. We show a onecar garage with a double driveway on the side. Relief is required um
because the ordin So, the relief from your ordinance, but not from the residential site improvement standards. The ordinance requires that you have your parking behind the front setback line. Um, one thing that happened after
we had done the original plans and submitted was we received the prevailing, you know, we had gotten confirmed the prevailing setbacks. Now, in this instance on Laurel, there's one house, you know, that's on the opposite corner. Um, and so that setback is at
26. We have the garage at 25 and a half. Um the rest of the house, the uh porch itself is at 29 12 and the structure is at 37 and a2. So we have this one uh section that because the garage is
attached. Uh it would need to meet that prevailing. We meet what's in the bulk, but we don't meet the prevailing um at the where 26 is required. We're at 25 and a half. >> Mr. Do we have any issues with parking on this? You know, I'm I'm a champion against this whole parking that happens.
So, what do we need? Three uh two spaces for three bedrooms. >> Yes. And I was just about to review that. >> Yeah, that is one of the it's a design waiver. >> So, the residential site improvement standards are the ones that govern over the state the town requirements. I have
copies of a copy of them with me if you wish to see it. For a three, this is a three-bedroom home. And I want to just back up just for a second. Uh, a three-bedroom home does require two parking spaces per reus. A onecar garage and a driveway that's at least 18 ft
long counts as two parking spaces. So, per Reesus, we meet that. We do have a double wide driveway. So, it does allow. If we try to put a a twocar garage here, we would be within the rear setback and over on our coverage. >> Um, when we started, one of the comments
that was in Mr. Rizo's letter related to that what we submitted right now doesn't appear to match the denial that the older denial that was in the application because at that time we had requested uh F variance and uh
>> it talked about using the existing house or some portion of the existing house putting an addition above it. >> Yeah. And I think that we had at that point the house was uh that they're looking at they were looking at developing it more like in keeping with
what um uh it seems to be very desirable in the net in the in the market and that was a four-bedroom house and um that exceeded the F and had additional variances associated with it. So the difference is is when we submitted that
we saw that information and responded to it. So we are down from the four bedrooms not that you saw four bedrooms but the zoning officer for s four bedrooms and an F variance and that was revised uh including the area over the
garage and whatnot so that we conform with that as to what counts and what doesn't count. So I might I might I might pause here. Pardon the interruption. Just just to say that effectively what the board is seeing today is the result of many months of refined plans which I think is better
than coming in to you revising the plan coming in another night coming in another night coming in another night. So we've worked with zoning officer to try to achieve that rather than the board. In the process we've met some of the key metrics, right? We've met lot coverage, we met building coverage. We
have not exceeded the maximum building uh area. Uh we habitable area. We also are you know meeting the F. So we've met those four essential metrics here under the burough's ordinances. I apologize for the interruption. >> No, can you take a step back really
quick back to the parking? Um I agree you comply with RSIS, but um the burrow's ordinance has like a location requirement for parking. >> Yes, I I I agree with that. Okay. And I have some of what I have for you and some of what we can see on the aerials
and some of the pictures that I have is that the location of we have one space that's located in front of within the front yard setback. Um there it's not uncommon for there to be driveways along the frontages, you know, and cars in them along your frontages both on Kemp
and in the area. We have relocated where a corner lot. If this was not a corner lot with our setback that we have on the northern side, we could have brought a driveway down that side, had uh uh you know, rotated the garage, had maybe a
detached garage even and would have had it, you know, back and out of it. With it being a corner lot, we're have two frontages plus we're a smaller lot uh than the ordinance requires for a corner lot. We're about 20 ft short, right, on lot width and lot frontage on both
sides. >> Correct. >> About the depth of a space, >> which would which would allow that to occur. So, um we've looked to put the driveway on Laurel Drive uh so that the main street has the appearance that
would be uh desirable. Um, one of the I have pictures of some of the houses in the neighborhood that I was going to pass out if we needed to that show that the house opposite on Laurel, you know, has a side. It's the side of the house there. There's a a garage there. There's
a driveway that comes in. We're kind of mimicking that to some degree. Um, except that we are proposing we have we have a more open view on our lot. And so we have looked to wrap that porch around so that you don't just have a flat side
on all frontages that you have some relief that occurs on all of the frontages uh to help to break that up. So yes, there is a setback requirement to be off of the uh to be off of the out of the front yard setback. Now, if I
were to take the drive the garage that's here and shift it back so that I could achieve that, you can see that the garage right now is located um half a foot shy of your prevailing front
yard setback. So, if you put another space in front of that and then the garage, you can see you've eliminated the rear yard of the >> No, I appreciate that. I I personally I don't think the whole the uh the parking thing is not realistic in this day and
age. I there isn't a there isn't a house in that neighborhood that conforms. So the two ranches the ranches around the corner don't so is what it is. >> Well, there you go. You covered uh some of my testimony and a bunch of pictures. >> Well, I appreciate your your the efforts made and and as far as this front set
prevailing front step setback goes, it's close enough for to the house next to it. >> Right. So the house itself is conforming what we're just talking about. So the variances that we have relate to as we just spoke about the parking because we
don't meet the town's uh requirement. We have the air conditioning and the generator on the sideyard that are required to be at the 10 ft. The generator has to be further from the the building than the AC does. Uh you know because it's required to have a certain setback to windows and doors and things
like that. Um, so that's 6 and 1/2 ft off of the property line where 10 ft's required. The AC units are 8.1 ft off the property line. We do look to have uh dual zone so that it would be two smaller AC units rather than one large AC unit. Um, and they are 8.1 where 10
ft would be required. >> How wide is your porch? >> So the uh it varies as you go around and I believe the author can confirm that even better for you. I think it's only about three and a half to the post on that side.
>> But can I reserve that for when he when he testifies? >> That way you don't have to guess to it. >> In the front I can say from the the back of it to the very front of it, it's 8t because we're asking for a 7 and 1/2t I mean a 17 1/2t set back to the porch in
the front. So that that I know is 8 ft because doing the math you go that's what you get. I'm going to ask how far the uh the width of the porch and I'm going to ask uh what if you were to remove that porch and move the move the
uh utilities in >> on the side. >> On the side. >> Yeah. So, so if we were to limit that here and I believe >> on the east side >> on the east the east side of uh >> you mean the south side I think. >> South a lot too.
Yes, that's what I'm thinking. The common sideyard. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Where I locate them now. So, I believe that uh the architect will be able to address to address that because it would relate to the architectural aspect of that porch. Uh certainly if portions
some or all of that porch was not there, they could move it in. We do still have the stairwell that goes down and we would like to still have that covered um just for usability and to keep rain water from going as much as possible down into that area. But that's
something that I would defer to the architect as an engineer on walls out. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And then the last thing I just want to talk about was the drainage. >> Yes, please. So, in the existing condition, we have um and you have a
grading plan. I'm just going to uh describe it for you. In the existing conditions, obviously, we have a house that has roof leaders that drain that drain into the rear. They're not controlled. Um we have uh drainage that kind of goes in both directions around us. The front seems seems to go kind of
toward the streets. Um it's fairly flat uh in there. We do have uh some beds and and improvements that are back. There's some decorative walls and things like that, you know, that that were for beautifification and not necessarily to channelize anything. Some of those things help to block the water. What
we're looking to do is in the current condition, I was showing taking all the roof water that went to a yard and to put it in. We're needing lot coverage. I shown them going into the dry wells. I had discussion with your engineer today.
He noted that the board uh uh with a new house and we're kind of like a new old house because we're using the old foundation um prefers to have all the water go in. One thing I just wanted to have you think about um you know because I have to deal with this in my own
communities when I sit on Mr. Rizzo's chair and that is is that um we have a balance that we try to achieve and that is you know the flow going across obviously to the street and into the drain system but then whatever you put in through the ground has opportunity to
impact people's basement and so we try to balance the impact to the the not just us but the neighboring properties because the more I put in the more mounding on that whatever groundwater's there has opportunity to impact you know the surroundings. So, um, with that
reason, that's why I had taken any water that would have gone to a neighboring property and left the ones that would have gone to the street. Uh, that still would be a reduction from what exists. Um, but I leave that up to the board. Whatever the board's pleasure is, like I said, we just try to balance the extra
water in the ground that can impact, you know, the surrounding basement, especially when the lots are small. >> So, again, your testimony is you defer to the recommendation of Mr. Rizzo and the board's determination with regard to the installation of a second drainage structure in the front yard. >> Correct. Or much larger one in the rear.
But we are >> either way. Yeah. >> Uh should we be approved, which I hopefully I'll speak uh in a positive way from the apathy side. Uh if when approved, we would do the soil borings
speak with Mr. Rizzo uh prior to so that they're done in the location of where any dry wells are proposed to be done and confirm permeability as well as seasonal high water. >> Anybody have questions, Miss Bor?
>> This property has curbs um around all around, right? And also it looks like that's a storm water drain right outside of the right driveway, but that that won't be there, right? That drive. >> Uh I'm moving the driveway for a couple
of re Well, number one to so that we think it's less impactful visually. Plus, um with it right there at the driveway, I at the it has opportunity if cars are parked in there to block your vision, you know, coming around that curve. So, we're looking to bring it
around. That driveway won't be there. There is an uh storm inlet right there in the front. Um, so that anything that did come off of ours onto the streets goes to that storm inlet and has a very short distance. >> Will the will the water coming off that
new proposed driveway take the same path? >> So, Laurel looked as if they graded down toward that inlet as well from that where our drive is. >> Sorry. So, it goes from the driveway towards Kemp. Um,
>> yeah, I can confirm that now. It does. >> Yeah. Say again. >> I'm looking at the the uh topography now in the street of of Laurel. Yeah. >> And the driveway uh drains from the west to the east towards that storm inlet. >> So, the proposed driveway would would
drain towards that that existing storm. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. If I may really quick, I just want to comment on this the storm water. Um, from my point of view, it is a new house, right? Foundation's existing, but the house is new. The impervious
coverage and building coverage, while they comply, um, lot coverage is going from 24% to 40 almost 43%. And then building coverage is going from 15 and a half% to 28 and a half percent. So, a little bit less than
a double on those. Um the yard is relatively flat. Um if it all had a great pitch towards the front, I'd say it's a little bit different, but I think there's potential for some low areas or a little bit of runoff towards adjacent properties. Um that's just the natural
grade of it. Um typically with a new house, we would recommend full infiltration from other roof areas. So they have about maybe a third or quarter to a third currently going to the back that's been designed already. Um that was the applicant's choice to do that.
Um my recommendation would be to take the remainder and then you put in the front most likely as well. So you can have two dry wells. But um I I would certainly recommend that all but be captured and put into the >> considerable there's considerable paper space in the back now
>> or in the proposal. Um >> um other than that I still have a few questions um at this time. >> Can I just comment one thing? >> Yeah. So uh I was having discussion with my with my client concerning if we had end up having to split the drywall or
not split the driveway. I don't know what the permeability of the soil is going to be. So it could be that one could take care of it and but in splitting it we have new utilities that all have to come in. You have to have setbacks between between the water, the sewer and any storm
water. So we have two frontages. We try to work it between the two. But I just wanted to share that there is a little more complexity in the front yards because of those utilities and the electric has to come in. The electric's probably going to come from the corner of Oak and Laurel and come up up to us.
So that's coming up that side. The other ones are probably coming in from PE. So we have some of our front yards restricted with utilities. And then while you mention utilities, I have a comment here that there's an ordinance section. It talks about um existing streets um bringing in new
electric and it wants it to be underground. >> Um is that something you can comply with? >> Uh we know that it has to come in underground. I had spoken to Mr. Rizzo. I'm assuming that we're going to be of course JCPNL doesn't talk to you till you have approvals, you know, to be able
to confirm it with them. We would like to take it off of the one at Okam Laurel because obviously I don't have to cross the street with that. I don't know if they're going to uh which is better coming in underground from there or you know trenching under there or if they want to take some of it overhead and
then bring it underground into our lot. But in any instance we know our service into the lot has to be underground and then we can coordinate with Mr. Rizzo as to how that would be achieved >> and that might be achieved after resolution compliance with his approval. So you would agree to comply with any of the burough's road opening permit
requirements? >> Yes, we would have to. Yes. >> Um the flag pole in the front, does that proposed to be removed in Tarta? >> That's going. Yeah. So I show that bed being removed and I I noticed that I didn't specifically say and flag pole.
So I will add that much evacuation. >> Um are you aware of any trees that are specifically coming out for this? >> None. none greater than a 10 inch caliber to our knowledge. >> Okay. And if and if there are, you >> we would stipulate to comply.
>> We have to get a tree removal permit. >> Thank you. Um there's a question about curbs, but there's currently no sidewalk in front of um either Laurel or Chem, >> right? >> Um there's an ordinance that talks about riding a sidewalk for payment and lube. It's not really something this board gets involved with other than just a
reminder that if the burough engineer requires it, um >> we got to do one or the other. We either got to do the payment or we have to so that we would coordinate with them as to what the desire is and bring that to a conclusion. So you'd have it for >> you can contact B engineer on your
schedule whether be a requirement. >> And then the last thing I quickly talked about STD at the beginning um to anticipate needing to get that and and you will. >> Oh yes. Yes, we do exceed and he's talking about the free old soil conservation district and we do exceed the threshold. So we will be required to
obtain uh certification from them and provide that before we achieve compliance. >> And Miss Waterberry, no no trouble stipulating to Mr. Rizzo's comments 6A through 6E with regard to his ZB2 exhibit January 6 letter.
>> Correct. >> And then I'm sorry I have one more thing. Either you were the architect. Can you speak to the fences that are both existing and what you're proposing? So, I had spoken to my client about that and you know, I know at this time I show that we're taking it basically from the
building to the existing fences that surround the property. Um, and I think right now that's what our proposal is. Now, I can't say that when someone else goes to buy the house that they're not going to want to change that and at that point they'd have to get their fence permit. In any instance, we would conform in that we're not going to put
anything higher than what we're not proposing any in the front and we wouldn't be higher than what's permitted in the others. >> Can you can you seek any relief with that? >> No. No relief is >> no relief. No. So, I think for the plan with an approval, could you just note
where the fence is to be removed? So, the portion of it will be removed. >> Just a small amount that would extend past where we connect. >> Okay. >> If you can show that in the plan. >> Sure. on your plan on E2 you have fence on both sides that's existing >> there's existing fence that's kind of
surrounds our >> back part and so we were looking at just taking a fence from the garage to connect to it and then from the proposed house on that side uh to connect to it and um but we will definitely show that
and anything forward to that we would re remove is on a plan says new fencing curious bigger k >> and then just curious um the prevailing setback is 26 feet. So Laurel, right, >> you're six inches shy of that. Did you
you look at I'm not like fur again, but did you look at what that six inches to be if you were to apply? >> So I'm going to defer that to the architect since I don't want to mess with his design. >> They're going to stay in my lane. >> I'm also appreciating. Great. Thank you. Any more questions, Mr. Ber?
>> Thank you very much, >> chairman. I'd like to just bring her back for the variance testimony after we've got the architect's testimony established. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Burn. >> Sure. >> Clean my stuff out of the way here, the questions.
>> Hey, applicant now calls John Brower, licensed registered architect in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes. Licensed in the state of New Jersey since June of 1998. I'm the principal partner in the firm of Das and Brower Architect for the past 27 almost 28 years. Um I have given testimony in
front of this board about five years ago I believe was during co um and I was accepted as a expert witness at that point and I am the architect for the applicant >> condition. Okay, Mr. Brower your show. >> Okay. So I'll just walk you through the
existing house. The existing is just a one-story nondescript ranch style home. Uh three bedrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, single bathroom. It does have an attached garage on the Laurel uh drive side of the home. Um and just to
clarify, there is a seller, uh but there's only a partial seller. Half of the foundation is seller, the other half is crawl space. Um all of that is planning to remain. Um, some of it will be affected by the new work, but um, what's there now is planning on being uh, utilized.
And as you can see on the elevations um just matching the point you're referring to I'll be referring to the floor plan sheet A2 the first floor plan and sheet A3 the second floor plan of the proposed new residence >> proposed new resosing
to construct a 2 and 1/2 story home uh mainly on the existing foundation. Uh the the new area behind the existing house would be on new foundation which would be that additional seller space uh for providing access to the new stair to the outside as well as a new stair from
within the house uh to m to access the first floor. Um let's see one through there. So, the first floor is going to contain a large living room, an office, and a large eat-in kitchen with a dining room table, a mud room with a powder room,
and a onecar attached garage. Access to that garage will be from the door at the rear yard. There's no direct connection to that garage from within the house. There's a door at the rear um of the garage structure. And a wraparound porch is proposed at three sides of the house along with a shallow covered porch at
the rear for access to the PA patio. That's for first floor. Second floor contains a master bedroom suite with a walk-in closet and a master bath, two additional bedrooms, a hall bathroom, and a laundry room. And an outdoor terrace is proposed over a portion of
the garage. We decided to do a portion so that way the front area of the garage would still maintain the peak appearance. In the front, it wouldn't just be a flat roof that you would see from the street. So, the visuals on that would would be more appealing.
And there is an attic that will be used for storage only and it's going to be accessed with a pole downstairs from the second floor and I believe um maybe that's a is that considered a hash that that >> yes >> okay so there's no habitable space proposed for that
that's the floor plan with respect to the elevations refer to sheets A4 and A5 Careful. >> What she 4 is the drawing that shows the front elevations on both Kemp Avenue and Laurel Drive.
Obviously, the home is located on a corner lot. We have two front-facing elevations. Uh the existing Kemp a Kemp Avenue elevation and the new Laurel Drive elevation which the owners will use for general use and when they have visitors parking in the driveway. So the thought on that was that um dvetailing
with what Elizabeth was talking about the existing garage is very close to the intersection of Laurel and Camp. So whenever you pull out of that driveway it's very close to intersecting traffic. So the thought was the existing house really has no presence on Laurel Drive
at all. So having this corner lot, we thought it would be prudent to relocate the garage to the secondary street so that way traffic becomes less of an issue. Keep the parking on that side as well. And then also we'd be able to dress up both of those elevations so that way as you're coming down Camp
Avenue, you'd be able to see sort of both of these elevations at the same time rather than staring at the side of a garage structure that we do now. Let's see. Uh, we feel the wraparound porch is a nice way to connect the various entries in the home under a single roof. The
wraparound porch is also a great way to provide a smaller scale element on the elevations to break up the massing. So that way when you're looking at a house in general, this if this element was removed, you're basically just staring at two twotory walls. Um, so the that wraparound porch scales things down,
gives you a little covered at your at your entryways. Plus, it gives you those nice outdoor spaces uh that became very popular during COVID and we're actually seeing a resurgence on these outdoor spaces. For years, everybody was enclosing their porches and now everybody wants to have their porches back because they want to be outside and
uh be able to see their neighbors and have conversations. Um we also feel that these wraparound porches add a lot of curb appeal to the homes as well. Um, with respect to the materials and the colors, the finishes for the home are
anticipated to be in the vein of like a raw or weathered cedar shake with white trim at the doors and windows and all the quartz details. And then the owners are looking to keep within that that Hampton's beach house palette of materials and colors. U, we do have renderings that we can submit that are
sort of in the vein of what they're thinking about. These are conceptual in nature. We'd mark them A11. So that would be the color one or the both color but the >> and A12 A12 is not our house but it is
it is a sample of something that's very similar in terms of the type of uh porch that we're dealing with finishes look style so we have extra copies of that we can pass around A1 is the house
>> A1 is the Avenue >> A12 is an example of colors and uh materials, but not this house. Not this house specifically, I should say. >> Brower, you got seven columns across the
front. And what size are those columns? >> Those would just be 6x6 columns that are probably 7in columns, you know, finished. With respect to the seller, the foundation, I visually inspected the existing foundation walls about a month ago in preparation for the hearing. Uh the walls are in exceptional in
exceptional condition with no apparent settling or cracking uh both in the cellar as well as in the crawl space. The foundation of home is unusual in that there is currently no sill plate um which is unusual. There's no apparently any anchor bolts either securing the
home to the foundation. I don't know how that happened, but that's the way it was built. Um, so this will be corrected as we plan to take the existing house down to the top of those foundation walls, install the seal plate with the anchor bolts, and then install the new floor framing on top of that. Uh, this
dimensional change has already been accounted for in the updated drawings that were submitted with respect to the established average grade and the overall height of the home. So that's already been already factored in with that update that we submitted on December 18th. Can you speak to the first floor elevation >> elevation in terms of the uh compliance
with our ordinance of FFT no greater than 30 in it's going to be how many steps are you looking at coming in off grade? >> Uh you have essentially the from grade to the >> porch is just one step. >> I I have that calculation if you want to tell me. >> No, I was just curious but I I know it's
low. >> Maybe it's less than a foot. >> I mean essentially your average grade is 10 inches to the finished first floor and the porch is in between there. So you're only >> very good. So there's not going to be any grading change. You're not going to be >> there's no we have no anticipated changing to the grading that and also um
that brings in the fact that we also don't need any handrails or anything around this thing. So we're not sort of walling off any or corelling any porches here. Everything open platform. >> There are no stairs that would approach on a 5 yard set. >> No. So you're essentially the edge of
your the edge of your porch is your step to the grave at that point >> and that's where the the setback was taken to. >> Yeah. On the laural side as well. >> Yes. >> So Doug talking about those porches.
>> I refer back to sheet A2. the park's floor plan. We're proposing to develop a front porch along Camp Avenue that's 8 ft deep off the face of the house along the left side which was I think the southern side adjacent to lot two that
porch will be 4'8 wide and then on Laurel there's a little undulation in the wall but at the at the part of this point it's also 8 ft so that way you have a square corner coming around coming around the two intersecting streets. So essentially you have an 8 foot, 8 foot and a 4 foot eight along
the three sides. The back porch is a 4 foot deep. This is straight just a 4ft deep covering to provide rain cover over the dining room doors and and the rear building. So let's talk about the question that's been on my mind since I've seen this. Now obviously it's new construction um setting down.
>> Was any thought giving to let's put it where it should be because the the prevailing front yard setback is there for a reason. You've got two houses with no landscaping in between them or roughly very little. There's no trees in between them and you're going to be 8 foot proud
of both of those >> as well as the conforming house that's across uh Laurel that's on the opposite corner, >> right? Um, was there any consideration to and you're using? Yes. Portion of a small old 75y old foundation to just
doing a proper job and putting new foundation in and moving it back 7 ft and and conforming all across. I understand that everybody wants to have the 8ft covered front porch, but you are considerably proud of the houses that are existing on that block and I worried
that it's going to make a serious visual impact. It looks great. I love that quote and the fact that it's at grade makes it even better, but um I do am concerned with the adjacent properties being overwhelmed by it. Not so much obviously on the on the Laurel side. No,
we don't that's that worked out great in your favor, >> right? >> But on the Camp Avenue side, it's uh I think it's going to be visually very out of out of sync with the neighbor. >> Well, we were lucky on the on the Laurel Avenue side or Laurel Drive side to your point because when we got rid of the garage, that gave us the space to do the to do the porch. Uh we're also okay
along the left side the adjacent to lot too that porch is actually conforming right um it does create issues I guess with the utilities or the the generator and the AC >> but from a structural standpoint it there's no issues with that
>> um considerable patio I think you know obviously the garage is there but things can be worked with this was there any consideration to the visual impact to that that street I mean it's going to be considerable I I live around the corner I walk my a day and it's and and I was good friends with the previous owner who
passed away and it's going to be it's going to look very >> out there >> when we put that >> prevailing front yard set back into the master plan several years ago was specifically for this reason to keep it hold the line at what was there with new construction
>> whether you're using a portion of a very old foundation I still consider it construction >> right and and obviously there's no I'll say practical point for the porch in that sense it's there it's not building area and since you're not living in it, you know, in that sense. >> Well, is there consideration to using a new foundation and just saying we're
going to just using three sides? >> There's always consideration for it. The only thing is that foundations are very expensive these days and they've gotten considerably more expensive over the last 5 years uh ever since co um a foundation if you were going to rip this out and do this entirely entire new
foundation could run you anywhere from $60,000. So the thought was >> in this today's market I'm probably >> I guess 33 for this house 32 somewhere around there on the market. So it's it's not a big just my opinion on uh
conforming as plus non-conforming. So you could get your big front porch and and not make such a big impact. >> Well obviously if obviously if we picked if we picked up this design and we slid it back say 8 feet to conform that would all impact say potentially the backyard the garage would definitely be in the
backyard. You got plenty of room there. You got a considerable patio. Um, >> right. But >> if the whole thing is shifted that the garage is >> the garage will then become a rear yard. >> No, I understand. I understand that. I'm just I'm not I'm not saying it's got >> just saying what was the what was the
thought process and the design. It's very easy to say, oh, I can I can use this old bit of foundation to all of the line and then build on top of it and use that as you know, it's creating your own hardship really. But right my opinion. Also, Dr. lever. I think that's some points on the on the Yeah, I I'm assuming that that the steps there are
steps inside the house to the seller. >> Existing. Yes. Oh, or newer. The newer existing. >> The the newer. >> The newer. Yes. >> Okay. Um I'm troubled by the fact that you have as you as you face the house from Kemp,
>> the left side of the house, which I think is is east, maybe it's south. South I think is what we were talking. Yeah. South. >> Um I'm troubled by the fact that the the utilities encroach on the front door said that on the on the sideyard set.
>> What if you were to remove the porch on that side? You you have a possibility of potentially getting the AC units to be fine. The only issue that comes up is potentially the generator because there's going to be certain clearances that are required for the generator. Um,
so that regardless of the porch may still not have an impact on that, >> but you're reciting that generator around the point. The existing generator on the house is is on the uh north side of the property, >> right? on the on the >> Yeah, it's the back of
>> I am troubled by the fact that that you've got basically new construction here >> and that you're encroaching your generator and your uh air conditioners within that sideyard setback. And I I
think that he should be able to resolve that. And I think the way to resolve that is to remove the porch on that side. >> Okay. >> Especially because you do have porches on all four sides currently. And is there any opinion on what it would do to the aesthetics or did you consider
>> Well, I mean, obviously that's the sort of the the one side that pretty much nobody's going to really potentially see on a regular basis. >> I mean, can we I guess we look at the elevations. >> It looks like there's one door going out to it from the office, right? >> Yeah. Sure. So on on the on that side of
the house, we have one door that leads out of the office to the covered porch, but that that porch also provides cover for the basement stair. So potentially you could leave a covering over that stair need if you know if if necessary
to give you a little rain cover, snow cover over that. >> Well, that's why I asked you if there was if there was access to the basement >> within the house. >> Yes. And if there is, then maybe you don't need those stairs. >> But can we take a look at the the the
front elevation just to get an idea of what it would look like without that? >> Did you have any? No. >> You're talking about is where we sweep the corner. I understand that aesthetically it looks
better, but at the expense of moving utilities closer to the neighbor, I I I agree with Delta Health that I would say it's putting it in in in a new construction, especially just to gain the utility of that. Nice to have access to the basement outside.
>> Love to have it, but at the expense of asking for a variance, I think it's tough. That's our opinion. Okay. >> Yeah, it's true. I wasn't suggesting one way or another. I just wanted to no >> I don't think aesthetically it takes that much off. >> And I think there's plenty of other spaces. I mean, as far as I understand
the problem siting a generator with road to windows and that sort of thing, >> but there are it's not like you're going to have to reroute because you're digging up the whole thing anyhow. So running gas, you know, to the proper I know where the where the gas goes in now. So there possibly could be somewhere else on the
property beside that generator. >> Okay. Any more, Mr. BR. >> No, that's my presentation. Any questions? Mr. B, the board, >> can you just quickly discuss the the garage too? Is that dimension set or is that
>> Oh, that's right. >> Yeah. Well, once we found out what that prevailing front yard, I guess we have no problem eliminating that 6 in. Uh we we can pull that wall on 6 in and won't affect the look of the house at all. >> So, we'll eliminate that variance. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. What percentage? So the the
the proper was to comply and pull it back another half foot to meet the 26 ft setback on uh Laurel that would eliminate that barrier. Mr. Coz, >> we didn't have that information available when when we when we did the submitt, but now that we have that information, it's only a 6 in
difference. So it has there's no impact on the on the garage at all visually. >> Question. Chairman, might we have five minutes to confer uh based on the comments received so far? >> Take five recess. >> Thank you very much.
>> I think so. There's no there's nothing >> centered on the north to exist. >> Yeah, that's great. >> It's the portrait piece. getting
>> ridiculous. What's that? >> Want this office? >> Oh, yeah. We're supposed to be in recess. >> Sorry. >> Please. >> Mrs. Dangelo. >> Yes. >> Dr. Ler. >> Mrs. Hman.
>> Here. >> That's it. >> Mr. Thank you, Chairman, board members. appreciate the opportunity to have a short recess. So, I would like to just maybe make sure my notes are clear as to the board's comments so far. So, as I'm as I'm hearing the primary one, it's
that the front of the porch should comply with the prevailing front yard setback. It's it was my concern that in new construction given that the how should I say the modest percentage that a new foundation would give and
then construction I think the the the every effort should be made to complain you have to do this but that that is my opinion now I know it compromises the rear yard could be spaced there could not be space there but that's something that you know was was Why is this not considered and
would you try to comply with that? That's on front. The other uh thing obviously we brought up was the sideyard that that that with the utilities, >> the AC units and the generator. >> Let's be honest. I mean, the house is very it's modest. It's a threebedroom, 2,800 ft. It's it's great. It's not
something egregious. Um I do appreciate the low nature of the front porch. Obviously, I'm not saying I I prefer that to no porch. Obviously, it's it's Yeah. But um with new construction, I always think that that compliance is is
always the goal. >> Um yeah, continue. >> Um so, yeah, I just So, I had the uh front yard set back, uh the AC units, and the generator. the what I'll call the
left side or the um southside uh covered porch we didn't necessarily have a problem with >> where the accessories lands because of the southside >> right but if the util if those utilities
were relocated >> to a compliant >> to a compliant location then that's something >> well yeah there's I don't think there's a there's no setback issue with from porch to that side Okay. >> Correct. Right. So if the porch were reconfigured or stairs were reconfigured or something was done away with then
that might be one one solution >> and move the AC move the utilities in you could I mean obviously if the porch conforms um and the AC and the generator could be sighted somewhere else on the property that would be ideal and you have the porch with the coverage stair and no
uh intrusion onto that sideyard setback >> right and we had stipulated that we would make the um on Laurel, we'd pull the we'd pull the garage elevation back half a foot so that um that complied and eliminated that variance.
>> Okay. Um so I I think with those revisions, we'd certainly want to see what the impact is on the on the rear yard and I think from the board's perspective, you need to know specifically what any impact would be on a newly created. So, if we're
eliminating potentially any front yard variance by by sliding everything back, if you will, or or finding some shallower depth or whatever the combination is to the extent that there's a new rear yard variance that's created for that portion of the garage.
I think that's something that, you know, that the board would want to see graphically, I think we'd want to see it graphed on it, too. from from from my perspective. >> I'd like to see both of the I really would like to see what it would look like because obviously it wasn't a consideration now, but I would like to see if what it would look like >> and I I I fully anticipated that
chairman. Right. So So that doesn't surprise me at all. I I'd also like to be able to consider that in the context and present to the board that that even if the placement of that garage created a new rear yard variance, that might be a better planning alternative than having a detached garage that's then 5T
cuz I think that's the setback. five feet from the rear yard rear rear line. So, so again, it we all try to design without variances, but maybe that's the maybe a slight variance for the garage and the rear yard setback >> is better than having a detached garage
that otherwise fully conforms, >> but yet is is this is this secondary structure that nobody really intends. I don't think you intended. >> And we don't intend it. So, you know, with that, um >> I'm not a detached garage fan.
So noted. Okay. Um, could you ask Mr. Angel had a question about the >> I was just curious about the center dormer on top. Is it is that for visual interest that it's either off I can't tell. Maybe it's not offc center. Is it
are you working around that chimney or is it just And also is it why does it stick up a little bit higher? >> Oh, you're talking about the the roof structure itself. >> Yes. Yes. There's no there's no use in that you know that you get
>> we give you these Mr. leaders. We always get, you know, we need to get out of it stand by by right under. >> If you wanted a fixed staircase, you could take credit or you'd get free floor area essentially. >> But the height limit, what's the height limit in the
>> it's it's 7 ft or less for onethird of the overall height for the for the structure? >> 32, right? So 32. So there's no more. >> No, no, no. We're talking about in this >> interior space in the access up to it to use up to a third of it. If you used the if you put a fixed staircase in, you
could use a third of the attic space free. That it doesn't count towards >> I don't think we would have the height and actually in order to do that in the attic space for that reason. But yeah, >> so the question there is what is that kind of bump up? >> The bump up is when you look on the uh Laurel Drive elevation
there the width of the house is at two different dimensions. >> So you see this two peaks on the on the Laurel Drive. >> This higher peak that you see in the back is actually this peak here. So it's just a function of the width of the house at that point. >> Okay. >> From this element,
>> right, >> on the Laurel Avenue facade >> because it's it's not just one facade. It's it's it's two elements, if you will. >> I see. >> The house widens out at that point. So the roof naturally gets taller at that point. >> So that's where you get that weird little >> Yeah, it does. It looks a little odd from
>> little jump. >> And what's the height of that peak? >> Uh height of that peak is at 31 foot 10 in off the average grade. So, the rest of the roof is lower. >> Yeah. You were a foot lower, I guess. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. We never sought to make height an
issue here. >> Yeah. >> So, Oh, sorry. And to your point about the dormer, the dormer in the front is really just an aesthetic thing to kind of just fill in, take your eye away from that little high spot, you know, and give you a little something attractive on the front.
>> The dormer looks centered. It was just that roof part that >> Yeah. It's just a weird off center. >> It's just a weird. You don't have any height in the attic to use the usual space in the attic. >> Well, once you get the collet ties in the in the attic, you're you're probably going to have a attic that's like this, you know, it's not or, you know, say
about four or five feet out. >> So, functionally it's it'll be a good storage attic. >> Okay. Yeah. Visually, it just looks taller than that. That's I'm curious. >> Yeah. Because if you look at where this floor line is, these windows are only about a foot off that floor. So, it's kind of a visual
>> Yeah. We're tricking the eye on the uh on the frontal functionally on the inside. It's >> okay. It's really just for natural light and and appearance. >> So, uh, so with that, chair and board members would ask that the matter be carried to the board's next meeting, uh, with the opportunity to present revised plan.
>> Before we do that, open to public just in case. >> Sure. >> Any members of the public have any questions of the applicant, the professionals? >> Not yet. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, so I know we have two in February. What do we have for February? Shield? >> Uh, February 12th. >> Was Hagerty on there? >> Right. Rainy is supposed to come back. They have to boost event plans. >> They told me they're gone soon. >> Um, and Fedoro
>> Hagerty have withdrawn chair. >> Yeah, withdrawn. >> Lastly, >> um, somebody else. >> Oh, >> I did because I was trying to think of who we had. >> Okay. Um, >> so we have those. >> Yeah. Okay. I think we can I think we
can accommodate February. >> We haven't gotten plans from raining yet. >> Okay. Then we can accommodate. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Make a motion to to wave wave carry the uh carol to the February 12th
meeting without postponing notice. >> Thank you. >> Wave time. >> Wave time notice. I'll provide Miss Olsson with the customary letter extending time for decision. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you. The student.
>> Okay. Um >> everyone I I appreciate it. Happy New Year. for participating with us now. We appreciate >> good evening. >> So let's do minutes now and then just approval of minutes and then we'll I'll
make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the January with the uh December minutes as submitted. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Let's discuss the Harbor Road very quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Um >> I have some handouts for reference. >> That was shot. I recall I had to go over the house. Yeah, I looked at the back. There's the thing with the back.
>> We got sidetracked. >> Something I think. >> Yeah, this this gave rise to the question about the dead space. That's okay. So, this application was approved um
February of 2025. It's 100 Harvard. It's a very small addition in the back. It's about 60 square feet. >> But as you just heard, um I think we probably spent more time talking about the pool and patio in the back, right? >> Yeah.
Um so long story short um as part of the approval they agreed to put drywall which most people do and then since then since the hearing um as part of the resolution compliance they submitted the plan which I just sent to you minus the color so the black and white version of
this showing the dry well and the roof litters that they're going to collect. um yesterday or the day before um the now they're in construction and they realized that there actually is a dry well and it's really close to where they proposed it. That's what's shown in red here. And then they also added these red
dots along the sides of the house showing which roof leaders they believe and would have to be verified, but they believe go to that existing drywall. Um you'll see there's more roof leaders existing that go to the drywall than they actually proposed. So that sounds like a benefit. Um, the reason I bring
it up to you and I'm trying to get some some feedback, see if anyone has any strong opinions, is the um, the project was proposing a zero increase in impervious coverage. So, net zero, but they were over on impervious coverage by
3 and a half%. And a very small increase in building coverage, but they're compliant. So, uh, so with this application, um, the dry well was probably or potentially intended to be a net benefit for storm water purposes.
Um, the good news is one exists, but with that, I don't know that that, you know, perceived benefit for storm water is actually in play here. if one is existing and they're not providing anything new from current conditions. Um
>> have they given you data on the existing dry wild genome capacity? >> I don't it can be verified to some degree >> to the extent that it would be what you would have decide >> I I think I think it's that and a little more >> a little more. >> Yeah.
>> Oh and it's functioning properly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean my take on it is yes and I think uh correct me if I'm wrong Jordan that they >> during the meeting they said that they would remove important burgers coverage if we needed to order >> and that's the second thing I gave you sorry so that's conditioner or note
eight in the resolution I just printed the one page second line of number eight says that agreed to the drywall or to removal of lot coverage um I don't think they ever intended to do the lot coverage removal but it was put in there and for reference that is
39 94 ft. So it's it's pretty significant for them to do that. >> I mean my take on it is we wanted them to put a drywall in thinking there was no drywall. The fact that there is a drywall now I think covers that. I don't think they have to remove the 400 ft of
burgers is an existing condition and and and to put a second drywall is is constant. So so that's my take. There should be. >> I'm in agreement. But if anyone feels that they voted yes because they thought they were getting additional storm water than what was there today, then I just want to give you the opportunity.
>> Well, I think it's silly. >> You actually have additional fun. >> That's what it sounds like. >> Well, no, because there is a there's an impervious coverage condition. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Right. So, >> right. But I think it was and it >> but nothing changed from that. Right.
>> Put the drywall in >> or >> or remove the coverage. There was no dry well there. Right. >> So, but it wasn't going to be both. >> Yeah. >> And I think I I think not only the listing, but I think the minutes are clear on that. It was you have an option and to the extent now that they've found
drywall. I'm sure I'm articulated. We think it has a greater capacity than what we probably than what you probably would have designed to address simply the addition. >> Yeah. Yeah. So theoretically it's still some some bleed over because it's it's
greater than the size of what we're removing. It's 394. So maybe it's the equivalent of should make up a number half of that. We don't know. But >> but but we said put one in. They have one in. I think we just need to memorialize it so 10 years from now when somebody looks at again that they'll they'll say okay they they're complying. That's what I think.
>> I think that's I agree with that. M that you authorize me to give you like a one-page resolution addressing eight to and attach this to the existing resolution to it without requiring them to appear to allow Jordan then to say yes >> you're done done I give you your
compliance file the type thing that helps improve >> yeah I mean they're in construction now so I think they want some level of comfort I think >> okay attorney Mr. Still Mr. I don't want to I don't want to increase any cost.
>> I don't think he's involved in. >> No, I mean if if they needed something today because the resolution obviously isn't going to be done. >> Yeah. >> Or I can I can I can prepare a letter to this effect too and we can you know take care of that. >> I guess that's the question. Does it
have to be a legal fashion to >> I want to create the appropriate paper trail. >> Okay. >> So that so that no one's no one's saying no. They not just cover this with resolution with a resolution compliance letter. We're saying yes, they comply with >> I mean that's already been issued at this point. That's all done.
>> So does that cover us though? I mean, you know, I want to only in light of the New Jersey new, you know, 400 ft code that we put in a couple of months ago. I'm just wondering if a letter from you would be sufficient. >> You're author, you will give him
authorization to do that from compliance. Do you issue letter of compliance based upon recently discovered recently discovered such such regarding point A being a resolution >> pass that we require. I'm good. >> Even better. >> Yeah, let's do that. >> Even better. >> Good guess.
>> Yeah, >> any oppos. >> Thank you. Thank you, Jordan. We appreciate it. >> Um that's it for us. Open the public. >> The public have any questions?
>> Thank you. Any more? Anybody have any motion to adjourn? >> Second. >> All in favor? I thank you every first meeting of the year. Thank you. We'll be busier next