WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=pJq10Lcoy6s

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: pJq10Lcoy6s):
- 00:00:00: Fair Haven Zoning Board Meeting Commencement and Introduction
- 00:02:34: Pledge of Allegiance and Introduction of First Application
- 00:03:35: Presentation of Application Exhibits and Document List
- 00:05:18: Hickey Residence Expansion Proposal: River Road, Fairhaven
- 00:12:32: Architect's Testimony Regarding Porch and Bathroom Additions
- 00:15:50: Floor Plan Review and Square Footage Calculations Debate
- 00:16:52: Setback Issues and Porch Configuration Concerns
- 00:20:57: Visual Bulk and Design Alternatives Discussion
- 00:25:02: Existing Hedge Privacy and Street Visibility Factors
- 00:27:55: Garage Addition Setback Compliance Verification
- 00:29:53: Impervious Coverage and Stormwater Ordinance Considerations
- 00:33:58: Garage Expansion Plans and Design Alternatives Explored
- 00:36:44: Personal Factors and Future Generational Impact Considerations
- 00:40:16: Woodland Setback Concerns and Visual Impact Analysis
- 00:41:41: Recommendation for Open Porch Clause and Engineering Considerations
- 00:42:13: Public Comment and Hedge Proximity Discussion
- 00:43:52: Previous Variances and Incremental Expansion Debate
- 00:47:05: Alternative Designs for Maximizing Portfolio and Addressing Concerns
- 00:51:58: Setback Alignment and Concerns About Crowding Woodland
- 00:57:09: Proposal To Pull Back, Acknowledge Issues and Reschedule
- 00:58:14: Next Application: 50 G Fair LLC, Gillespie Avenue
- 01:00:53: Oath to Tell the Truth and Presentation of Application
- 01:04:06: Additional Exhibits List and Checklist Requirements Waiver
- 01:05:17: Demolish Existing Structure: New Single-Family Home Proposal
- 01:06:56: Civil Engineer's Testimony and Zoning Questions
- 01:09:08: Coastal Bluff and Capper Permit Application Details
- 01:11:15: Second Garage Plans and Variance
- 01:12:53: Non-Conformities and Elimination Clarifications
- 01:15:06: Garage Legality and the Wider River Frontage Concerns
- 01:17:17: Prior Approval of Garage and 2003
- 01:17:54: Principal Structure Distance, Adjacent Property
- 01:20:03: Footprint of House and Applicability of R10 Zoning
- 01:22:33: Cap and Size, and Review Zone's Standard for Approval
- 01:24:55: Riverfront Homes - Front Yard Reconfiguration
- 01:26:08: House Aesthetics and Neighborhood Concerns
- 01:27:50: Existing vs Proposed
- 01:29:13: Close Setback to Residence and Potential Not to Create
- 01:30:03: Proposed Setbacks, Front Yard/Driveway Coverage
- 01:32:30: Front Yard/Driveway Coverage (and Neighbor Driveway)
- 01:34:31: Analyzing Front Yard Coverage Calculations and Driveway Design
- 01:42:30: Fence Height Variance Discussion Near the River
- 01:45:33: Parking Spaces, Setbacks, and Lot Coverage Compliance
- 01:49:10: Dry Well Placement and Alternative Stormwater Management
- 01:57:33: Ordinance Review for Dry Wells and Stormwater Detention
- 02:01:04: Consolidating Lots, Driveway Access and Existing Garage
- 02:11:56: Public Comment
- 02:13:00: Introduction and Credentials of Architect, James Anderson
- 02:14:52: Lot Analysis and Existing House Shortcomings Discussed
- 02:22:06: Colonial Revival Design Intent and Historic Context
- 02:33:22: Concerns About Garage Placement and House Configuration
- 02:41:51: Moving Stairs and Increasing Green Space Opportunities
- 02:43:53: Screened Porch and Cupola Variance Discussion
- 02:47:53: Discussion of Building Height Relative to Zoning
- 02:49:18: Public Comment
- 02:49:37: Existing Utilities Review for Seating Areas
- 02:53:02: Impervious Surface Concerns and Zoning Standard Analysis
- 03:08:46: Motion, Adjournment Discussion
- 03:09:04: Public Comment
- 03:09:22: Motion and Resolution Administration
- 03:11:52: Request to Adjourn and June Agenda Availability
- 03:14:01: Public Comment
- 03:14:39: Assigning Responsibilities for Zoning


Part: 1

1
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:24.000
We're going to try to get started. >> This is regular meeting of the FA and zoning board of adjustment. Adequate notice of the meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meeting act. At the time of the board reorganization in January of this year, the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of

2
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:40.960
the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January on January 23rd, 2026 and the Two River Times in January 22nd, 2026. That notice was also posted on the bulletin board in Burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the stat sheet. A copy of the notice is

3
00:00:40.960 --> 00:00:57.039
and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of the burough clerk. Copy of the notice has also been sent to members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given, the board secretary is directed to include your statement in the meeting.

4
00:00:57.039 --> 00:01:12.799
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 Fairhead zoning board of adjustment. The board is a separate and independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority is specifically set forth in burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipal

5
00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:28.560
land use law. It is quite a judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and council. The zoning board does not enact the burough land use laws and regulations. The burough council does that. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough fair haven. This is the responsibility of the

6
00:01:28.560 --> 00:01:44.000
code enforcement officer. This board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the land use laws or the denial club officer. An applic is never entitled to a variance and also known as an exception to the regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New

7
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:59.040
Jersey municipal land use law and the fair haven ordinances by satisfying certain required standards approved. This board has no authority to wave those requirements. The burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to that specific relief requested. The applicant

8
00:01:59.040 --> 00:02:14.239
must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to the zone plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and not or and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique

9
00:02:14.239 --> 00:02:31.319
personal situation. Roll please. >> Mr. Mr. Leer >> here. Mr. Ryan >> here. >> Dr. Ler here. >> Mrs. Newman >> here. >> Mr. President >> here

10
00:02:34.319 --> 00:02:49.519
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay.

11
00:02:49.519 --> 00:03:08.400
Well, tonight that's got applications on the Tonight. First, we will hear the Hickey 950 River Road. >> Mr. Bowski. >> Yes. >> Walter. Anybody can testify. I think they're going to testify. I have something to

12
00:03:08.400 --> 00:03:35.920
shout out from the audience. raise your right hand so this morning. >> Yes. >> My general counsel, everybody can sit down. My general counsel is before you start testifying, please state your name

13
00:03:35.920 --> 00:03:52.720
clearly spelling the last name for purchasing this. Sure. like to mark A1 as the completed application checklist in the application. A2 would be the possibly

14
00:03:52.720 --> 00:04:10.720
last revised November 17, 2025. A3 will be the location survey dated September 29, 2025. Color photographs undated. I have done my account with the 4. A5 will be the zoning board denial

15
00:04:10.720 --> 00:04:28.240
letter dated November 5, 2025. A6 will be the list of variances and statement on a new basis granting variances sought undated. And we also have uh zoning one which is the March 19 2026

16
00:04:28.240 --> 00:04:44.320
engineering review letter and CB2 May 5th 2026 engineering view letter signo I don't have any other exhibits if you have exhibits now at

17
00:04:44.320 --> 00:05:01.919
A8. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Russell. Can I just run through the the checklist requirements? There's only two tonight for the applications. First one is the Moth County Funding Board application, uh, which I wouldn't expect to be applicable, and then copies of any easements, providence, and deed

18
00:05:01.919 --> 00:05:18.960
restrictions. Um, and it's my understanding that there's there's none that's been available to ride. So, no exception to these two. >> Okay, your report. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, members of the board. Rick Roszi on behalf of the applicants. Sean Sean and Eileen

19
00:05:18.960 --> 00:05:36.560
Hickeyi applica. The application before you this evening pertains to the property that's located at 950 River Road. That's in your R10A zone. Um the application seeks variance approval to permit um an expansion of of an existing

20
00:05:36.560 --> 00:05:53.440
garage by about 5.33 ft. uh uh the addition of a of a very small office nook on the first floor sort of be behind that garage and then on the first floor and then on the second floor

21
00:05:53.440 --> 00:06:11.199
uh two new bathrooms which will become onsuite bathrooms to two existing bedrooms. It's three bedrooms upstairs. Uh we're starting with three, we're ending with three bedrooms, just adding the two bathrooms upstairs. Uh and

22
00:06:11.199 --> 00:06:26.400
finally, the enlargement of an existing uh uh open patio attached to the uh existing home. Um the uh just by way of a little background, the

23
00:06:26.400 --> 00:06:42.960
this is this house is we think about a 1940s construction. Um it's a fairly modest renovation of about 183 square feet. Um the Hickeys uh or the applicants who are here this evening

24
00:06:42.960 --> 00:07:01.039
have owned the home since for 24 years, raised their three kids here. Uh expecting them to come back with lots of grandkids. So they're looking to uh um stay in the home, retire in the home, and have room for uh for that to happen.

25
00:07:01.039 --> 00:07:16.400
Again, it's a renovation of the existing home um uh with no increase no increase to the to the bedrooms um to the number of bedrooms. It's, as you've seen from a review of the plan, you you'll see that

26
00:07:16.400 --> 00:07:32.639
while being an oversized lot, it is somewhat uh irregularly shaped in as much as that westerly uh property line along Woodland kind of angles in, if you will, uh from River as you go south

27
00:07:32.639 --> 00:07:47.440
towards the towards the rear of the home, which is relevant because it pertains to one of the variances that we need for the open porch for for uh for a setback variance uh for that open porch

28
00:07:47.440 --> 00:08:02.639
and of course it's a it's a corner lot so therefore burdened if you will with two front yard setback uh requirements. Um the uh however along Woodland which

29
00:08:02.639 --> 00:08:18.639
you'll see in in the photos is a a fairly significant existing row of uh uh screen hedges uh that screen the property very well. uh also similar

30
00:08:18.639 --> 00:08:37.200
situation on the eastern property own um uh the and in terms of the variances you'll you'll hear from the architect in a minute but there are two um so the one variance is as I just referenced was for the front it's it's actually a front

31
00:08:37.200 --> 00:08:55.040
yard setback along woodland uh for the open air porch that open air porch on the southerntherly most portion of it uh gets uh gets to within 20 ft of woodland. And of course, as you head

32
00:08:55.040 --> 00:09:10.880
towards the front of that, that's in the rear of the property. As you head towards the front of the property, um you know, that that setback increases ultimately to 25 ft uh as you get to the you know, the northerly most part of

33
00:09:10.880 --> 00:09:28.080
that open air porch where it meets where it meets the home. Um that's one variance and the second is for maximum floor area. Um and the architects will talk about um

34
00:09:28.080 --> 00:09:45.920
the necessity for this variance about we exceed the maximum floor area by by about 80 by about 84 square feet. Um and uh and it has to do with with just being

35
00:09:45.920 --> 00:10:02.480
able to accommodate a reasonably functional size for the for the two ba for the two bathrooms upstairs primarily. Uh those are the uh those are the two uh variances that we need for for the

36
00:10:02.480 --> 00:10:18.160
application. Um, again, we've got, um, people who are doing a modest addition to an existing modest home, longtime residents, want to stay. Eileen Hickey, you know, is been

37
00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:34.240
on the board of ed. And you know, they they love not only the area and the neighborhood, not only the town and the neighborhood, but they love the house and they want to they want to try and make it work >> without given by this board back in

38
00:10:34.240 --> 00:10:51.640
2015. I think 2017, funny enough, even Mr. Reader attended that meeting, but >> could you speak to that? What was granted then? >> I don't I don't Yeah, you were involved. >> Okay. Yeah, >> hold on. Come up. come up.

39
00:10:54.079 --> 00:11:09.120
>> Right. >> It was a family room edition >> with a second floor above >> on the woodland site. >> Yes. >> Yes. And it was 25 ft uh at the back home.

40
00:11:09.120 --> 00:11:22.560
>> Um and and Mr. Chair, I did want to mention that, you know, the typical indisha, if you will, of of overbuilding, I talked about it being a modest addition. We do have an oversized

41
00:11:22.560 --> 00:11:41.360
lot um and and um if you look at uh the impervious coverage for example um where well below well below 30% where 40 is is required is is permitted. Similarly with the building coverage,

42
00:11:41.360 --> 00:11:59.920
building coverage 35% is is permitted. We're at 16.5%. And then finally with respect to the floor area ratio um uh we're we're at uh 187 where 28 is

43
00:11:59.920 --> 00:12:14.720
permitted. So we're it's well the the applicant is well in compliance even as proposed with um you know all of the bulk criteria other than what I mentioned with regard to the maximum floor area and just the the dimminimous

44
00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:32.160
uh uh exceedence with respect to that maximum floor area as well as the setback. So unless the board has any other questions what I' what I'd like to do is well we we've already had him sworn in. We'll have Jim Daly, our architect, just walk the board through

45
00:12:32.160 --> 00:12:49.440
um the property as it exists today and then what's proposed as part of the uh addition >> as previously described it. Um >> Oh, sorry, Jim. For the record, if you would just state your background and

46
00:12:49.440 --> 00:13:05.360
experience as an architect here in New Jersey. >> Okay. Uh my name is James T. Dailyy. I've testified here before for the past 30 years or so. Um and uh licensed architected instead of a year. >> All your licenses are in effect. >> Correct. Okay.

47
00:13:05.360 --> 00:13:22.639
>> I don't think anybody has problems today. >> Um one of the main issues is the sort of the structal shape as described by Mr. Brozky here on the the western side of the property where it angles in. So that

48
00:13:22.639 --> 00:13:37.760
is one of the variances here with this dot set back. Uh but this is currently a patio here now. So there's a patio here now. And mainly what they want to do is raise the patio so it's in the same position it was before. Same coverage.

49
00:13:37.760 --> 00:13:54.639
There's two feet added to that patio, but other than that, there's a patio there now. And then put a roof over it, but two columns. It would remain completely open. So it's an open porch with a roof open side, not going to be enclosed. uh on a stone packet. And then there's

50
00:13:54.639 --> 00:14:09.600
another patio here that meets the the coverage. And on the east side, there's a modest garage edition which meets the setback on the side of 10 ft. And uh part of the reason for that

51
00:14:09.600 --> 00:14:26.000
garage addition and this small modest um it's I call it a little office nook is in order to put the two bathrooms on the second floor on top of. So that's the purpose. So that is the that's the foundation for the two bathrooms that get added to the side of the two

52
00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:41.519
existing bedrooms on the second floor. >> Is there any functionality to the office nook? >> Well, as an office nook and and then structurally as a construction. >> Yeah, I understand. But like it I guess it's big enough for >> debt. A small deck.

53
00:14:41.519 --> 00:14:58.639
>> Yeah, it's a it's the size of a cubicle which a lot of people use today with the you know you don't need a lot of bookcases. >> Eileen Hickey works from home. And um yes, it will be used as an officer and then and then structurally it's used as a foundation for the bathroom too. So it's it's a it's a

54
00:14:58.639 --> 00:15:18.320
practical construction um foundation. >> And then and that's the that's the two main um variances. Like we said, we're over on the um the cap by 83 84 square ft. Um, part of that is 22 square ft of that

55
00:15:18.320 --> 00:15:34.639
is your regulation of requiring the peak and the existing family room to be counted as square footage. So that's part of the issue that's pushing that over >> and there's no functionality to that space. >> Correct. Yeah. That that's shaded in here on this diagram here that you'll

56
00:15:34.639 --> 00:15:50.639
see on your plan up on the upper left hand side of the plan here. >> So that's 22 square feet that's existing today. Not adding it. >> Correct. And it's not >> but it has to be uh yeah added into the square footage. Correct. The overage >> is your ceiling issue.

57
00:15:50.639 --> 00:16:06.079
>> Yeah. Yeah. So >> So then the the the actual increase is the 64. >> It's 64. Correct. >> So let's look at the um floor plan. >> Say again. How much is that? >> 22. >> 22 for the It's not It's not vaulted.

58
00:16:06.079 --> 00:16:21.839
It's um it's just where the >> system. Yeah. It's on the second floor and it's where uh I guess because of roof pitch. >> Okay. >> Which is nonusable space, >> right? But we're counting. >> Yes. Yes. >> Mr. Daily, one question I had. Um so

59
00:16:21.839 --> 00:16:37.040
with the two new bathrooms, that's going to give you four bathrooms on the second floor and one of them is adjacent to one of the existing bedrooms. Could you give thought >> to using that existing bath as the on suite for one bedroom and then creating another one? You would you would

60
00:16:37.040 --> 00:16:52.880
eliminate 40 square ft. You're only asking for, you know, 80 and 22 of that is counted as vice space. I mean, we're talking indefinitely. What is the purpose of having a fourth bedroom when you have three onsuite bathrooms on the second floor, >> not combining it into one?

61
00:16:52.880 --> 00:17:10.079
>> Sure. Right. I get >> um that bathroom, that's our master bathroom. >> So, why don't you step forward, spell your last name for the purpose of the record so I'm hiking. And um right now on our um second floor we have a master bath b uh

62
00:17:10.079 --> 00:17:25.679
bathroom. >> And then we have another full bathroom, one bathroom. I have three teen well three daughters that are all in their 20s now. Two in college, one out of college. And they've used that one small bathroom. Um >> Right. But you're adding two more. So

63
00:17:25.679 --> 00:17:42.000
that gives you four bathrooms on the second floor, but only three bedrooms. >> No, we have four bedrooms upstairs. That's what's >> Oh, four. I'm sorry. We have uh we have four bedrooms. I'm sorry. I heard him say that. I told I did I say three. We have four bedroom. >> My mistake. Four to four. >> And this would allow us to have them.

64
00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:57.280
>> Okay. >> And one of my daughters is moving home after college. You know, she's going to be getting ahead. >> I understood my fault. My fault. >> Can I ask a question about the setback with regard to Woodland? So is it is it

65
00:17:57.280 --> 00:18:13.600
only a portion of the proposed cover of the porch area that's completely violated? >> Correct. Correct. Yeah, it's it's not the entire thing. So uh it's Can you can we see it? I yeah I I would

66
00:18:13.600 --> 00:18:30.160
pretty small one here but um um if if you were doing a percentage it's it's it's about this is a covered porch this shaded area here you see in your diagram and then it's I'd say approximately maybe 45% is outside of that setback line.

67
00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:44.720
>> Okay. So there's two separate renovations. One's happening on the interior of the lot. That's the garage. the two bathrooms upstairs that is compliant with setbacks but pushes you over with regard to square footage. With regard to the setback for woodland that

68
00:18:44.720 --> 00:19:00.799
relates to the creation of the cover porch and the extension of it back to land and only a portion of what you're asking for is invalidated. >> Correct. >> And is there a reason that you can't figure out how to reconfigure the porch along Woodland so that you didn't require that variance? I would say

69
00:19:00.799 --> 00:19:19.840
unfortunately not only because this this directly relates to this family room here and it's in a direct outdoor extension of that family room. >> How large is the how that part is big? >> Uh that's 400. >> The whole thing is 429

70
00:19:19.840 --> 00:19:36.160
by 22 >> and and it's and it's covering what's now a um a patio. So there's a patio there already. Just a matter of putting a roof over it, >> but you're also extending it further, right? >> Correct. >> Enlarging it. >> But well, it gets it gets enlarged to

71
00:19:36.160 --> 00:19:53.280
the south, not to the west. >> Yeah. But by going south, you're >> supposed to. No, I understand that. Yeah. >> And how much of you how much are you enlarging it to the south >> from the existing? >> Two feet.

72
00:19:53.280 --> 00:20:08.720
So, so if you take that on the angle, if you stay on the line, you probably get 22 feet instead of 20 feet. Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> You can see the setback line on the plan. So, it's it's pretty much down the middle. It's about half of it is outside the setback and half of it is inside of the setback.

73
00:20:08.720 --> 00:20:23.360
>> What's the total deviation from the setback requirement? What? Five digits. >> At the corner, >> at the closest point, >> at the close point, it's 202. >> Yeah. The requirement is 30. >> 30.

74
00:20:23.360 --> 00:20:39.440
>> Mr. Daily, what what is the height of that covered porch? The proposed covered porch. >> It's only about 10 ft at the peak. It's a It's a very shallow peak, so it doesn't interfere with a window on the second floor. If we go to the elevations here, uh,

75
00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:57.600
if you look, you look at the elevation sheet, 83, and then you look at the rear elevation, upper right hand corner, see there. It's a pretty shallow pitch with 14. >> But don't you agree that that that adds

76
00:20:57.600 --> 00:21:13.919
bulk when looking at the house from the from the woodland side of the uh of the property? I would say not to be honest with you because it's such a little pitch and it's and it's only one story. It's not two stories and this is a pretty modest house. This this house is not even know

77
00:21:13.919 --> 00:21:30.159
close to the height limit, you know, for the for the main pe these are 8ft floors here. >> There's an 11 foot street. >> Well, it's it's not over. >> You can't even see this from the side street to be honest with you. But because the existing you cut down all the bushes here, >> but you're proposing to put a full

78
00:21:30.159 --> 00:21:47.280
fireplace on the back end. It's almost all masonry, right? that that's just a veneer on there that could be taken away to suggest that it isn't going to look like bulk that I think the pictures look otherwise. Can I ask Mr. Daily did you

79
00:21:47.280 --> 00:22:02.960
design the renovation that the board approved last time? >> I did not can another >> I'm trying to figure out what regarding that Mr. Don't the setback is 30 ft. The relief that was granted in 2015

80
00:22:02.960 --> 00:22:19.200
exacerbated that 30 set. >> Yeah. It it it permitted it it permitted the setback of 25. >> Okay. So we went from requiring 30. They put an addition on just to 25. Now we're looking at more addition albeit an open porch but a group of you putting a big

81
00:22:19.200 --> 00:22:34.559
part in the back there. Um that they want to go to 20 in that space. But but the argument last time was the same. The argument last time was effectively that because of the configuration of the wild, we have to go into the set. The board agreed and

82
00:22:34.559 --> 00:22:51.080
compromised and permitted the expansion, but now we're just doubling down and going further largely with the same argument. What what if I don't know if you can show us based on the plan you have up, but but what if the house was that addition?

83
00:22:52.080 --> 00:23:08.559
>> What are you asking? What of the existing house was the addition that was granted pursuant to the zoning board lesson? >> Well, this this was the addition here. This family room. >> Yeah.

84
00:23:08.559 --> 00:23:24.720
>> Just wasn't the whole family. We only we only made that family room about three feet wide or not. >> Yeah. This you want you want to have your your mother? >> Sure. Sorry. I'm particularly interested in what happened before, what's being

85
00:23:24.720 --> 00:23:40.960
proposed, how they work together, and there's this obvious appearance that it's kind of like it's spreading. >> Yeah. And and so I'm trying to understand kind of what we did last time and and and what we're doing now. And that that's really true. >> Yeah. There was a there was a family

86
00:23:40.960 --> 00:23:55.679
room there before and >> without a fireplace. >> Without a fireplace and had a flat roof on it >> that was always like >> the 1930s or something. I was I was thinking that was the issue. So we raised up the roof so it's like a 9 foot ceiling now. That creates a 30 inch

87
00:23:55.679 --> 00:24:13.120
issue and we extended it out 3 ft further >> towards Woodland. >> No towards the rear uh going down going down Woodland so parallel because of that trapezoid shape >> that's created. So you'll

88
00:24:13.120 --> 00:24:28.559
put the site plan up >> for a minute. >> And then what we did was before you had to go through, it's an old house. So before you had to go through our dining room to get to the family room, >> there's a door >> and now there's a doorway that we go through from the kitchen

89
00:24:28.559 --> 00:24:41.919
>> and it's not an open space. We've closed, you know, it's an old house and that's one of the the charms about it has a lot of character to it. It's um, you know, it's got a lot of charm and character. That's what I like about it.

90
00:24:41.919 --> 00:25:02.640
Jayla, she a lot. Yeah. >> And so we talked earlier about that existing hedge along Woodland. >> Um >> we did that for private purposes. I It's a nice hedge. We have all holly trees, big hollies and um other holl

91
00:25:02.640 --> 00:25:20.400
earlier that is it right that you wouldn't see this from woodland? Yeah, I think Joe measured it today 11 >> left. Yeah, >> the hedge. >> This is something we need to mark, Mr. Coax. >> 8.

92
00:25:20.400 --> 00:25:35.520
>> Is there a seven? >> I didn't have a seven. >> So, did you have a seven? >> No. Seven of the zoning board resolution approval granted August 11, 2015 passes A8 with the funding board total

93
00:25:35.520 --> 00:25:50.240
9 10 11 >> 8 >> if you were looking at proposed uh covered porches it'd be like right here and if you're this is any land here but there's also two

94
00:25:50.240 --> 00:26:07.360
trees two cedar trees that are like 60 feet tall that also we like it because it provides has some uh uh privacy in our backyard. >> Yeah, those are big seed. I mean, they got huge cedar trees. >> Yeah, that's another angle. Look at if you were if you were driving down the street and trying to say, "Hey, there's you know, there's a tall um structure

95
00:26:07.360 --> 00:26:28.320
that that just went in, you you'd see these two uh cedar trees." >> I agree. Those are very privacy evidence. I try to make that path but easily services of this meeting and I can barely see the house.

96
00:26:28.320 --> 00:26:42.720
>> Yeah, people don't even know the house is there sometimes. They'll say where do you live? I'm like quarter river and woodland and they drive by it a lot. And in our front too on the corner we've got three or four big pines. I mean it's

97
00:26:42.720 --> 00:27:03.760
it's nicely landscaped. I'm I'm looking at the existing on the rear and you've already got this patio that's going to towards the garage. I'm just trying to figure out the point of extending. How much are we extending? Another two or three feet.

98
00:27:03.760 --> 00:27:20.080
Two two feet. Two feet which puts us probably two feet or a foot closer to the to the woodland. >> But is that is that two feet from the edge or is the two feet from the edge? >> Two feet is to the rear to the south.

99
00:27:20.080 --> 00:27:36.080
What I'm saying is it two feet from this line or is it two feet from the patty from the back of the patty the existing patty? >> Yeah. Now is actually got some elevation to it because there's a small uh slope and then what what the guys want to do or what I guess we want to do is go back

100
00:27:36.080 --> 00:27:55.360
two feet and it's a straight line but it's that trapezoid shape as someone described it that it seems like you're but like we're not going like this we're just extending it back. I got to see that's helpful. Thank you. Y So, what about on the other side, Mr. Bowski? What's the required setback with

101
00:27:55.360 --> 00:28:12.080
regard to the addition to the garage? I'm looking at the overhead and I'm seeing the hedge. Is that >> that's all complies? >> That was your question. >> 10 ft. >> Side flatback requirement is 10 ft. >> Um,

102
00:28:12.080 --> 00:28:31.279
>> we're it's currently 15.8 and we're proposing 10.4. four. >> So in order to add that is the hedge your client's hedge. >> Yes, those are we have our bides along there. Yes, that's our hedge. We put that in for privacy.

103
00:28:31.279 --> 00:28:46.799
>> Todd, you talking about on the side we're talking about right now? >> On the eastern side, both the easterly and the westerly your >> five feet. >> Just over just over five feet. >> It's an It's an old garage.

104
00:28:46.799 --> 00:29:06.240
>> Oh, you're at 50. Never mind. >> She put her car in. I didn't. So, I didn't do >> Is the second floor addition still back compared to the uh the roof of the first floor? >> Yes.

105
00:29:06.240 --> 00:29:22.240
The bathrooms are done out. >> Yes. Yes. and and they need the second >> and I think the proposal I mean they're small bathrooms. It's a you know a stand shower, a toilet and a sink. It's not

106
00:29:22.240 --> 00:29:38.000
big master suite or anything. >> Yeah, there's a lot of kids that come home as age. We want to come back here. My daughter's coming back with friends and there's, you know, we've had so that anyone else sees that except for us, but she's going to have four adult friends

107
00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:53.600
in one bathroom upstairs. So, >> we have one daughter who has a serious boyfriend. He comes and visits and we're all sharing the same bathroom. >> One that's graduated. She's got a problem with us because she has to find a job. >> Have a couple mathematical injury. I need your help here. So, the patio is

108
00:29:53.600 --> 00:30:11.720
352 ft. Correct. >> Existing. >> Correct. The existing. >> Yes. >> And we're going to increase that slightly. You said 429 or whatever it was. >> Correct. Correct. >> All right. So, it's like a replacement of what's there. >> Correct. And then we're adding net new 183.

109
00:30:12.240 --> 00:30:28.080
>> Adding net new 183 floor. So did that trigger? >> Well, not 183 83. >> Wait, wait, no. 183 foot increase in the floor area, but you're over the cap by 84. >> Well, that's what I'm talking about. Cap over.

110
00:30:28.080 --> 00:30:43.919
>> So, it's it's 43 square feet on the first floor. >> Yeah. >> And then 140 on the second floor. >> Yeah. I know exactly where you're going with impervious coverage. So with the new ordinance uh in December of 2025 has a 400 foot increase trigger to do the minor developments from mentioned. Um

111
00:30:43.919 --> 00:31:00.799
this one is 393 square feet net increase in impervious >> but also the patio is being replaced. >> U I mean my understanding is it's a it's a net increase. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think when we discussed that I agree with you. >> What's the delta between two

112
00:31:00.799 --> 00:31:16.399
requirements? What if 401 what would the additional requirement >> some type of storm water solution that takes the runoff from the net new roof >> zero without it and require zero net additional runoff 400

113
00:31:16.399 --> 00:31:33.440
>> I mean it's 7 ft but it's been on the interpretation of the ordinance I understand you guys spoke about >> it's so it's not just over 400 square feet it's it's any new impervious at that point >> um >> or replacement of >> so I 401 square ft would be 401 square

114
00:31:33.440 --> 00:31:49.519
ft of storm water management. >> Right. Right. But it's not I mean my interpretation of of why that ordinance was written was not you have a rule that you're going to take down to the ground and put it back up. That's not new.

115
00:31:49.519 --> 00:32:05.600
That's not addition. It has to be thrown into additional square. >> Can you can you read the definition of minor development? You can >> Are there any drainage issues on the property? >> No, >> we don't have water in the basement or even during

116
00:32:05.600 --> 00:32:22.240
>> 2012. Unfortunately, it's a state requirement that we were put on and council >> this ordinance of which is >> quite a bit more lenient than some other towns. The state put this on us and said you have to come up with something. So this we came up with 400 square feet as a as a school.

117
00:32:22.240 --> 00:32:38.399
>> 250 was the standard. Yeah, >> I can read it. A minor development means any development that results in an increase in or replacement of impervious surface of 400 or more square feet but does not meet the definition of major development. Minor development includes both private and public project

118
00:32:38.399 --> 00:32:54.000
activities. The amount of disturbance and pvious coverage shall be measured on a cumulative basis since November 24th, 2025. >> So it says placement of limits and not >> correct. I mean, my interpretation as well as talking to the township off I

119
00:32:54.000 --> 00:33:10.320
mean, sorry, burial offices is that it's it's a net increase. Um, I also understand is our first time as a board seeing a new application uh that's close to the threshold. Um, but that that's how I >> think the workplace is pretty clear and I don't think it works well with net and

120
00:33:10.320 --> 00:33:26.720
I didn't hear net. Um, no. >> But but just for the applicant's benefit, what we're talking about is whether or not the ordinance triggers a requirement that you put a certain amount of the new based on this development um runoff underground. It's

121
00:33:26.720 --> 00:33:43.039
a resolvable problem through engineering. So, it's a matter of whether the board thinks it's close or not or whether or not it's something that would be necessary for >> and it doesn't necessarily mean a drywall. I mean I I know it triggers >> the ordinance strongly it strongly

122
00:33:43.039 --> 00:33:58.880
discourages drywalls that's that's a last resort in um there's other methods um that could be reviewed but >> and that will be discussed with the B

123
00:33:58.880 --> 00:34:14.639
>> M along those lines can I ask a question about where the garage expansion is? It looks like the driveway is not being expanded, but that doesn't seem to drive what's being shown the new garage doors. So, they're going to expand the driveway

124
00:34:14.639 --> 00:34:30.960
to service uh the garage door at least. I will take that into that. >> Well, if if they decide to change the garage doors, right now they have an oversized door and it would just be an addition on the right side, but if they decide to put two doors in, then it

125
00:34:30.960 --> 00:34:48.320
would be just a swap of pavement as all the so it would take the pavement from somewhere else in the driveway, it would be >> you would take out it would be net zero. >> You would take out pavement, >> correct? And and reapply it there. I think we'll need a note on the plan to that effect that that if the driveway is

126
00:34:48.320 --> 00:35:05.599
to be widened at the garage doors, right, that the same amount of improve coverage will do. >> It seems there's a turnaround there now. >> So, that would stay maybe take it off the curve there. You see that big white curve? >> Okay. >> I'm really interested in whether or not

127
00:35:05.599 --> 00:35:23.040
there's another way to design this to not infringe on these setbacks. And I understand that the one in the east concise, but it just composed and there's a big hedge there and there could be just a few feet between the house and the edge, but it seems like,

128
00:35:23.040 --> 00:35:38.480
you know, it's really tight on that side with the addition. There's no extra room. There's the deviation to woodland, which while the existing coverage certainly helps, no one's prevented from chopping that down in the future, a future owner or whatever. Um, and

129
00:35:38.480 --> 00:35:54.320
there's a lot of depth here. there's there's other areas to work with. Uh and it sounds like the reason for the garage is just to be able to create the bathroom space. It just feels like in exchange for making sure that we don't affect what we

130
00:35:54.320 --> 00:36:10.800
have for a rear yard, we're pushing to both sides and we've done it before. And so I'm just interested in whether or not that was thought through and whether or not there's a reason that this is the plan versus an alternative plan. >> Well, let's look at the floor plan, Jim.

131
00:36:12.240 --> 00:36:29.040
And just just in the garage. I mean, you know, I put my car into the garage every day, every night. And, you know, it' be nice to put another car. Plus, then, you know, you have all your bicycles, you have all everything else, your snowblower, everything. You need the space. And we don't have a shed or

132
00:36:29.040 --> 00:36:44.000
anything on the property. >> Frankly, we saw the car theft, too. And that's one of the reasons why we started to uh uh pull our cars in and we've been living here for 24 years. It's it's it's unfortunate but what's happened to me here. I want my car inside. >> But look, we're not allowed to take into

133
00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:59.520
account all those personal issues. And I bet they're all real. Yeah. But we're looking at the house and we're looking at generations beyond you and whether or not this is being overbuilt. >> If you hadn't come in before and you're simply saying we'd like to expand the garage, you wouldn't even need to come to us. You'd be allowed to do that. It's

134
00:36:59.520 --> 00:37:15.520
the other things in total that I makes me look at it in total and just wonder whether or not we're pushing this a little bit too far. We had thought about that back in 2015. Costs weren't an issue. I wanted to expand the garage then at the time. Put some more bathrooms in. It's what you can afford

135
00:37:15.520 --> 00:37:30.640
at the time. So, >> but I don't know, Jim, with the the proposed location of the bathrooms. I mean, it is there an alternative that >> not not that >> it's to be connected to the >> right if you want to connect them to the

136
00:37:30.640 --> 00:37:46.800
two existing bed. I mean it also becomes about economics and constructibility too. So and and building code. So I understand that just being practicality.

137
00:37:46.800 --> 00:38:03.359
>> Sure. Yeah. I mean you wouldn't rip apart existing space here to put in plumbing when you could just add it onto the side in new construction. It's so much easier to do plumbing in new construction to to rip down the ceilings of the first floor and to put in plumbing. To be honest with you, >> we've plaster walls, too. We have

138
00:38:03.359 --> 00:38:19.920
plaster walls. We have um our air conditioning system is a unit though system. We don't have vents or anything. We have radiators in the h. I mean it's an old you know it's an old house. We have to look at it in total. Right. So so one of the arguments tonight is that in order to go straight back and

139
00:38:19.920 --> 00:38:37.200
have the most logical configuration for the patio as it will be expanded with the roof is that this is where the this is where the room is. The problem is that the room violates the setback and it violates it because we permitted it. So now we're pushing further back and basically creating a bigger problem in

140
00:38:37.200 --> 00:38:54.160
reaction to what we previously permitted as a contained application. >> And we're pushing back by how many feet? >> The existing value. >> Yeah. >> Two two feet. >> Two feet. >> But you're But you're adding the roof above it. And and that and and of course

141
00:38:54.160 --> 00:39:09.280
the you've planted that that fireplace at the end of it. So what you're doing is you're taking what's a patio that no one pretty much can tell the difference from the yard of the patio and you're creating a roof structure which for all intents and purposes is windows short of being habitable space.

142
00:39:09.280 --> 00:39:27.760
>> Yeah. Look, it isn't any one issue. It's all of it. And so it's it's a matter of trying to understand for me and Mr. Dailyaly what other things were thought about which make this the only plan that makes sense so that the board can evaluate whether or not the deviation is correct. Right. I have less of an issue

143
00:39:27.760 --> 00:39:42.960
with the with the bathrooms to be honest because they do fly albe it short but they do provide on the setbacks though but the structure over the patio does create bulk and while there is a hedge there now there may not be a hedge there in the future and then it's going to

144
00:39:42.960 --> 00:40:00.320
look like a big structure especially with the fireplace there now if that were open with the fireplace there it's an open value fireplace the roof structure makes a difference >> but realistically what would be the reason that anyone would ever remove that that existing screen along

145
00:40:00.320 --> 00:40:16.000
Woodland. >> Talking about a project on a different side of town where that somebody came in and chopped down 21-y old trees that most of us never would have done. Look, it isn't it isn't that if you look at the site plan and you see the setback, you'll see that it slices a portion of

146
00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:32.720
the house and 50% of what's being built with a roof is inside of that setback. Woodland is a hightraic stream and this is really actually intentional and so how it looks to everybody as they're coming down that road and if we're going to allow it deviation it has to feel

147
00:40:32.720 --> 00:40:48.880
right and so I'm asking questions to better understand why it has to be done this way supposed to be >> additionally we're not agreed we've raised the patio to make it a raised stone deck essentially we don't have to be honest with you so just enough that

148
00:40:48.880 --> 00:41:05.599
it's enough that you have a railing there. >> But that's optional, but you don't need the rail. I see is right. >> It's not necessary. >> Anything above 6 in would count towards principal fell. It's attached.

149
00:41:05.599 --> 00:41:25.200
>> And we plan on staying in the house for a long time. I have a lot of family in the area. My mother still lives 91. So, I mean, we don't plan on selling our house anytime soon. Any more questions for Mr. Daily? Any

150
00:41:25.200 --> 00:41:41.920
comments? >> I just want to th you go ahead. Um, you heard from Mr. Broky that the uh the covered patio would remain open. Uh, just want to recommend the board maybe consider adding a comment in the resolution or even a condition uh that

151
00:41:41.920 --> 00:41:58.560
it does remain open with no screen windows. Um the woodland frontage currently doesn't have sidewalk. So you'll need to talk to the burrow engineer to see if there's any payment and l wire. >> Yep. >> And just an account of the sidewalk. I

152
00:41:58.560 --> 00:42:13.920
was thinking about that is that we've got some beautiful trees here that would cedar trees right there. >> So that that's not decided here. It's it's uh there's a payment in a loo option. You just have to talk to burough engineer.

153
00:42:13.920 --> 00:42:31.040
Um there's a qu actually I'll let you >> yeah I'm actually also I don't have any public comments the edge that you are mentioning is that >> how far back from woodland is that is it within the right away is it like how much space is there between the

154
00:42:31.040 --> 00:42:48.000
hollows and the pivot >> there's enough for a garden bed and maybe you know all in like maybe four four feet >> so I'd say it's a little less suffice to say that it's within the borrow right away. >> Part of it is a portion of the hedge

155
00:42:48.000 --> 00:43:04.000
would be in the borrow. >> We were talking about removal. Who would remove it? But technically, you're not allowed to plant those. So if the burrow were see fit to say we want to put a sidewalk here, those they would all come out. >> But what about those massive trees? They would cut those down.

156
00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:19.200
>> Yeah. >> Really? >> It was done on third street. >> Would they? Can they? Yes. Would they? Would they be? But they could planting in the right away. I people say, "Oh, it's been there forever." People plant all the time in the rightway, not knowing that you're really not supposed

157
00:43:19.200 --> 00:43:37.920
to plant. Many people don't know where the rightway is. I get it. You know, sometimes it's up to 10 feet. >> Did you were those there? Uh did you plant those or 75 100 years old? I like that.

158
00:43:37.920 --> 00:43:52.560
>> Just No, I understand. Yeah. You know they're free. I wouldn't take any of that. It could happen. >> Okay. Anyone, Mr. D or something else?

159
00:43:52.560 --> 00:44:08.560
>> Um, no, that that's that's all I have, Mr. Chair, but I would like to uh I don't know if if any of the board members had any other feedback had feedback just to >> Yeah, go ahead.

160
00:44:08.560 --> 00:44:24.160
I'd like to address this [ __ ] from America assuming you're proceeding under C1 hardship. >> Yeah. >> Two fronts. >> Two frontages irregularly shaped law. >> You got relief from that last time. >> Mhm.

161
00:44:24.160 --> 00:44:40.480
>> You get to double dip. >> Well, when we're talking about double dip, >> notwithstanding economics for those things, this is this is more of an in the reads question, >> right? To the extent that you got relief from that, they said, "Okay, we are

162
00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:56.000
going to allow you in this instance to get relief from that that side of that front yard setback." Do you get to keep creeping along and unionize that? >> Well, I mean I

163
00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:12.240
in my mind all we're talking about two feet now. I don't understand. We're talking about the roof which seems to be >> between the two. It's not because two you're talking about a total not now what from the relief you got last time

164
00:45:12.240 --> 00:45:28.079
you're 25 28 both are supposed to be 30 correct >> yes >> it's not the same if you asked for a twoft extension of the patio >> it would feel very different from a twoft extension of the patio with a roof >> with large mason fireplace at the end

165
00:45:28.079 --> 00:45:43.920
which the majority >> yes >> would we would we be articulating them just doubled down if they didn't hear me. I'm >> I'm asking that question for purposes of creating a record that's influenced but also for easy understanding. >> I totally get it. Right.

166
00:45:43.920 --> 00:45:59.839
>> I'm not I would not argue to a judge that they double down, >> right? Like there's there's there's an intention that hey, we did this 11 years ago and now we're going to try and get a little bit more. I totally understand the argument, right? But if if these were new new homeowners, right, that

167
00:45:59.839 --> 00:46:16.880
didn't do that and they inherited, we wouldn't be looking at them saying you guys are trying to double down. We would just be referencing, hey, there was a leaf granted 11 years ago. And we would review the applicant as a standalone as opposed to what happened prior. >> Well, I I I would point out what I pointed out before, which is that they're coming directly to the rear of

168
00:46:16.880 --> 00:46:32.640
what we permitted them to build inside of the setback. And so part of the problem is that it's been configured this way because of the prior obligation. I think the proper way to relieve this is if none of it were there and if it came in the first time just like this would we be okay with this

169
00:46:32.640 --> 00:46:49.119
much of the structure being and that's the way I'm view >> that helps better than the the approach >> and remember you can't it's it does the relief goes with the property not the home so >> that's under understood but then we should treat it based on the way you're looking at it different

170
00:46:49.119 --> 00:47:05.119
>> okay um did we interrupt you >> yeah sorry >> no No, not at all. I I I was just trying to get some idea of, you know, >> Oh, right. >> If we were to go back and, you know, and and look at some look at a design.

171
00:47:05.119 --> 00:47:21.839
>> Is there a way to reconfigure from your thoughts at this point in time? Back to Mr. >> What's one of our board members comments? We really haven't heard of an alternative. We've heard this this is logical to go back this way. Is there no way to reconfigure to get the extra portfolios that you want? Like I say,

172
00:47:21.839 --> 00:47:38.640
but but and and really I would ask if it's a word, but I don't care. Um I would ask the board, is it more a problem of the square footage overage or really I mean I from what I hear, we're all kind of keying on the bulk created by the roof, patio, and fireplace. It's

173
00:47:38.640 --> 00:47:54.079
a dream or >> I'm not happy with the covered porch encroaching on the uh sideyard setback on woodland. And um I I don't have a problem with the the two bathrooms being added upstairs or

174
00:47:54.079 --> 00:48:11.520
the extension on the garage, but I do have a problem with the uh with the setback on Woodland. >> Um yes, Mr. S. >> What if we came back with what if what if we came in tonight with the 25 foot setback just extending the 25 that was

175
00:48:11.520 --> 00:48:28.400
previously approved? Would you ask the same question? >> You mean you mean constructed constructed on a on an angle? >> Yeah. If we were working with the 25 just that long. >> We didn't grant we didn't grant 25 down

176
00:48:28.400 --> 00:48:44.160
the whole property line. We granted deviation from the 25 with regard to how much bulk was going to be constructed within it with an understanding that it would be open or patio behind it. I I don't even think I was here. No, neither of looking at who voted in hither because I couldn't remember the application. I was curious. So I I have

177
00:48:44.160 --> 00:49:00.559
to be but but I agree Mr. Mr. Leader. It wasn't an exaggeration of well we're going to go you know 30 ft straight back. It was 3 feet you know at 25. If it was honestly not speaking for the people like I think Mr. find it. But I think having if you would have presented

178
00:49:00.559 --> 00:49:16.960
that in 2015, I think it would have been might have been a different uh a different outcome to say that we want to come in 5T and go straight back. >> That's just a guess though. >> I also agree with Dr. Laper. I see the one side of the house is different from the other. I do see the permission of

179
00:49:16.960 --> 00:49:32.079
the extra square footage of the bone to the one side as certainly um informing the way I view about doing it also on the other side or something different on the other side but I see them as very different between the could

180
00:49:32.079 --> 00:49:49.839
the applicant live without the uh >> that was the idea the set out there um you know it's the weather was uh in in clement or in the starts getting colder to just have a little bit of a you know structure cuz the patio right now we uh

181
00:49:49.839 --> 00:50:04.800
we use it and we got a grill back there. It's nice to sit out there but >> a great idea. >> Um it's a great idea in the wrong location. >> What if there was no fires? >> What about what about cover over the existing over the other

182
00:50:04.800 --> 00:50:21.599
patio awning? >> O over the existing patio. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> things like it's just that it does create I mean just looking from the side the front elevation station

183
00:50:21.599 --> 00:50:39.920
>> to me it looks like piece of the house can I ask you to look at it in comparison to the room on that side it's actually larger than the room itself >> it's it's it's very large back to what was saying so so keep the existing foot and then put a small roof

184
00:50:39.920 --> 00:50:54.880
on That's that >> that would keep it is it did you say it was raised sweet >> the plan was >> two feet back and I don't think >> the height of the I'm going to say it's a I say it's like 10 inches high

185
00:50:54.880 --> 00:51:10.400
>> well it's up to me look most to me like it's brought up now to meet the level of the room so you walk straight out onto it instead of stepping down >> we have stairs that go down >> the reason on that was uh I'm sure you guys see the very you know there's some random rodents and foxes that kind of stuff the backyard

186
00:51:10.400 --> 00:51:26.160
>> still separation from them a little bit. >> If you covered the existing patio, that would eliminate the the setback issue in relation to wood. >> No, no, it's already >> No, there was a diagonal.

187
00:51:26.160 --> 00:51:42.480
It's was already packed. >> I just want to encourage you to look at this. 50% of this is within that and I'm actually interested you know on whether or not we granted approval for the patio where it is >> I don't think the patio counts because it's a grade. So the patio not upgrade

188
00:51:42.480 --> 00:51:58.559
if it's upgrade. No, no, no. The new structure will be above me. The >> There's a photo of the new patio. It's on sheet eight of my letter. >> But if to build a patio inside of the front yard setback, is that without an area?

189
00:51:58.559 --> 00:52:21.599
>> If it's I would say if it's elevated >> like it's about they said or at least 6 in under six inches or six inches lower, we don't need property. It's also It's also interesting to me that if we granted the approval for the addition and we hadn't been presented

190
00:52:21.599 --> 00:52:43.520
with the idea of the patio, you're you're bringing everything in the direction. It just feels like it just wasn't a part of the original idea that we agreed to. I mean my opinion I agree with what a lot of what's been said as far as

191
00:52:43.520 --> 00:52:59.040
if it have been presented in 2015 as this I think you would have had a deal I I understand I understand and it looks great don't get me wrong >> for unlimited would have added >> no it had nothing to do with economics if you wanted to bring that that that patio back structure it would have been

192
00:52:59.040 --> 00:53:14.240
a very I think it would have been different uh situation allowing three feet to come back to gain functionality in the family room and and and and during that side setback is very difficult than putting more structure close to >> I like the idea that was saying it was

193
00:53:14.240 --> 00:53:31.280
difficult throwing a couple columns and just something to kind of keep the rain that's it >> I think it I think it eases your problem uh you're not creating when you raise and I get it I like I like that raised patio look I really but when you do that and the roof you create both and

194
00:53:31.280 --> 00:53:47.599
firewood I mean, you could build that fireplace standing without issue. It's when it's part of the roof structure, etc., it really does look like a an extension of the house. >> You don't need railings. >> You don't need a rail. >> And I get I know you said you weren't

195
00:53:47.599 --> 00:54:03.839
going to put the railing, but it's >> all in. Jim, do you are you do you understand what we're talking about here in terms of what >> this back to where you are here? Well, you wouldn't raise the patio. You're still

196
00:54:03.839 --> 00:54:18.400
putting a roof over it. >> No, you're not putting structure. >> The roof the roof doesn't go over the patio. >> I thought this what you just >> Oh, the roof. He understands it that way. >> Over the new tank. >> What's the new >> Well, this is the new >> talking about this.

197
00:54:18.400 --> 00:54:37.599
>> Are you talking about this? Sorry. Um, >> oh, I thought it was I thought you went over the existing diiot to the rear. So, you would only reduce the size of that the bulk of that by two feet back. Is that what you're saying? >> Saying scoot the patio to the east.

198
00:54:37.599 --> 00:54:54.000
>> Okay. I'm saying patio a little bit to the east. >> Well, well, that's what I've been asking and nobody's explained to me in any consideration. They're trying to figure out how to create their color and how you got violated.

199
00:54:54.000 --> 00:55:10.079
>> Put it Put it in. Okay. I actually to the house. >> That's our kitchen though. How would you get out? >> Kind of kills the light. >> Well, you can still go out of that room. >> This the where that door is. >> Yeah.

200
00:55:10.079 --> 00:55:28.400
>> So, what Dr. law saying is cover the proposed patio, get rid of the proposed covered porch as it's indicated in the weekend. >> You have two areas that are defined with

201
00:55:28.400 --> 00:55:45.680
two different terms. >> I see what you're saying. >> He's saying cover. >> You have the room to the reader. Why not use the room to the reader? I just don't want to compromise the setback.

202
00:55:45.680 --> 00:56:02.720
>> Any way you can figure out not to compromise a setback for locator. >> Yeah, >> that area that you know, please. >> We thought about that. It's nice. We um a nice backyard like you know like we hosted things back there for your brother when he got married and um as as

203
00:56:02.720 --> 00:56:18.079
you're pointing out the the square footage of the home relative to the size of the lot. Yeah. in that area. It's a nice little area back there and have a barbecue or like whatever. You start feeling it out aesthetically. That's why that's why we do then then you've got this long thing that's kind of

204
00:56:18.079 --> 00:56:34.720
protruding out. Understand the issue on both. >> No, again it's the better place is where where you're proposing it. But you're you're encroaching. >> Unfortunately, woodland woodland sort of >> Yeah, it is >> tangles in. It's really important that you understand that we have to look at

205
00:56:34.720 --> 00:56:51.280
your plans for what your plans are. We appreciate >> they understood. We we really do. We know your neighbors and we try so hard to just focus on what it is and it isn't easy. And I think what you're hearing is resistance to the idea of crowding woodland for a host of reasons and

206
00:56:51.280 --> 00:57:09.119
concern that there isn't another way perhaps with a different level of compromise to get you some level of covered area so you can more fully utilize your area without having to set up. >> Understood. >> All right, Mr. Chair. I think I think

207
00:57:09.119 --> 00:57:27.280
what we what we'll need to do is sort of um pull back the stuff with Jim and see if we can come up with something that would address those issues that that we could show the board. I think that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Do you think you could have that for

208
00:57:27.280 --> 00:57:56.079
our judg? >> I think so. We're having a bunch of stoic stuff. >> What's What's the date of the June? >> June. >> What do we have in June? >> Okay. So, let's do that. And I think we

209
00:57:56.079 --> 00:58:14.960
can do this in pretty short order in June. So, You got it. Thank you. I'll be here >> on the other one to move to the application. >> No further notice, Mr. Thank you.

210
00:58:14.960 --> 00:59:22.119
>> Yes, we do. We'll do >> identif. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. Thank you for the input. >> Do you have any Okay, moving on. Um, area that's left.

211
00:59:32.400 --> 01:00:37.760
You can come up and fix that up. Sure. >> Yes. bring everybody up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Next application. 50 G Fair LLC 50 GB Mr. Start. establish

212
01:00:37.760 --> 01:00:53.040
we have jurisdiction please raise your right hand and he's going to testify Mr. Rizzo continues to be tested continues to be sworn you saw the testimony you gave before the truth the whole truth about the truth >> yes >> yes >> yes >> yes >> yes

213
01:00:53.040 --> 01:01:07.440
>> okay same direction I gave before if you were here sit down before you start testifying please state your name for the record spelling your last name participation. >> Yes.

214
01:01:07.440 --> 01:01:41.440
>> Council permission mark the checklist. >> I'll second let let the reflect while refusing. >> Yes. Mark the application checklist and the applications A1 mark the architectural

215
01:01:41.440 --> 01:02:00.400
floor plans revised to April 3026 is A2 mark the reduced size not to scale version with previous existing floor area calculations indicates that there's no date legible as A3 uh plot plan seven sheets revised to

216
01:02:00.400 --> 01:02:18.720
4626 by plant engineering as A4. A5 will be the boundary and topographic survey prepared by Insight last revised as November 14th, 2025. A6 will be the zoning permit letter

217
01:02:18.720 --> 01:02:35.520
dated February 10th, 2026. A7 will be the color photographs and so your property undated five images. uh a date you'll be two exhibits various easement documents for the subject property and the

218
01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:56.559
submission letter prepared by council dated February 5th A9 the tax map that A10 will be the uh historic district u I guess master plan map 111 will be

219
01:02:56.559 --> 01:03:14.720
the of old, excuse me, fair haven historic preservation commission's March 31st, 2026 memorandum of property. A12 will be the insight sponsor and some of the engineering issues that were raised dated April 9th, 2026. A13 will be

220
01:03:14.720 --> 01:03:30.400
application addendum. A14 will be the planning board's resolution of July 26, 1993. Uh A15 will be a planning board um resolution dated June 3rd, 1994

221
01:03:30.400 --> 01:03:50.319
addressing Vegas cars and number of cars on the lot. A15 will be the zoning board of adjustment resolution dated June 9th 2003 and we have ZB1 will be the March 26, 2026 engineering review letter we received from Mr.

222
01:03:50.319 --> 01:04:06.160
O and C CB2 will be the May 6th uh engineering revision letter engineering review letter from Mr. Rizo. You have any other additional exhibits? We are up to A17.

223
01:04:06.160 --> 01:04:27.599
>> Um we do and um >> you want to go? >> Yeah. >> Okay. We'll just mark as we go if that's okay. >> Just don't want to disrupt your where you are. Say when we get to mark

224
01:04:27.599 --> 01:04:44.640
it in duct 17. >> Okay. I hope that opportunity comes. >> Yes, Mr. Rizzo, do you have anything to notice? >> Yes, please. I have two checklist items. Um the items that need waiverss are a

225
01:04:44.640 --> 01:05:00.160
draft notice to the property owners and draft notice to be publishing a paper. Um I did not see that but that's obviously addressed at this point. Um and then outside agency approvals Mammoth County Planning Board's pre-Old SCD and then board of health. The one here that was going to be applicable is

226
01:05:00.160 --> 01:05:17.359
SCD. So it ask that that be provided as a condition of any approval. Um, and I did have the 200 foot property owners list here that's been provided to me today, but I understand that's been handled uh well prior to today. So that that's addressed and I don't take exception to the one that

227
01:05:17.359 --> 01:05:36.720
Mr. consent and if if any of the outside agencies do require submission to submit to such condition. >> Absolutely. >> Mr. Tell me. >> Um, so just for to get going, John Sardo, Jerard and Cecil on behalf of 50G

228
01:05:36.720 --> 01:05:51.760
Fair Haven LLC, the applicant. Um, and it's the Parnes family who some the two the couple is was sworn in before. Um, this is an existing single family home that they've purchased and they're

229
01:05:51.760 --> 01:06:07.760
proposing to demolish it and construct a new single family home on the lot. It's an R10 zoned. It's a a large property about one and a half acres. Um, and the new residents require several variances,

230
01:06:07.760 --> 01:06:22.880
which is why we're here before the board. Um, we will I will let our professionals kind of get into that. Um, as we get filming here, but my first witness will, and if we're ready for that, my first witness will be um, our

231
01:06:22.880 --> 01:06:39.280
civil engineer. Can we speak to I was not here when this is not that I'm thinking it is not that old >> the house was >> yeah it was approved in the early 90 well the planning board resolutions

232
01:06:39.280 --> 01:06:56.000
9 93 I say the building listed 93 it's constructed around then co94 >> okay I'm just trying to figure out how we got the 6,000 ft >> uh yeah it was prior to the cap which I think came in in 199 99 master plan.

233
01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:14.039
>> Um I thought the same thing um when I first saw that and when I saw the resolutions in the history I took up. Um yeah, so we can address that too as we go. Um but my first first witness, Jennifer Barnett from Engineering,

234
01:07:14.079 --> 01:07:31.920
please. >> I'm sorry. >> Credentials. >> Yes. Would you mind giving your education and and licenses and are they in good standing? >> Yes. Um, I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed for seven years. Um, and my license is

235
01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:47.119
in good standing. I'm employed at Insight Engineering. Uh, last name is Fel V A Ne TT and I have been before this board before. >> Are you okay with this board's credentials? >> Thank you. >> Um, so you want me to go ahead?

236
01:07:47.119 --> 01:08:03.200
>> Yeah, go ahead. Um, your property is located at 50 Gillespie Avenue, uh, block 51, lots, uh, 35.01 and 35.02. Um, 35.01 contains 105,814

237
01:08:03.200 --> 01:08:21.440
square ft and lot 35.02 contains 37,258 ft. Um, but lot 35.02 is located entirely within the Navasync River. Um, for the purposes of zoning, the area that we used was uh 66,436

238
01:08:21.440 --> 01:08:36.640
square feet and that is measured to the meat water line. Um, because this >> I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'll try not to do it again. Mr. Sher, you described the property as an acre and a half. Is it an acre and a half of uplands or were you including the the water?

239
01:08:36.640 --> 01:08:52.719
>> No, it's significantly larger. This one and a half is uplands. >> Okay. >> The total lot area is uh 3.28 284 acres, but um the upland area is only 1.53 acres, >> which is what we use for the purposes of our zone calculation. >> Okay.

240
01:08:52.719 --> 01:09:08.960
>> Yes. Um we also have a postal bluff at the rear of the site that sits behind the um bulkhead and we took that into consideration. an application has been made to the D for a capper permit and we will

241
01:09:08.960 --> 01:09:27.440
hopefully receive that within 90 days of being deemed complete. Um the applicant is seeking to demolish the existing single family home and construct the new single family home. The existing site has um a detached garage and that is

242
01:09:27.440 --> 01:09:46.080
proposed to the main. We want to mark the um the render industry. >> I guess which is the one the existing or they all >> No, they're all proposed. Do you want me to put up the survey?

243
01:09:46.080 --> 01:10:02.840
>> Oh, this is fine. So, this is A17, right? >> Yes. >> And can you just read the title of A17? >> Sure. I will tell you. a site rendering exhibit and it's stated 5626.

244
01:10:03.360 --> 01:10:23.280
>> Mr. Sorry, where where is that uh garage? >> This is the existing garage in the corner of the >> parkite. So there's a shared driveway that gets the other property over their property. Yes, there's uh so in the existing

245
01:10:23.280 --> 01:10:39.040
conditions there's threat day of notice and that's proposed to remain there's an existing easement agreement between law 34 and our lot >> is the only thing addressed in that easement agreement access across the draw

246
01:10:39.040 --> 01:10:57.920
>> I believe so did you look at it show >> I I did quite a while ago that's the only pertinent So that driveway block 34, >> right? Just I know it's pretty tight.

247
01:10:57.920 --> 01:11:15.760
Can you be opening now? >> U the neighbor has a garage right here that's kind of >> they're very close to one another. >> Um >> yeah, just pointing that out. This is not a shared garage.

248
01:11:15.760 --> 01:11:30.719
I'm just curious because constructing a new garage. What's the purpose of leaving the existing pan? >> Um well, it it's whether it would be used as a garage or or storage area. Um I think it's it's

249
01:11:30.719 --> 01:11:47.440
still like an open for discussion. Um but but yeah, I know it's a a relatively new. >> Yeah, they reconstruct it was reconstructed early probably 20 years ago. >> What was usage of that second barrage? um as presented, it was just as a

250
01:11:47.440 --> 01:12:06.159
garage, but if there's if it changes the nature of the relief that we're seeking, if it could be used as storage as a as an alternative to a shed, um I think the applicant's open to that. >> Council response record, whatever doesn't trigger another barrier.

251
01:12:06.159 --> 01:12:21.440
>> I'm not trying to be >> No, I mean the variances are triggered and I I just don't know how the conversation will go, but >> Okay. um >> we proposing any changes to it interior or exterior. >> No, no interior and I on in the application we're not I don't think affirmatively showing anything, but it

252
01:12:21.440 --> 01:12:42.560
would it would be re facaded to match. Right now it's like a gray vinyl that matches the the home, but it's that rust stained all over it. And I don't think they'd like to keep that if they were >> no uh accessory sports being played on the ground.

253
01:12:42.560 --> 01:13:05.360
>> No, that sorry. Um so the following existing conditions will remain unchanged. The lot area uh we have 66,000 and change square feet with 10,000 square feet required. The lot width um 108 ft exist where 75 is required. The

254
01:13:05.360 --> 01:13:23.280
lot frontage 108 ft exists where 75 ft is required and the lot depth um 385t exists. Uh where 100 feet is required. Um we're uh proposing to uh keep the

255
01:13:23.280 --> 01:13:41.440
existing garage um which has several existing nonconformities. Uh it's located within a front yard where garages are required to be in a side or rear. Um the sideyard setback is 2.4 four feet where five feet is required and the height is around 19

256
01:13:41.440 --> 01:13:59.440
feet where uh 15 feet is required. Um the existing driveway is um deficient in width um where the where it lies off in the existing conditions that

257
01:13:59.440 --> 01:14:15.600
is around 25 ft where 24 feet is allowed. Um and then there are three now there are two existing non-conformities that are going to be eliminated. Um the existing floor areas over the floor

258
01:14:15.600 --> 01:14:31.360
area cap it's >> that's just to qualify that that's not going to be eliminated reduced. >> It's reduced. >> Yes. And then the building height um is currently 41.01 ft where 32 feet is allowed and we

259
01:14:31.360 --> 01:14:48.560
are also going to be reducing that. Um but that building height is measured from the corners of the average grade of the existing corners of the property and it's to um there's a a front of the house and

260
01:14:48.560 --> 01:15:06.239
that will be reduced. >> Um >> I I have two question Mr. Shard. The first one's to you as to the legality of that garage that we're speaking about. Was that included in the original resolution? And um

261
01:15:06.239 --> 01:15:21.199
and my next question relates to the frontage because on the river side it seems to me that you're a lot wider than the 100 or so underneath that you are on Gillespie and I'm wondering whether or not Mr. Rizzo that impacts the sideyard

262
01:15:21.199 --> 01:15:38.640
setbacks were too hard to wider to deliver setbacks. >> The combined side, >> pardon me, >> curious about the combined side. >> Um, so I I thought that when lots are wider, I mean this all needs to be considered outside of our 10 obviously, but there's the additional setback

263
01:15:38.640 --> 01:15:53.440
requirement when the lots are wider than minimum, right? >> And if the if we viewed this from the liver, it's considerably wider than 100. At least don't think so. And if so, how much additional sun is required? And is there a reason for us to g from the

264
01:15:53.440 --> 01:16:11.840
river as the front yard versus the as the front? >> Short answer for me is is no. I have nothing included that I can look into it. >> Okay. Do do we know how do we know what the bulkhead length is or what the property is from? >> Um

265
01:16:11.840 --> 01:16:30.239
it's about 151 ft. So Mr. Rizzo, if you could just let us know what if we are reviewing that additionally require the sideyard setback. >> Yes. Yeah. It doesn't change the sideyard. It changes the combined sideyard and then the sub back to tips. >> Okay.

266
01:16:30.239 --> 01:16:44.719
Mr. Sardo, do you know if the resolution from the nth or whatever approved that garage or was that pre-existing at that point? >> There was a pre-existing garage that was when there was a subdivision initially. It was only a garage. Somehow it

267
01:16:44.719 --> 01:17:02.400
remained. Uh then the house was built uh with dispute with some surrounding property owners which gave rise to a variance application to let it remain while this house was getting built >> approved remains. And then she doesn't

268
01:17:02.400 --> 01:17:20.159
>> resist or other other construction. >> It's pre-existing non-conforming then variance to approve it to exist while this approved conforming house is being built. Then in 2003, we're going to

269
01:17:20.159 --> 01:17:36.960
build it again. Uh rebuild it in in in kind in place with the sideyard setbacks at this height approved in 2003 while this existing home is still there. >> Managers managed to weather it 30 years. >> Yes.

270
01:17:36.960 --> 01:17:54.159
>> But it was approved 2003. It's approved exactly as it since. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's great. >> Yes. Can can you point out to me where the minimum setback for the principal structure on the adjacent property uh is at 6.3

271
01:17:54.159 --> 01:18:13.920
whereas the recommended is 33. So the um this the sideyard set path is measured to the bottom of the stairs because there's a railing >> that's not seven feet bottom still >> this I'm sorry can you

272
01:18:13.920 --> 01:18:28.400
>> which are we talking about the garage side or setback are we talking about >> no one le you're speaking is u principal next to principal structure is 26 ft build 33 is required >> right so there's this is the machary

273
01:18:28.400 --> 01:18:46.960
property that's 52 the last north. Um so if you're just looking up page that's the the house that's closest and if you see here where it's like cross-hatched in green um the measurement where it's and correct me if I'm wrong on this but

274
01:18:46.960 --> 01:19:02.159
I I think the measurements scattered there on the plans. >> Very hard for me to see this. I'm sorry. >> Yeah it it's um >> here. Oops. >> Was any effort made to make that conforming? Yeah, as as you can imagine, you're

275
01:19:02.159 --> 01:19:18.159
dealing with a tear down of new construction. So, when you come when when you're coming and saying, "Well, we want to be we have to do 26.2, we have to be closer to the next house." It's a problem because you could site this wherever you want. So, >> receiving relief there is a little bit of question

276
01:19:18.159 --> 01:19:33.199
>> and and we can certainly get into that, but I would just suggest so that's that's this bump out of the house and the steps coming down is what kind of comes into the setback. And if you look at the existing house there, um, it's actually got a much broader face that's

277
01:19:33.199 --> 01:19:47.760
facing that neighboring property. It's much more opposite even though it's meets the >> But you're tearing it down. >> Sure. But and building a new, >> but it's not a vacant property today. So, it's worth mentioning the existing condition.

278
01:19:47.760 --> 01:20:03.840
>> Maybe is is it is the current property insufficient there um with that setback? >> Yeah. No, I don't think >> it's 38 ft and you're coming in 12 feet

279
01:20:03.840 --> 01:20:27.040
because it walks there three portions differently. >> Okay, understood. Um the comments. >> Yeah. Yeah, Mr. S. I think what what you're hearing is that one of the things that I think she focused on when we looked at this is the proposed footprint

280
01:20:27.040 --> 01:20:42.320
of the house. So please the house itself. You got a house that's roughly this large. You want to build a house that's roughly a replacement of that. The biggest issue for me and I think it ties into all of this and we've talked about this before when you've been here. We have an R10. You're proposing to

281
01:20:42.320 --> 01:20:57.679
build a house that's twice as large as the R10. If we use the R30 or the R40 standards, these wouldn't be the setbacks. And as I'm trying to look at your acre and a half and what you're proposing, it seems as though you're proposing to utilize the altern standard

282
01:20:57.679 --> 01:21:12.880
and to build a house that would be twice as large. And I'm interested in how the R30 or the R40 standard would apply and whether or not there was consideration to try and create a footprint that would create larger setbacks, take advantage of the size of the property and

283
01:21:12.880 --> 01:21:38.800
configure it in a way that if you were to say if we applied R40 that it would perform. >> Uh okay. I I don't know that we have the comparison to R40 in front of us. We look at R 40. Um,

284
01:21:38.800 --> 01:21:55.600
one side of 25, two total sides of 50. Uh, I mean, you could make an argument on it. 100. You don't know the frontage, which gives you depending on how we can the front. I mean, the frontage is 150 ft 40. But >> I think you're allowed to use the water.

285
01:21:55.600 --> 01:22:12.800
with us little 158. >> Yeah, it was 151. >> 151. So, you've got the frontage. You've definitely got the depth. >> Um, I defer Mr. Booz 25 on one side and 50 in in total. Now,

286
01:22:12.800 --> 01:22:31.000
you're you're that where you want to put that that one side the um the westerly side of it. I guess that's the western side. It's too close to the ass next to the problem. Obviously, you're going to have a problem with that, but you're close.

287
01:22:33.120 --> 01:22:49.360
>> And then your cap is uh what's the cap on that? >> 20. >> No, >> no, no, no. 6,900. >> Oh, we're talking about the >> Yeah. I mean, I you know, Mr. Le is right to make that argument or try to >> I come into an application looking at it

288
01:22:49.360 --> 01:23:06.880
exactly that way. If the R10 doesn't apply, what is the zone that should apply? Because those are the standards that are in family health. The square footage clearly aligned with the R40. And then you look at the balance of the bulk standards. And if you if you presented a a design which conforms to

289
01:23:06.880 --> 01:23:23.199
that, I think it becomes very easy and and to not do that is fine. But I I think at least for me, you're starting from the question of why wouldn't you have allowed for those other standards and designed something that would conform with this wherever. Mr. Rizzo,

290
01:23:23.199 --> 01:23:39.920
is that minimum setback to adjacent property equivalent across wall zones to 33 ft or is it >> it it's a it's a math equation. I I even listed here for every letter, but it's >> like what would that number be for our four weeks? >> I I could do that. It's it's it's based

291
01:23:39.920 --> 01:23:56.560
on how many feet above and beyond the lot width requirement is for that zone. So as the lot width requirement goes up and that that might go down. It's it's every 5t above the the lot width requirement

292
01:23:56.560 --> 01:24:12.000
>> you add 1.5 ft to your setback. >> Well no it's not I'm not talking about the the the setbacks. I'm talking about in an R40 zone. One of the really things is that you need 33 ft le >> that that's the same same number the

293
01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:28.320
combin setback is the same number as the setback to adjacent structures >> as setback to adjacent >> right >> so the in this zone for instance the R10 it would be uh 24 ft for combined yard

294
01:24:28.320 --> 01:24:45.199
>> plus the minimum set is 33 feet >> it it would be 24 feet but there the lot width is beyond Oh, I got to have a zone requirement. Gotcha. >> And and just to get back to the question before um about the the river, that

295
01:24:45.199 --> 01:25:00.560
requirement says a lot width, not necessarily a lot frontage. So, for that reason, I just took the the front of the property where I mentioned a lot about that. >> Correct. Correct. Mr. Lee, you can choose either one. Uh it's my understanding that there is an ordinance

296
01:25:00.560 --> 01:25:17.600
that permits homes on the river to consider the front yard the river front and we have seen examples where that creates greater latitude and um applicants have withdrawn and conformed based on a reconfiguration to the word.

297
01:25:17.600 --> 01:25:33.280
It doesn't change on what it's just instructed there of how you can view the road the law relative to those bulk standards. >> I believe they have to elect to use the river as the branch. >> I think that's correct. I don't think

298
01:25:33.280 --> 01:25:52.480
you decide. >> Yeah. >> Where does it say that toward I don't I don't know. I mean, you have to evaluate what the front and rear setbacks were, but that's not going to be a problem here. I didn't mean to take us on a problem with Victoria. Just I I

299
01:25:52.480 --> 01:26:08.000
want you to understand how I look at it because it's it's clear coming in that there's a big house there now and that you want to put a new big house there that's somewhat equivalent. And to me, that's the easy part. How you site the house off the slot is the hard thing. And you come to us after spending a lot

300
01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:28.880
of money on this particular configuration. I'm interested in God here as to why this is the best one there. >> Um to answer your question, I think we came from the approach of there's an existing home there which which you point out and

301
01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:45.199
that there's been a reduction in the two biggest infringements here is the the area of the home with respect to the the ordinance and the building height. both of which are being reduced. Aside from that, the actual aesthetic of the house,

302
01:26:45.199 --> 01:27:01.360
which we haven't even gotten to yet, significantly improved. I mean, it's beautiful. I don't think I'd say that objectively. >> We'll stipulate. >> I feel it. It it it's stunning. Um the questions we we were just discussing, right, the

303
01:27:01.360 --> 01:27:16.480
patio neighbor to neighbor setback. Um, and I think our view was were significantly deep. The the broad side of the home there is substantially less. And if we look at the pictures which are in Mr. Rizzo's uh review letter of the

304
01:27:16.480 --> 01:27:33.679
existing home facing that house, there's a front level porch, a second level porch, windows, dormer windows in the in the top floor. There's nothing but windows and about a 90 foot broad face facing that property. But they can floor.

305
01:27:33.679 --> 01:27:50.480
Okay, I'm getting away from that as the way we're looking at it. >> No, I understand. >> She's answering my direct question. >> Um, and I I think when we were looking at this and putting it on balance of

306
01:27:50.480 --> 01:28:07.040
looking at the two, the existing versus the proposed, the majority, the bulk of the proposed house actually complies with that setback. This is really this bumpout covered porch, one level. Oh, actually there's a separate floor above it. >> I'm not sure if there's a a floor above the screen porch.

307
01:28:07.040 --> 01:28:22.400
>> Yeah. So, it's a screen porch in the steps that are create triggering that variance. So, I mean, it's in my view, it was something that could holistically be viewed as, you know, actually a better result even though we're triggering a new variance.

308
01:28:22.400 --> 01:28:39.840
>> But you still run into >> I could cite the house anywhere on the broad map there. >> Sure. I I I don't know that the proof says it's impossible. Sometimes there that's >> you're also perhaps. So it's >> I I mean I

309
01:28:39.840 --> 01:28:56.719
less square foot than the existing. I would suggest it's to to build a conforming size home on this size lot on the waterfront would be significant aberration. >> Agreement. That's get it just that you're not even closer to the setback. push it to the other house which is

310
01:28:56.719 --> 01:29:13.199
really problem for me >> the when when you say the the house >> well it's not that it's not that it's too close to the setback it's too close to the >> to that residence right which itself is on a very narrow lot and >> clearly has variances to

311
01:29:13.199 --> 01:29:28.080
>> you have new construction and you could potentially not create that problem >> okay >> yeah um I've got that noted and I I Mr. leader. I hear your point about analyzing versus our

312
01:29:28.080 --> 01:29:44.000
>> Do you have a question for Mr. to resolve and this always comes up and I think at this point I would upzon you can't upone from our 1040 even though even though it really like >> nor should there be any upzoning at this

313
01:29:44.000 --> 01:30:00.679
board um fully compliant >> right >> okay >> oh it's his own permit right yes >> okay any more

314
01:30:03.360 --> 01:30:19.520
Keep going. >> Um, so I'm just going to put the uh proposed setbacks on record. Um, front yard setback uh 230.19 ft is proposed where 151.3

315
01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:37.600
ft is required. Uh, this is the 151.3 is the average setbacks of neighboring properties along the gate. The rear setback is 80.66 feet where 54 uh 10 feet um is required. And this is the

316
01:30:37.600 --> 01:30:53.679
average the 54.10 ft is the uh average rear yard setback of neighboring riverfront properties. Um sideyard setback uh 17.75 ft is proposed to the steps. Um the bottom of the steps

317
01:30:53.679 --> 01:31:09.760
um combined is 37.25 25 and um 33 feet is required. Um the minimum distance to adjacent dwellings 26.22 ft is proposed where 33 ft is required and that 26.22

318
01:31:09.760 --> 01:31:27.760
is measured to the bottom of the steps. Um so we are requesting a variance for that. Um the building is proposed to be two stories where 2.5 stories is allowed and the proposed building height is 34.52 feet where 32 feet is allowed and we are requesting a variance for that.

319
01:31:27.760 --> 01:31:44.320
Um the building height was measured from the average proposed grade at the corners of the building. Um if we use the average existing grade uh the grading on a site would not work um because of the grade change from left to

320
01:31:44.320 --> 01:31:58.400
right and the need to maintain the 30 in. >> So we're proposing to regrade some of the innovations in the existing site. Right. As part of the application. >> Yes. To make the the drainage work better so nothing's going towards the

321
01:31:58.400 --> 01:32:15.120
house going away from the house. Um, we're proposing to reconfigure the driveway. Um, the driveway will follow the existing driveway closely. Um, the proposed front yard driveway coverage is

322
01:32:15.120 --> 01:32:30.560
30.09% or 25% is allowed. So, we are requesting a variance for that. The minimum driveway width is 14 ft where the minimum required width is 10 ft. The maximum driveway width is uh 57.04. 04

323
01:32:30.560 --> 01:32:47.120
ft where 24 feet is allowed. Um we're requesting a variance for that and that 57.04T is measured at the parking area in the front of the house. >> I just interrupt you one second. M the 25% rule for front yard for the driveway and front yard. Does this have any

324
01:32:47.120 --> 01:33:03.600
varian share driveway next to it? >> Does yes. So it would be if you take a a line parallel to the front property line on glass peak um wherever the point of the house closest to glass is and you make that parallel line that's pretty

325
01:33:03.600 --> 01:33:24.080
much your area that's your denominator and that's all the uh paved surface inside that area. >> So if you took out the extension that goes to the neighbor the easement area what would that number be? you anybody that's exactly my question

326
01:33:24.080 --> 01:33:40.159
does have you take this one did you take that in consideration when you say you're seeking relief for the greater than 25% the front yard >> this is right >> did you count that or not count that doesn't go there >> all right in order to understand the

327
01:33:40.159 --> 01:33:57.679
request I think that what what Mr. and I are certainly focused on maybe others is that a certain amount of this is outside of top of your control and we should be evaluating what you're controlling with regard to probably that parking area in the front relative to the 25%. And so if we knew how much of

328
01:33:57.679 --> 01:34:14.719
that driveway is outside of your control would allow us to look a little bit more closely if it needed. >> There is the the existing remote garage that's remaining though too because >> this driveway doesn't directly pave there. It does. >> Does the remote garage in the corner?

329
01:34:14.719 --> 01:34:31.760
>> Oh, that actually points to the north the doors. So, you have a driveway directly to that garage. >> Um, >> correct. It's like pavers and and yes, the two there's two bay doors that go facing into the yard. >> Okay. Well, in fairness to the

330
01:34:31.760 --> 01:34:47.440
applicant, if everything to the left of that extension that takes you to the garage all the way up to where it splits off, if that's removed from your number, I still think that that's a little bit more of a fair way to analyze where you are relative to the 25%. >> I I offer it up as if I knew it, it

331
01:34:47.440 --> 01:35:02.480
would it would help understand, but it's okay. >> I'm guessing it does, but that's just my guess. >> So, 25% is the max. What are you tri what are you triggering at? What remediation is 30? Just show 30 is very >> Yeah.

332
01:35:02.480 --> 01:35:18.560
>> It wasn't Mr. 30 30.09%. >> So this this is how we evaluated the driveways. We didn't take this portion into consideration because it's not this is not really it's not it's a not really

333
01:35:18.560 --> 01:35:34.960
front yard. Um so this is this uh patched area is where that is. 09%. Oh, it includes that big port there as well. Okay. So, you've already excluded it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we excluded. >> I included it, but I'm curious to see if

334
01:35:34.960 --> 01:35:57.920
I can you just I'm sorry. Can you shift? >> A right. >> So, A18 is the site driveway 101 dated uh 12 325. Is that right? Is that

335
01:35:57.920 --> 01:36:15.600
>> um I would use the bill 0626 number. >> Gota I can't see that. >> So there's a lot to think about, but as we're on this issue, clearly that courtyard area in the front is designed for something. Is it designed so that you can come in and do a full turnaround

336
01:36:15.600 --> 01:36:32.000
and then end again? Is it designed for parking? What is it designed to be? >> So this this is designed as a parking area, this portion back here, and then this is a turnaround. you don't really want to back down a driveway that long that's not straight. Um

337
01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:49.280
or maybe that's why it's designed that way. >> And and how big is the circle? What's the radius? >> Uh that we're not sure about that Jordan kind of scale. >> Yes, it it's >> like a hell of a lot of speed. >> It it is it's a lot and 25% of a very

338
01:36:49.280 --> 01:37:05.040
large area is still a very large area. It clearly isn't the minimum to accomplish the the utility. >> The circle's about the diameter is about 55 ft. >> 55 ft. >> You need to turn to the existing plan.

339
01:37:05.040 --> 01:37:26.320
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, Mr. Leer, there's like a it's very similar layout. uh the what's there now? Yeah, there's a very it's like kind of

340
01:37:26.320 --> 01:37:43.040
um the front of the garage kind of comes up to the end. I don't know if it's considered differently because of where the h the home comes to, but there's a very large PA parking pad there. Now, >> um I I would say this kind of maintains that idea.

341
01:37:43.040 --> 01:37:58.400
>> It does. And this PA parking area is not included in the front yard coverage of the driveway because this is where the house is. So this would not be >> So as I look at the that sketch you just

342
01:37:58.400 --> 01:38:13.520
handed out, you've effectively drawn a line directly to the east from the property to square this up on veity and you've eliminated at least the driveway that will go not only to your own garage but also to the neighboring property.

343
01:38:13.520 --> 01:38:30.000
Okay. Why did you stop with regard to all the asphalt in front of the new garage that Why wouldn't that be should be? >> Um because I extended So I extended this line because this is

344
01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:50.400
considered a side line. So when you well so when you extend this line and you extend the front part of the house where those two points intersect that's what I consider the front yard and this area would be outside the front yard. >> Oh Mr.

345
01:38:50.400 --> 01:39:05.440
>> I would consider the front yard to be the closest point to the street. So the existing house is a little bit more parallel with the street. The proposed house has one uh corner um the western corner. So the

346
01:39:05.440 --> 01:39:20.560
way I reviewed is I drew a line parallel with the street at that corner straight down. So while Insight did not include a lot of the extra driveway, which I did, I excluded a lot of the pavement closer to the house because it was behind that line.

347
01:39:20.560 --> 01:39:38.080
>> So you took the line from the west of the house and drew it directly east. No, >> parallel with the street line. >> So >> parallel with the street. >> He followed he paralleled >> parallel to Esp.

348
01:39:38.080 --> 01:39:55.239
>> So he cut off the draw that you cut off that part in front of the garage as well. Then >> you're talking existing or proposed? >> Proposed. >> I cut off a portion of it. >> Yeah. >> Not all of it, but portion. >> Good portion. I don't even

349
01:39:55.360 --> 01:40:12.880
I'm looking at the definitions. Um read the front yard. >> Problem is if you interpret it that way, you're totally losing sight of how much is being built here. And and look, I understand if the large property that's in a city property needs to have a

350
01:40:12.880 --> 01:40:29.360
different driveway configuration, but um I don't think the 30% is covering what we're really building. It says 25% of the front yard area and then >> let me give you that definition.

351
01:40:29.360 --> 01:40:44.080
>> Yeah, the problem probably doesn't account for the house being listed just yet. >> Yeah, the front yard definition says the nearest line of the building or structure. >> Yeah, I certainly think that's a fair way to look at it. I think it creates an

352
01:40:44.080 --> 01:41:02.320
odd evaluation of what's being >> I think that that's on our list at but since the basis everything that's in front of the front facade of the house is not >> I agree with that I I I actually agree with your line better I don't agree that you can ignore everything to the south

353
01:41:02.320 --> 01:41:22.760
one definition at least it seemed to me that that should be considered >> and that number is considerably more than than the 30% >> there's relief that's going to be required >> whether it's 30% 32% or whatever that number

354
01:41:22.800 --> 01:41:37.760
>> going back to Mr. leader's initial question about the circles. It seems like a big area to me for journalist. >> Well, uh >> we have included that big parking pad area is included in the insight

355
01:41:37.760 --> 01:41:54.960
calculation but and if we did include I think what we're pointing out we would gain a lot of land area over here which is not included in the calculation currently in the yard >> that's cut off. Um it might actually put the percentage going the other way. Sorry, I missed that. Mr. Spe,

356
01:41:54.960 --> 01:42:09.760
>> um, if you're looking at the exhibit on the lower portion of the page, the front yard, you're seeing a dash line and then you see the cross touch. That's all the calculated considered area. If you were also to consider the uh the bottom,

357
01:42:09.760 --> 01:42:30.840
>> it's not just the you'd also include the land area in the front yard. >> Yeah, we don't know what this calculation >> means. Um >> I have some other questions from yesterday from Syrian.

358
01:42:30.880 --> 01:42:46.560
>> Uh yes, not I think we're through the variances besides the fence height. Um because we're proposing a fence that is 48 in high within 50 ft of the river.

359
01:42:46.560 --> 01:43:07.679
Um, >> can you describe where that fence is? >> So, that fence is along >> fence is along the side property line and then we're connecting it at bulkhead. Um, so any fence within 50 ft of the

360
01:43:07.679 --> 01:43:24.560
river has to be less than 48 in and any pool has to be surrounded by a fence that is at least 48 in. And you're proposing like >> 48 in 48. >> The alternative of that to that would be to build a lower fence on the property boundary and put a taller fence around

361
01:43:24.560 --> 01:43:41.679
the pool or could you not even do that? >> Um you could put you would have to completely enclose the pool with a 48 in fence. So you would have to um figure out where 50 ft from the river is and then draw the fence along the back of the property line. Um

362
01:43:41.679 --> 01:44:00.840
>> is the pool within 50 ft of the river? No, the pool is set back >> so you could do >> I'm not suggesting anyone want >> it might be my scale. >> I'm sorry. Um

363
01:44:02.080 --> 01:44:28.719
>> that's not that's not the river. It's to the >> corner of the pool is about 52t. >> That's the corner. >> Street. >> No, they can close the house. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Can Can you finish? So, I know you were talking about the two the north and the south property

364
01:44:28.719 --> 01:44:45.360
boundary, but then are you coming back to the house and pinching in to enclose it or does it go all the way forward? >> Yes, it's going back into the house. >> Okay. >> Um on what side? >> Uh yeah, about about that area. >> So, one thing with the fence is it only

365
01:44:45.360 --> 01:45:01.040
lines the side property lines and there's no fence along the bulkhead. Now the the engineer's response recently was that the bulkhead functions as the the pool barrier and that it'll be coordinated with the construction official. I just I personally don't know if the bulkhead itself can function as

366
01:45:01.040 --> 01:45:16.880
that barrier. >> This came up some years ago. I don't recall the >> I'd suggest we don't get into it. >> No, my my point being got a little sticky. So >> the point being is that if they did determine that they need a fence that ex

367
01:45:16.880 --> 01:45:33.600
expands on the relief that's necessary, >> right? If you were granting 48, you'd you probably want to grant it across the bulkhead if that's what mean. >> What you're considering is right now is just the two side property. >> And and what could they build? 36 >> uh 42.

368
01:45:33.600 --> 01:45:50.320
>> All right. So, it's a 6 in. >> Yeah. I'd say we probably don't need to spend a lot more time. >> And and it's not on the plan, but I think what in discussion Mr. reserve suggested was why don't you seek in the affirmative closing it along the the river and this

369
01:45:50.320 --> 01:46:04.800
might be what you were just saying closing it along the river in the request modify the request and if we don't actually need it and then yep okay I'm with you >> okay and then um with keeping the

370
01:46:04.800 --> 01:46:21.040
existing detached garage and proposing um an attached garage we'll have room for four parking spaces where uh I believe Fair Haven allows three garage parking spaces. Um, and with five bedroomedroom home, we need three

371
01:46:21.040 --> 01:46:36.239
parking spaces and we have that on site. Uh, we're also proposing AC units, a generator, a generator and pool equipment and all of those will be located in compliant locations. Um, building coverage, uh, we're

372
01:46:36.239 --> 01:46:51.119
proposing 8.24% where 35% is allowed. Impervious coverage, we're proposing 33.44% 44% where 45% is allowed. The floor area ratio we're proposing 09 where 28 is allowed. And then the floor

373
01:46:51.119 --> 01:47:08.000
area um we're proposing 5,600 no 5,969 ft where uh 3,220 ft is allowed. So we requesting a variance for that. Um

374
01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:24.400
>> I I just want to point out that everything should be considered under R40. just real putting all the lock covers and everything else what you're it's it's set based on the assumption that you've got 10,000 people. >> Yeah. No, we've got we schedule

375
01:47:24.400 --> 01:47:43.760
>> and I I don't know if it'll meet it or not meet it, but it would just seem to me that the standard at least need to be considered in uniform. Um well you you lose on so lot coverage just for for a guy lock lot coverage in the art board is 30% and we're at 31.4

376
01:47:43.760 --> 01:48:05.920
four. So that's just the first one that came into my head or your ratio is 0.15 >> that's comprised >> it does 0090. >> So we do take that into consideration

377
01:48:05.920 --> 01:48:20.560
and say we got to look at it like an R40 lot. >> What's R30 what's the square footage on R30? uh 5180, but again 30% lot coverage. >> Okay, that does change it. So it's 30% for both R40 and R30.

378
01:48:20.560 --> 01:48:37.199
>> If the proposed house met the R30 standard with the greater square footage and otherwise meets the conditions than and that were a lower standard, then that would be an even more fair. >> But if it lines up better with the RC >> lines better with R40, I mean, you're right in the middle. Uh R30 is 5180 and

379
01:48:37.199 --> 01:48:53.679
R40 is 69 home and they're and they're requesting 5960. So it's it's kind of >> well and we customize it with the nature of it, right? We're building a go with the building height is 35 building. >> Oh, building height 35 and you are four

380
01:48:53.679 --> 01:49:10.719
months. >> Okay, that was going to be another question where why >> you said you're changing the grade from the existing grade measured from the proposed grade. >> Yes. What is the difference if you were measurable for

381
01:49:10.719 --> 01:49:27.600
>> um >> 34.99 but the way the lot was graded in that situation water was flowing >> you need to do it just one difference

382
01:49:27.600 --> 01:49:52.400
between height structure you explain What did I just say? >> Um, we're maintaining existing utility connections. Um, and we're providing a dry well to manage

383
01:49:52.400 --> 01:50:08.800
two gallons of water over the new impervious. Um and the dry well will be located in the front yard and the roof leaders will be connected to that and that size or uh based on the new ordinance um from

384
01:50:08.800 --> 01:50:26.719
November. Um and I know the ordinance says that drywall should be used when >> um drywalls should only be used when other green infrastructure is not feasible. Um typically for single family

385
01:50:26.719 --> 01:50:41.920
homes we use dry wells. There have been cases where we've used permeable pavement and uh bio retention basins but those come with more maintenance required. Um permeable pavement tends to get clogged with

386
01:50:41.920 --> 01:50:58.400
sediment. Um and bio retention basins you have to have plants in them and those plants need to be maintained a certain way. So, drywalls, we like to use them for single family homes because the maintenance is low. Um, you basically just have to clean out pipes

387
01:50:58.400 --> 01:51:15.600
every now and again, make sure it's not clogged. Whereas with permeable pavement, when that gets clogged, you have to redo the whole driveway and bio retention basins, if you're a landscaper or you decide to cut down the um the

388
01:51:15.600 --> 01:51:30.960
vegetation that's in there, it's no longer compliant. Um, and >> can I expand on this? Um, just because this is the board's I guess second time hearing about this ordinance. Now, this is from the minor development requirements. Um, they're at 98 acres of

389
01:51:30.960 --> 01:51:47.119
disturbance on the site and yeah, as you can tell, 1.0 acres is the threshold for a major development. That would require a lot of storm water management here. Um, and that that number is cumulative over time. So, if they do come back in the future and want to do more disturbance, the 0.98 acres would still

390
01:51:47.119 --> 01:52:02.960
be part of that. But we're here with 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 08. So they're a minor development. Um there's a chart that gives nine um BMPs or different types of examples of somewhere you can do for a minor development. Drywalls is one, but it specifically says that um the use of

391
01:52:02.960 --> 01:52:18.480
drywalls is allowed only where the other list of methods cannot feasibly meet the requirements of this section. U now I know we've approved many dry wells. I I personally think it's a great use as well. And that's what they've proposed here is two dry wells with roof leaders training to it. But that's not exactly

392
01:52:18.480 --> 01:52:34.960
how this uh this ordinance was about really. It wants to first look at other methods like wait or the previous paving um and rain gardens. I think those would be the two most simple uh things like sistns and green green roofs. Um I mean

393
01:52:34.960 --> 01:52:50.080
that's just not that typical those type of applications. So um grass swels they they do have those. That's an option too, but you don't get any recharge from a grass swell. It's really just direct water. Um, so it's really up to the board, but

394
01:52:50.080 --> 01:53:08.080
I just want to bring that up that um it does try to limit the use of dry wages. So we're going to try and literally I'm looking at the um at the planet if the plan what is this a

395
01:53:08.080 --> 01:53:25.280
17 A7 I'm seeing where about 35.01 1 is identified just at the north of the driveway and I'm assuming that something similar to the retention based on what what would the size of something like that need to be in order to accommodate the water that will be

396
01:53:25.280 --> 01:53:40.480
accommodated with the drywalls the entire higher area is going to be put underground like all of the roof leaders and all of the pavement >> it just the roof leaders will be put underground we are proposing um drains

397
01:53:40.480 --> 01:53:57.760
along the pool patio that are directed towards an inlet in the rear yard. So, if needed, we could also direct those to the drywall. We would just have to I we wouldn't even have to upsize the drywall. I would just make sure that it drains. But, um the drywall can hold the

398
01:53:57.760 --> 01:54:14.400
increase in impervious. >> So, maybe the question is better directed to you. I I understand that you've described some of these alternatives as being inferior, more than it could be more new. Um, if you were to construct something by way of one of the more preferable options, I'm

399
01:54:14.400 --> 01:54:30.239
looking at this area just to the the driveway. How much of the yard would need to be dedicated to something like that in order to accomplish the same thing? >> And just so you know, the metric here that we use is for each square foot of new impervious, it's two gallons that

400
01:54:30.239 --> 01:54:46.000
you need to dedicate to. >> Yes. Um, so it's it's a difficult question to answer because you have depth and then you have width. So you can go as deep as 2 feet above the seasonal high water to make

401
01:54:46.000 --> 01:55:02.639
sure it infiltrates, but your depth makes it smaller in footprint. Whereas if you have to go shallower in footprint, it makes it wider. So it's it's difficult to answer. And um >> in in fairness to get gallons isn't a

402
01:55:02.639 --> 01:55:18.320
typical metric that engineers use. It's usually cubic feet. So um and it's based on the the number of year storm um not necessarily just increase the impervious. So it's a little bit of a unique metric that I think that they probably have to specifically dial in on

403
01:55:18.320 --> 01:55:35.040
um if it's not going to be dry wells. But you're and you're you're also going to just by the your proposal right now for the dry well is just to take off of route. Correct. >> Correct. >> Where does the where is the water being

404
01:55:35.040 --> 01:55:50.960
taken with regard to the large amounts of other surface like the circ circular area driveway? Where will we go? >> Um so we're maintaining existing drainage patterns as much as possible. Anything from the rear yard will be

405
01:55:50.960 --> 01:56:08.719
directed to the river. Anything in the front is mostly going towards the front of the site. >> Then had it put in B retention bases basins, excuse me, swailes. Would that also change now being proposed I guess

406
01:56:08.719 --> 01:56:31.440
what I refer to as regrading of the property at this point? >> Yes. So if you were to put in a basin, you would want some of your land uh drainage to go towards that basin. So you would total actually proposed um in that grass area

407
01:56:31.440 --> 01:56:47.119
between the driveways. So, if we were to put a basin in, we would have to the best place to put it would be in that large open area in the front or towards the side property. Uh, where the

408
01:56:47.119 --> 01:57:02.560
these two areas would be the most feasible for basin. Um, I would >> I'm sorry. Can you do the same thing with where you're proposing for the drywall? >> The drywall's in this area >> just about. makes sense because it's close to the

409
01:57:02.560 --> 01:57:19.360
>> um I wouldn't necessarily put a basin somewhere that's surrounded by uh other single family homes. So that leaves the front yard and a basin's basically just a hole in the ground with some plants. So >> how long is that for how long is that

410
01:57:19.360 --> 01:57:33.679
hole? >> Uh they're supposed to drain within 72 hours. So 3 days at the most. Um we you typically don't see fire retention basins on single family homes

411
01:57:33.679 --> 01:57:51.840
only in the most recent cases. >> Yeah, I I certainly recognize the challenge. I would just ask you to appreciate that the ordinance is brand new and if the ordinance says that the underground detention would be the detention of last resort, we need to understand why that's the most

412
01:57:51.840 --> 01:58:09.520
appropriate >> resolution. We won't see another property where there will be an opportunity to put more of a base in if that's what the Lord brings directs. Okay. I'm just trying to get this I did have another question and this I'm going

413
01:58:09.520 --> 01:58:27.360
back to this R40 thing. I'm curious how the existing lot coverage is 25% they proposed is 33 and a half. We really increased the lot coverage by 8% on a 66,000t lot. I don't know what that is.

414
01:58:27.360 --> 01:58:44.000
>> Um >> just for your I you picked up the corn the R40 standard is 30%. >> Is that all that parking area really? What is is is leaning to it? Is it pool? Is it because of the house?

415
01:58:44.000 --> 01:59:01.920
>> No no no the problem is locked. >> I thought you said the percentage. Uh well maximum lot coverage in R40 is 30 33. The existing is 20 block. This house in in square footage. So where does the other 8% come from which is a big

416
01:59:01.920 --> 01:59:36.639
number? It's like almost 6,000 ft. Right. Is it the big parking area in the front plus the pool plus is there no existing pool? I guess uh >> there's no existing pool. Mr. >> Yeah, I want to I know we're stuck on

417
01:59:36.639 --> 01:59:53.599
this. That's why we get through. We have a lot to listen to. Can I just like get like a quick recap of the I think what I'm hearing is impervious surface percentage. Well, the comparison of the the R40 zone standard. >> R40 zone is 30% block coverage which is

418
01:59:53.599 --> 02:00:10.239
building coverage plus all services in the R40. >> Mhm. >> You're in 334. >> The existing is 25.6. >> Right. No, I'm understanding that. I'm just like hitting the categories. We we talked about the building to building

419
02:00:10.239 --> 02:00:26.000
setback. >> We talked about this and we've talked about the storm water. Um >> yeah, I don't want to get too caught up on one thing, but you spent a lot of time on storm water. It's important. You have a lot to listen for.

420
02:00:26.000 --> 02:00:42.400
>> I I think it all stems from the analysis that I suggested at the beginning, which is if we're looking at something that can influence our board, where are we deviating from the board standards? to the extent that there's a good reason of working grand bars. But I think that applying the R10 standards requires us

421
02:00:42.400 --> 02:01:04.639
to think about the R40. And I I think it's important that you that you all for that help us understand how easy it's Mr. Chair, I have some questions for the engineer. I'm going to hold them for a later point or >> uh No. If you think we can get through

422
02:01:04.639 --> 02:01:20.400
this list um so there's two lots you're going to be consolidating as part of >> I I wouldn't unless it's required I don't think we would I mean they're under common ownership and I believe in

423
02:01:20.400 --> 02:01:36.800
the same deeds >> um the second operator >> yeah I think all of them are like that is there a requirement to consolidate >> um I think it's pretty typical I mean they're pretty they're they're joined together now anyway. >> Yeah. >> No, I don't I don't think it is. I I I

424
02:01:36.800 --> 02:01:53.440
think when it's upwinds it is, but I think that the riparian lots are are not consolidated as freely. I I >> But the riparian lot is isn't necessarily the the line establishing the uplands fortune. They're close, but they're not one and the same.

425
02:01:53.440 --> 02:02:12.719
>> The same line is almost 700. >> I remember when we did 29 hits >> they did combine. Yeah, >> it it's the boxed area out almost outside of the dock, right? I'm sorry if that's what you want. If

426
02:02:12.719 --> 02:02:29.520
let's just get get any anyone. I >> I don't think there's a problem doing that. So, right. >> What's that? >> You can consolidate your two lots via the lot consolidation. It's formality. A new deed >> the river plus the

427
02:02:29.520 --> 02:02:48.960
>> Yeah. to make it one tax >> with paper. Um, so the one driveway provides access to the adjacent lot 34 which we talked about. Um, I guess how are you going to handle it during construction? Um, you're repaving

428
02:02:48.960 --> 02:03:03.920
the whole driveway. Is access can be maintained to the adjacent lot worked out with the neighbor. >> Wow. Yeah. Brian, sorry. Ps. Um, so our neighbor who's actually here

429
02:03:03.920 --> 02:03:20.480
at um, 48 Gillespie, friend of ours, everything that we do throughout this whole process, we're coordinating with them and running by them. So we talked about doing the driveway piece of it during a time when they're on vacation and, you know, a time that we're going to just limit disturbance to them as much as possible. So everything we do is

430
02:03:20.480 --> 02:03:35.280
going to be coordinated with the neighbor. And I think he wrote a letter to Miss Olsson as well to that effect. >> Yeah, entered in. We did not enter that in because we we generally wouldn't take a hearsay document. In this instance, I

431
02:03:35.280 --> 02:03:52.639
think it would be more towards the issue of going back to Mr. Rizo's concern and my concern as to whether or not there needed to be additional notice for additional authorization. No, you know, there's an easement there.

432
02:03:52.639 --> 02:04:08.960
as long as your neighbors coordinated with that. I think we took the letters more of yes, we're coordinating it. I mean, he can certainly speak to the application this evening. My understanding is his representation was he had no problem with what you're doing. You're working out as neighbors. >> That That's correct. >> Fair characterization.

433
02:04:08.960 --> 02:04:24.800
>> It is. Yeah. >> We did not formally mark that lettering because that was for that purpose is really for the different purposes. >> Okay. And and ju just while I'm up here, just to say because I know there was focus on that the detached garage, the the existing garage, which just to be

434
02:04:24.800 --> 02:04:40.719
candid, we wouldn't have put that there if we were starting from scratch. It's it's just an existing property. We're not planning to use that at a car garage. So if that's important to you all in making a determination, I just wanted to put that out there. >> How does that speak to the four core

435
02:04:40.719 --> 02:05:07.840
three core things? >> Sure, Matt. station. >> No, I think that should only last three days. >> So, so with the with the garage, the location is technically a variance. Um, being in a front yard, the garage

436
02:05:07.840 --> 02:05:26.599
obviously isn't changing, but the the house footprint is. So because the house is being pulled back a little bit, that now puts the garage in the front yard. So that would be a variance. >> If I was using the front yard, then why doesn't coverage in that

437
02:05:27.199 --> 02:05:43.440
part? >> I calculated. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And then but so there's also like that's all paving and a proposed patio by the garage. What is the intent for all that coverage?

438
02:05:43.440 --> 02:05:59.280
You might have a comments probably remove it. >> Okay. >> Awful lot of turnarounds and parking pads. >> Yeah. I I think that I'm I'm just eyeballing it. I'm guessing that a lot of impervious coverage is going to come out.

439
02:05:59.280 --> 02:06:15.360
Um, if we can modify that that >> I mean ju just candidly speaking for me to get to get closer to the 50% number would be a lot would help the argument a hell of a lot. >> No, you made that. >> Okay. Uh, Jordan. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, do you have a

440
02:06:15.360 --> 02:06:29.440
landscaping plan by any chance? Would you look at that? >> Yeah. Uh, >> I see a number of things on the surface that's to be removed as far as trees go. >> Yeah, we'll need permits to do that. There's a landscaping like exhibit that

441
02:06:29.440 --> 02:06:56.599
we have um cheese I think hopefully can show us we get an idea of what this planting will be identify for that for the the date. Can you read that please?

442
02:06:57.679 --> 02:07:21.679
Uh 414 2026. >> Sorry. >> Uh 414 2026. So the at the rear of the house there's pool. I can identify the pool. What is up the left? This

443
02:07:21.679 --> 02:07:42.920
>> this is just the gravel patio. Is that is that impervious or not impervious? >> Um I believe it seating area or something. >> Yeah, it's a lot

444
02:07:43.440 --> 02:07:59.280
>> that was not included in the impervious but it's gravel. It's so it's technically impervious. It would be impervious if it's driving for surface definition. So get a gravel driveway that would be considered fergus.

445
02:07:59.280 --> 02:08:17.520
>> Okay. Because it's on a driveway, it's not even though it's the same. >> You're not driving from back to while we're on that. Are there any services going out there right now? Just inside the seating area. Is there any electric going out there? Is there any

446
02:08:17.520 --> 02:08:35.280
service? >> Uh not that I'm aware of, but that might be a question for Thank you. >> What about this uh proposed paper strip that is on this plot plan? I don't know if I'll see it on there. >> Um they are they're white so they're

447
02:08:35.280 --> 02:08:52.320
hard to see but they're right there. And that's just to allow the people to walk from this walkway to the gravel patio. >> It's like an an aesthetic. >> Yes. >> I think it looks it probably looks better in uh 3D as opposed to 2D. That's

448
02:08:52.320 --> 02:09:09.119
above gather. >> Um a big thing with the planting the landscape plan is uh we're providing arborides along the side property lines. So those will provide screening to the neighboring properties.

449
02:09:09.119 --> 02:09:25.840
>> Is is there any difference between what's proposed and what's existing on this plan? >> Um I don't think >> I believe we're providing more than what's there. Um I don't believe there's arborites along

450
02:09:25.840 --> 02:09:41.360
the property line currently. Uh just big trees and the confirmed that they know invasive species of all the native species. >> Um yes I think I think we represent that

451
02:09:41.360 --> 02:09:58.320
person speak to that traditional >> and is there a municipal who who would review the schedule? Is it Jordan? Do you review that >> the proposed plans? >> Yeah. If if we stipulate the condition about >> if it's a condition I I my office could

452
02:09:58.320 --> 02:10:14.400
review it. We wouldn't unless it's a condition that the board would like. So I I have a question about the base data for the landscaping plan because as I look at the impervious which we talked about extensively is obviously the sun the the impervious on this landscaping

453
02:10:14.400 --> 02:10:31.520
plan looks larger than the impervious on a whatever it was notably the concrete pad in front of the existing garage um looks considerably larger and it it just looks like a lot even more asphalt.

454
02:10:31.520 --> 02:10:47.199
Um the drawings are at different scales. So this is more zoomed in. So it might look bigger, but this this is the plan we used to develop this plan. >> Okay. To my eye, the the the plan you've

455
02:10:47.199 --> 02:11:03.920
been looking at all night. It's tight. To my eye, the landscaping plans are tight. with regard to development of asphalt in the front of the house. I don't know where we measure it to or anything else, but boy, it feels like a lot. By the by the remote garage, it looks a

456
02:11:03.920 --> 02:11:20.400
lot more last year. >> And you see the parking port darker. It would even look like >> Okay. >> No um extensive lighting other than along the the house um and low lights maybe around the pool. nothing

457
02:11:20.400 --> 02:11:35.440
>> nothing >> tall or they'll shine towards the neighbors. >> Um there's a 40 foot wide sanitary sewer eman that runs to the north side and you're providing hardcape and raising the manhole. I'll just want you to seek permission from that holder. >> We can do that

458
02:11:35.440 --> 02:11:56.880
>> to make those changes. >> Um and then will you just comply with the remainder of the comments? Yes. I'm good. Thank you. Thank any more. Any members of the public have any

459
02:11:56.880 --> 02:13:00.159
questions for the phone? None. Thank you very much. James Anderson. Now we're back. Think we're up to you decide which one you want to mark a >> 20

460
02:13:00.159 --> 02:13:20.159
>> 20 and then a21. If you describe a 20 for me, please. Yes, that is a aerial Google um shot of the um existing house and the adjacent properties. Can you give me an approximate taken?

461
02:13:20.159 --> 02:13:40.679
Uh uh that one was about a month ago and A21 is similar but just um including the properties and that was taken today.

462
02:13:48.239 --> 02:14:02.880
You want to give your My name is James Anderson. Uh A J A N E S Anderson. A N D E R S O N. I'm a registered architect uh here in

463
02:14:02.880 --> 02:14:20.560
New Jersey and have been so since 1992 and in which uh time uh formed a partnership uh with my wife and partner and have maintained our offices in Rumson uh ever since. So about 34 years

464
02:14:20.560 --> 02:14:35.599
we've had the opportunity to present in front of this board previously. I'm a a prior member of the um Fair Haven um planning board and u and a current member of the historic commission and u

465
02:14:35.599 --> 02:14:52.719
my partner was previously on the zoning uh board here. >> Any accepted credentials? Of course, Mr. F. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks so much and thanks for um hearing uh us this evening is particularly me. came back

466
02:14:52.719 --> 02:15:09.840
from Italy last night to to hear uh be able to present to you. U hopefully I can keep my eyes open here because it would be about 3:30 at that time. Uh so that being said um the um the lot is a

467
02:15:09.840 --> 02:15:25.920
very special one um and the Parnes has identified this um for us and we were able to um you know to walk the site. Um it has a quite a bit of frontage to the water. It's a large uh site. It's about

468
02:15:25.920 --> 02:15:42.639
six and a half times what uh is um allowed in that zone. It's uh adjacent to um the uh the historic area of of Haven on Gillespie. It's very close to River Road within walking distance um

469
02:15:42.639 --> 02:15:58.960
and also close to the school to circle. So it's really a very special lot. uh and and I think they identified that right away. And uh so to start the process uh we we visited the site uh and walked through the house and we also had

470
02:15:58.960 --> 02:16:15.679
um was given to us from the realer uh the existing plans of the house. Uh and u as we walked through the house and visited and looked at them, we realized immediately um there were some significant issues associated with the

471
02:16:15.679 --> 02:16:32.639
house. Um and probably one of the some of which couldn't be uh addressed and some of which were not a you know they just wasn't possible and probably one of the biggest ones uh had to do with the orientation of the house and so if I can

472
02:16:32.639 --> 02:16:56.639
um actually I could add one more to this which is A22 which is also another area we've of Montego the

473
02:16:56.639 --> 02:17:14.080
somewhat perplexing uh situation, you know, of placing the house. It's the only one uh around there that's not facing squarely at the river. For whatever reason, it was rotated um clockwise, so it looks right into um the

474
02:17:14.080 --> 02:17:30.479
boatyard there in Fair Haven. Uh the the vast majority of of the river and the views are kind of straight out here. No reason it was caught to look in in that is something that uh other renovations

475
02:17:30.479 --> 02:17:46.240
could address some of the other sort of hummings that I've mentioned that that just really couldn't feasibly be addressed. >> So I have a question. Why didn't you say this one square to the river? Pardon me. >> The the the proposed house isn't sighted square to the river either. Why is that?

476
02:17:46.240 --> 02:18:02.719
It's much it's it's much more parallel and I'll show you that rollar pull out the site flown as well. It's it's it's rotated um substantially more counterclockwise. Um not not totally parallel and that had to do with some of

477
02:18:02.719 --> 02:18:18.880
the other configurations and setbacks on this side. Um so that was really one of the biggest ones. And uh the other uh had to do with um the the floor plan um which uh really didn't uh relate to

478
02:18:18.880 --> 02:18:36.719
being a river home. Uh and it had uh was it was 93 when it was um uh uh permitted, but it had a lot of the characteristics that I've seen in the late 80s. homes with the the giant two-story foyers, the twotory stairs,

479
02:18:36.719 --> 02:18:52.880
twotory family room, and in this case, they had all those there and then a library on it, which blocked all the view. And of course, you couldn't have any of the views there on the second floor. Not something they usually saw on river on waterfront homes. It was something,

480
02:18:52.880 --> 02:19:09.120
you know, that was symptomatic of I've I've seen a few around here, not not on the water, uh, but there's quite a few maybe over in Homedale and places like that. I don't know if you've seen them, but the Grand Flories and the you and then people go and hang out in the

481
02:19:09.120 --> 02:19:24.240
kitchen because those those things just really didn't make sense uh after people live there. So, uh, not only did that not really respond and block some of the views to the rivers, um, it it just, uh, uh, that and then the circulation was on

482
02:19:24.240 --> 02:19:40.920
the two ends of the building. Uh, so there was a tremendous amount of circulation, wasted space. Uh, so you couldn't just go up and and do it. It was very, uh, long. And then um if I could

483
02:19:43.679 --> 02:20:08.720
see put two more exhibits up um which are A23 A2 describe what A23 is. Um and A23 is the water side of the

484
02:20:08.720 --> 02:20:25.200
existing house. A24 is the entry side. And the um the the last thing was that uh a lot of the massing again really didn't have to do much with the history or settlement of this area. Um it had

485
02:20:25.200 --> 02:20:42.240
all the the um you know turrets overcaled kind of elements. Um uh had um you uh vinyl siding and pork chops and a number of things that um were really

486
02:20:42.240 --> 02:20:58.720
consistent with the historic which is part of >> pardon me. >> What's a pork chop? >> Pork chop. Uh that's a great question. Um and it h it's um the termination of the rake molding coming down to the eve uh which you can see here. It's you see

487
02:20:58.720 --> 02:21:16.880
it a lot in um uh speculative home where they just didn't want to have to address a more traditional way of terminating that. Um it's easy. You just I don't know how that term pork chop came well I guess it kind of looks a little bit like a pork chop. Um but uh all that together

488
02:21:16.880 --> 02:21:33.600
uh some of the things could be maybe addressed aesthetically, but having the house really just cranked around and and looking the other way, it was just uh something that was um uh I yeah couldn't be fixed. So e even that aside, just

489
02:21:33.600 --> 02:21:50.399
trying to even bring all the other things up, it was going to be probably very expensive and and knowing that when you got done with all that, it was still going to have these significant um shortcomings to it. So we looked at each other and realized um it's unfortunate

490
02:21:50.399 --> 02:22:06.640
and it to address the chairman I think when he he first said when was this bill? Yeah, you it was like 93 and and it's it's just it's heartbreaking to to think that something that was that recent u but again there there might have been some uh extenduating

491
02:22:06.640 --> 02:22:20.960
circumstances or some from I don't know what but as I I open up that it's an incredibly um wonderful site and location. So, um that being said, we we u made that

492
02:22:20.960 --> 02:22:39.520
decision and then um so to move forward, the first thing we did is is is create a program for the house uh and um and images. And the intent of the owners was to get something that had more of a timeless appeal. uh something

493
02:22:39.520 --> 02:22:57.520
that kind of related to some of the history and something that would look as relevant now as it would 20 years from now or and so um we identified a colonial revival uh style for the home. Um and um uh

494
02:22:57.520 --> 02:23:14.800
also I wanted to do something that u related to some of the river homes uh here which I I will address in a minute because I I think that had to do with some of the comments about why is the house sort of brought out. It's a it's

495
02:23:14.800 --> 02:23:33.120
currently an L-shaped house or has a a fair amount going back. Um, and this is more laid out from side to side. So, >> 826 A25 is

496
02:23:33.120 --> 02:23:49.200
>> 825 is a um perspective view of the entry side of the house. >> And 26 is a perspective of the rear of the

497
02:23:49.200 --> 02:24:04.880
house. um not not prepared from our office. We we did give him the CAD model for the building itself, but it was prepared uh by the landscape architect, Alec Tops, who's here with us this evening. Um and as long as I'm up uh can

498
02:24:04.880 --> 02:24:27.640
I I have some on the back as well. We're at 8:27. We should have started here. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> 28 landscaping bridge.

499
02:24:27.840 --> 02:24:44.960
>> What What is A28? >> Um A28 is an additional view of the back um taken um from a more southerntherly uh orientation. And um

500
02:24:44.960 --> 02:25:01.280
let's see. whereas the other view of the back was taken more from another building. So was it was really just trying to look at it, show it from both sides. And um so I was mentioning before that

501
02:25:01.280 --> 02:25:20.160
the um intent was to create a um revival u appearance to the house and that was accomplished by the massing the details the materials um and u no pork chops you know it was really there was a

502
02:25:20.160 --> 02:25:37.920
lot of vigor put into all the moldings um and you can see so you it has to do the articulation of the freeze, uh the brakes, um the the window casing, the uh columns and um

503
02:25:37.920 --> 02:25:54.720
uh the balance rods um and all of which were based on historic precedents as opposed to something that uh may be u a current kind of trend. Um and um the uh

504
02:25:54.720 --> 02:26:14.160
moldings here are um uh a collection of historic moldings um a number of which with the um custom mil uh moldings that that is um they would be dis

505
02:26:14.160 --> 02:26:31.840
they're they're solid PVC um and there's a limited amount that are are made for Mazak that's a you know, a number of you may be familiar with that. Um, so um there's some of those, but then that's augmented by uh some specially mil and painted.

506
02:26:31.840 --> 02:26:46.960
All the uh uh moldings are intended to be painted here. Um and to that end, the uh windows are all wood windows um here and with divided lights.

507
02:26:46.960 --> 02:27:04.800
Um the shutters are um solid um uh shutters. I don't know if they're wood or a product called Endurian. It's really solid for PVC. Um but they would be um mounted on pencil hinges and shutter dogs that they would be

508
02:27:04.800 --> 02:27:19.439
functioning. It's not the the hollow ones that are just drilled into the into the walls. Um the brick here um is a molded brick. Um either um it would be

509
02:27:19.439 --> 02:27:37.680
as opposed to an extruded brick. Um and um the uh roof is uh proposed to be uh cedar shake. Um the um sidewalls would be primarily cedar paint um actually

510
02:27:37.680 --> 02:27:55.120
solid body uh stain on cedar shingles and um zinc coated copper leaders. So, um, make the appearance of the lead coated, but trying to do something a little more PC with the zinc that it

511
02:27:55.120 --> 02:28:09.520
doesn't have the the same issues that lead might have. >> Mr. Anderson, man, just a moment. Were these elevations these elevation not the arrows but A23 the wateride elevation the front entry

512
02:28:09.520 --> 02:28:25.840
elevation the entryside elevation rear elevation and the landscaping and the rear perspective from the southern view were these all the material were these materials presented to the historic society and is that what they were referencing when they they're

513
02:28:25.840 --> 02:28:42.880
talking about if you know um architectural details outlined in the plans specifications including special male moldings, columns of wood, solid PVC, cedar shaped shingle, those things, these things that presented to the install.

514
02:28:42.880 --> 02:28:58.240
>> Yes, I should say partially. Yes, I think a 25 was one and a26 were two of them. I've added two more. uh guided 827

515
02:28:58.240 --> 02:29:13.920
and a >> the elements that the elements that you've discussed were specifically discussed with the historic commission and that's what some of their recommendations were. >> That that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Um of course I had the advantage of been a vice chairman there for over 25 years

516
02:29:13.920 --> 02:29:28.800
and that's something that we've tried to encourage other applicants to use. So I was pretty familiar with with how they might >> just wanted to make those connection. So K1 is referencing is what we're seeing. Thank you. >> Sorry. This consistent with the

517
02:29:28.800 --> 02:29:44.479
presentation of the commission and what we said we would uh intended to build >> and and just uh two more quick comments about the the general layout and that is um a number of the river homes whether

518
02:29:44.479 --> 02:30:00.000
uh around this area but also from this area south a lot of them uh were linear along the water. Um, and sometimes they were only one room deep. Um, and as much as we want to think it was done for

519
02:30:00.000 --> 02:30:17.280
view, I think historically it was really done for ventilation. Um, but that goes really had to do with the setup of why it's linear and um, not an L-shaped um, as the previous one. And of course you get the advantage of in this case more

520
02:30:17.280 --> 02:30:35.920
view of the river. Um and u lastly I would say in terms of uh trying to be consistent with some of the uh older uh historic waterfront homes um a number of them including I'm trying to think of

521
02:30:35.920 --> 02:30:52.080
what the address is 64 Gillespie. Um they they were double fronted homes and they I say that because the uh wateride was many times the primary way that they were entered

522
02:30:52.080 --> 02:31:08.319
back in the 1900s by boat. So they would put the front door there and then the secondary front door on on the lion side. So, um that's the appearance that we tried to um evoke here by having the front and back be sort of similar and

523
02:31:08.319 --> 02:31:27.040
and symmetrical um uh appearance to the the main body of the house. And um let's see. And then lastly, uh when we uh looked to to kind of scope out the project, um there was an existing home

524
02:31:27.040 --> 02:31:43.200
and we wanted to sort of stay within those brackets of what was there. we knew that had been approved. Um so we in a couple areas we were able to do a little bit less. Uh one of which was the the floor area and um so we uh dropped

525
02:31:43.200 --> 02:31:59.760
it by a couple hundred square feet. Um we I'll make mention of it. Um we and there's no no fix there to the attic. They wanted to use all their floor area on the main floor as as um uh you know

526
02:31:59.760 --> 02:32:17.920
um to be consistent with the um uh the zoning code. Uh the prior home which we didn't count to have a an accessible attic. We just don't have it here. But it it was a meaningful size. I don't know that really changes the appearance of that. So it's we didn't want to go

527
02:32:17.920 --> 02:32:32.960
there. But I I guess my point is we just wanted to stay a little bit um under that. And um and and same with the building height. We did something a little bit lower uh than what's there now. Not low, but it was, you know,

528
02:32:32.960 --> 02:32:49.760
about 5 ft lower. Um and um that that was kind of how we arrived at the layout of of the home and the appearance of the home. So, um, again, wanted to do something that was a little more consistent with the historic fist and,

529
02:32:49.760 --> 02:33:05.920
um, with the appearance from the waterfront as well. >> Mr. Anderson, the windows on what is the attic area, that's not going to be finished. >> That's correct. No, no stair at all. >> Okay. And you are aware that you can actually finish that if you comply with

530
02:33:05.920 --> 02:33:22.160
the attic requirement. It doesn't have any square footage, right? >> Yes. Okay. Very good. Um, say Mr. Anderson, it's stunning. It really is. It's understated and it looks great. It really does. Um, nice job. >> All right. Well, I'm going to be the bad

531
02:33:22.160 --> 02:33:38.880
guy then. I I totally agree. >> It means the world to us. >> It's absolutely wonderful. We discussed this before. Your work is absolutely the best, but I want to talk about the layout because you started talking about it and and I understand that there's the need to reconfigure it. I get it. But as

532
02:33:38.880 --> 02:33:56.160
a lay person, when I look at, we can take out the landscape plan or the other plan if you want, but I'd like you to explain to us why the garage itself, specifically the garage, couldn't be brought back and turned, why this house couldn't be centered on the lot, creating greater setbacks, and have some

533
02:33:56.160 --> 02:34:12.880
sort of an accommodation to the size of the home relative to the neighbors. And if you know what your pictures are, I note that none of those pictures sell in neighboring homes. And yet there are neighboring homes in some cases within 25 feet of the of of the property boundary and they are going to be

534
02:34:12.880 --> 02:34:29.760
visible. Um so I'm interested in that configuration and please help us understand why you think that that garage needs to be right there with River please. >> That's a that's a great question. Um, and I would probably go back u, but one was talking about making what we thought

535
02:34:29.760 --> 02:34:47.600
felt was a true river home that they tended to be uh longer along the river and not terribly deep. Uh, that was one reason. I think um, as the um, uh, Mr. Sardo mentioned the uh impact directly

536
02:34:47.600 --> 02:35:04.960
on the uh contiguous neighbors um uh is there's not as much wall there as if it was turned sideways and went up which is currently the case. So we we felt that even though it does extend further from side to side um that the part that was

537
02:35:04.960 --> 02:35:23.720
there was not particularly massive and that the impact uh would would be less the um uh also if I'm see if I can flip this back. There we go. Um and so

538
02:35:24.720 --> 02:35:39.520
the the there's several factors here in terms of the impact, right? Well, uh there's the the street, there's Gillespie, there's the two adjacent neighbors, and then there's the waterfront, you know? So, I think they're all important and and need to be

539
02:35:39.520 --> 02:35:55.760
um considered. Um so, there's a picture in the engineering review um uh thing that shows it from the street. Um and so uh and this is a perspective that Mr. Tus did uh with the revised landscape.

540
02:35:55.760 --> 02:36:12.479
So uh I I think you do see a little bit more of the house, but the reality is it's really it's a very deep lot and um the impact on Gillespie is not great. It's it's just I I I don't want to say you don't see it because I think you do get particularly in the in the winter

541
02:36:12.479 --> 02:36:30.080
you will. Uh but I think um that it's far enough back and the size of it um the lot that it it fits nicely in it. And then the looking at it from the river, I think also um it looks

542
02:36:30.080 --> 02:36:44.880
proportionate and and would look good from that vantage point being further down um from the um you know u down the hill and looking. Um, in terms of the

543
02:36:44.880 --> 02:37:01.840
two neighbors, um, uh, again, I think even though it it, uh, does get closer, um, I think that the amount of mass that's on on eBay land, uh, there is not good. So, that's why we went the way we

544
02:37:01.840 --> 02:37:16.800
did. Could you move that over? Of course. You know, uh, but we still think that this would be a nicer, more attractive uh, layout um, for the house. So, >> does the garage have any direct utility for the pool? Is it important to the

545
02:37:16.800 --> 02:37:43.000
pool and the garage being located? >> Um, I I know I think in terms of utilities, I don't think that has a meaningful difference. Uh, but you did bring up something which is kind of interesting. And let me see if I can find the site for the long

546
02:37:45.439 --> 02:38:01.520
the land. >> Did we mark this in? Yes. Okay. Um the there's something that we tried to um develop here and we'll call this the summer entry. And

547
02:38:01.520 --> 02:38:15.920
it's it's it's sort of a mudroom, but the intent would be that those doors would be open during the summer. And so that this would be um environmentally or heating wise separated from the house.

548
02:38:15.920 --> 02:38:34.000
And if I can let's see well this is a pretty good view of it as well. It is really intended to be the summer gateway. So you're not going around, you know, when a lot of the people are spending some uh time out in the back and rather than having to go

549
02:38:34.000 --> 02:38:49.280
all around the perimeters of the house and through mechanical equipment and otherwise, the thought that this would be a really uh welcoming gateway um to the pool and and backyard.

550
02:38:49.280 --> 02:39:05.920
Charles that there we go. kind of shows it, but it's obscured. So, uh there was a direct relationship of of this to the pool, even though it's not centered on the pool. Uh it was

551
02:39:05.920 --> 02:39:22.160
meant to really to bring people um back there as that summer entrance. I mean, yeah, I'm not going to go, but it does kind of talk to some other settlement that I've seen up and down the shore. Um totally different set of reasons, but

552
02:39:22.160 --> 02:39:40.000
the massing becomes similar. The other set of reasons was a lot of times they would put the and I mean I'm going back a couple centuries the kitchen would be separate because they didn't want to burn down the house and then they would put a what they called the colonade in between and then eventually over time

553
02:39:40.000 --> 02:39:57.600
people said forget I'm I'm going to enclose that that that colonade and it so it's it also picks up a little bit of that the main house colonade and gets you the functions here are totally different but the massing somewhat similar. So explain how and I know you you ran

554
02:39:57.600 --> 02:40:13.120
into a little bit and the first question I have was why didn't you square it up to the river? How would the setbacks have been whether you can speak to that or not to the adjacent houses be affected had you squared it up to the right which would have been a better view. >> Are we getting closer on one side even

555
02:40:13.120 --> 02:40:30.000
further away on the other? Not quite sure. >> So this is the the line of the river. Um, and it kind of turns a little bit here. Um, so, um, it it it is not I guess if you're going to put it, um,

556
02:40:30.000 --> 02:40:46.080
>> where you see it, it's probably >> Yeah. Well, I I believe you could probably turn it. It looks the difference between this and this is I'm just going to tell it's looks like five degrees or something. Uh

557
02:40:46.080 --> 02:41:01.040
I don't personally I don't think that would be a problem. I I I would I think that would be good. Does it improve? >> I don't know if it improves or not. I'm just The question I have is why not make it square when you start from scratch. But >> yeah. No, I I um I it's it's actually

558
02:41:01.040 --> 02:41:16.240
squared up to the side. >> Uh and I think between working with the other the civil engineers and the landscape architects, they felt that. Uh uh personally though, I think if it went 5 degrees counterclockwise, I I I think

559
02:41:16.240 --> 02:41:33.760
that would be a good thing. Um but um uh >> I don't know if it helps. >> I don't know that it it particularly helped. That's the >> things that come to mind. >> Yeah. No. No. Well, you know what? If if it did, it would maybe if you held one corner of it and then pivoted from

560
02:41:33.760 --> 02:41:50.600
there, it would might make it a little bit less impactful to the the northern. >> How wide are the stairs on the western western side of the house uh adjacent to that that porch or that patio?

561
02:41:51.600 --> 02:42:07.200
I just let me come up here just so I can understand which ones you found these. >> Yeah, >> over here. >> Um yeah, I think those are >> Yeah, these these over here. >> Oh,

562
02:42:07.200 --> 02:42:30.399
we discreet there. >> Yeah, 26.33 ft. >> Right. Is that good memory or no? You know how wide those stairs are in that thing? >> Oh, how wide they were. >> In other words, if you reposition those stairs either in the front or the back of the house.

563
02:42:30.399 --> 02:42:47.439
>> Yeah, >> I think that's a great idea. >> Could you could you get rid of that that variance? >> It would I don't know if it gives real it would minimize it some. And I I don't think that would have a a bad effect on this at all. Well, that's my my thought

564
02:42:47.439 --> 02:43:03.359
would be >> maybe towards the water side. I think that is fine. >> If you go towards the water side, >> you could go on either side, >> but you would you would increase your distance between

565
02:43:03.359 --> 02:43:19.120
>> structure and the adjacent structure >> possibly. >> I think that would be I agree. I think that's that would be fantastic. >> It allow you to potentially do some more planting there as well. >> Absolutely. >> Not only is it

566
02:43:19.120 --> 02:43:35.280
>> that 50 built hard for the white, >> but once you go down the stairs, you you can't plant right there. So, it would take it would pull the stairs back and give you some more opportunity or it's supposed to close the neighbors to do additional

567
02:43:35.280 --> 02:43:53.920
>> planting. I think that that would be helpful. Yeah. energy board have any further questions to Mr. Anderson? >> Um I have two questions. >> So the the screen porch on the north side um just so the board knows who that

568
02:43:53.920 --> 02:44:11.680
was not included as floor area. So can you kind of just explain what that room is, how it's used, and then what the what's what's the material or screening on three sides? >> Sure. Um it is uh let me see if it shows up. I

569
02:44:11.680 --> 02:44:29.840
don't want it to >> and also to ensure that doesn't ultimately get turned into >> enclosed space. >> Yeah. >> Understood. Um it's right here. Um and um the thought would be that it would be um screened in and I think they would be

570
02:44:29.840 --> 02:44:46.080
happy to have that as being uh mandated in any approval. Um the the reason why it's there uh wasn't so much the inclusion of the screen. Uh it had to do uh with getting the space above it. Uh

571
02:44:46.080 --> 02:45:03.359
some uh I mean it's a different totally different arrangement than what was previously uh the pre prior application. Uh but it had to do with um getting some um floor area that was very important on top of it and so that was the reason for it. So I but I don't think there would

572
02:45:03.359 --> 02:45:19.200
be any issue of of you know taking out uh or or mandating that no no enclosure would be done. >> Okay. As long as the board is comfortable, whether it be screens, you know, not temperature controlled, things like that, but whatever board likes to

573
02:45:19.200 --> 02:45:46.160
maintain that. 18 by 10. >> Thank you. >> And you had a second question. >> Yes. Um I don't think it was mentioned earlier, but with your latest resubmission, there's a a Koopa and the

574
02:45:46.160 --> 02:46:02.000
dimensions are greater than what the the requirements would be. >> So if you can just talk about that. >> Okay. >> So it needs to be uh 4t wide by 4t deep. Um, and here's circular, so it's a

575
02:46:02.000 --> 02:46:17.359
little bit bigger than that. And then it can be six feet tall if you're less than six feet tall, but then you have the weather vein pump, which is included as well. >> Okay. Um, well, uh, certainly the u weather vein um is is not anything that

576
02:46:17.359 --> 02:46:33.279
would be critical to to this and that would be easily removed. But the other uh I thought we followed this is the the list of the coup is more than four feet. >> It's it's like the the the dome of it I

577
02:46:33.279 --> 02:46:48.640
would say. Is that what you're saying to the where it comes down? >> If this was a setback we're talking about I would say that that's not included but because it's like the neck of it four feet and then it gets wider. >> Oh okay. But it is so the what has been

578
02:46:48.640 --> 02:47:05.279
discussed we the u shaft itself of the coupla is 4 ft the roof of it is extends past that um and so um >> I mean maybe the board likes it. I just wanted to point it out that the way it sits right now it would require it.

579
02:47:05.279 --> 02:47:21.439
>> Yeah. Um I mean it could either be made smaller. I don't know if it would look as proportionate. Um, I think the the final is is is something that is really um not not important at all. But I think it if I could go back to the well, you can kind of see it here, but more on the

580
02:47:21.439 --> 02:47:38.200
front elevation that it seems like it fits, uh, well in terms of its size and their location. So uh and I find five and deviation and firing variance we're going to approve which

581
02:47:39.600 --> 02:47:53.520
>> it's your testimony that you think it fits with the scale of the building. >> Yes it is. >> Mr. Anthony, can you talk to the building? I think there was a desire in the board to compare this development to

582
02:47:53.520 --> 02:48:10.880
an R40 home and clearly in R40 u you're allowed up 35 ft so that would seem to mesh with what is allowed into the zone but given that the R10 is 32. Can you just talk about what that

583
02:48:10.880 --> 02:48:26.960
difference in height means to your overall design and if you were to scale down to 32, how would that impact what we're looking at today? Um, very good question. Um, I think given the square footage, um, and the

584
02:48:26.960 --> 02:48:43.680
appearance of it, it would look kind of squatty. Uh, right now we're able to have, uh, 12 on 12 roof pitches here that that that come back to the main roof. And once those start to come down that several feet, I think I mean either that or we'd have to take it out of the the floors. But it seems proportionate

585
02:48:43.680 --> 02:49:01.200
to a house of this floor area and size. And um I think given that the acre and a half uh upland of this lot that a 35 foot or a little bit less than 35, but essentially a 35 foot house looks

586
02:49:01.200 --> 02:49:18.760
proportionate uh to the to that lot. and and >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any of the board members have questions? Mr. Anderson 29. Any members of the public want to speak? Mr. Anderson.

587
02:49:20.000 --> 02:49:37.040
>> Thank you, Mr. Appreciate. >> Okay. With a little after 10, Mr. Sto, what else? Um well, we have yet to get professional planning testimony, but um

588
02:49:37.040 --> 02:49:54.560
I think that would speak to what services are in the areas that you have presently either at the front of the property with regard to some seating and where the seating areas next to the existing garage. We just speak to what surface determine.

589
02:49:54.560 --> 02:50:11.920
>> I'm sorry, did you say seating? Seat >> there. The seating area to the left is the existing refer to the shed. >> Seating area there lighting valve there electricity. Is there any gas water

590
02:50:11.920 --> 02:51:19.120
service? >> Oh uh >> and the same question with regard to the seating area near the river. Yeah, I I understand. Yes. Golden So

591
02:51:19.120 --> 02:51:56.560
we see praise. Um, so the the existing garage, as I understand, has electricity. I don't believe it has any water service to it.

592
02:51:56.560 --> 02:52:12.960
>> I don't The existing garage has electricity. The owner is not aware of it having anything else including water. Okay. >> I mean, are they intending to put lighting out there? I don't I'm sitting in the dark. I just want to make sure that if there's going to be lighting out there that the commit to low level

593
02:52:12.960 --> 02:52:29.120
lighting. >> Yes. I think that >> and the same thing with the fire. It's like a great area. I just want to make sure that if there is going to be lighting out there because there should be >> Oh, sure. I think Mr. Barnett testified that that's what was any lighting was

594
02:52:29.120 --> 02:52:46.560
posed was >> low lighting >> low lighting >> nothing pointing towards >> yes no glare shielded away from it properly >> I didn't understand it was that simple question >> okay >> always trying to find a place >> I think they're in the ra get your

595
02:52:46.560 --> 02:53:02.800
planner up so we can be as judicious as we can because we've been through a lot already >> understood and Um I I guess I'm questioning do we need to talk further about

596
02:53:02.800 --> 02:53:17.920
the impervious surface issues instead of >> going down that >> for my point the impervious services are are hurting >> okay you got a lot of black top you've got a huge parking circle we got three different turnarounds in parking areas

597
02:53:17.920 --> 02:53:35.279
and it's leading to a big issue both from what it looks like down the state. I'd like to get more feedback from the board. We're going to kind of detail this situation like are we okay with the house given it's an all 40

598
02:53:35.279 --> 02:53:50.160
settle you're willing to let us have a little bit of >> uh for sure because I don't I I don't want to put on testimony that's geared towards what we came in to prevent. That's >> not where you're heading. any board members that haven't spoken and there's a lot of people that haven't spoken like

599
02:53:50.160 --> 02:54:06.000
there's some options for ideas available what you think all good bad >> yeah just so they can get some direction >> yeah I mean the turnaround circle it's hard to tell like Todd said it does look very large I mean it looks as large

600
02:54:06.000 --> 02:54:24.279
as the the front of the house uh so that whole area as well as the square around it and the neighbors leading over to the extra piece of driveways as

601
02:54:25.760 --> 02:54:41.200
there's just a lot that I feel like could probably be scaled down a bit. Then adding on to that I'm maybe there's a reason but why the massive shaving in

602
02:54:41.200 --> 02:54:55.120
front of the existing garage exist shed whatever you want to call it. Um and then also why there's seating there like um unsure how much people will be hanging out there next to

603
02:54:55.120 --> 02:55:12.560
a huge asphalted area. Um, but in terms of the rest of the house, um, and how well Mr. Anderson laid out how it's in keeping with around the start of district might have

604
02:55:12.560 --> 02:55:29.040
been established u built up. I I think that's a great idea and I love that he is bringing that back kind of to this property. So I can um look past like some of the other advantages, but that

605
02:55:29.040 --> 02:55:49.200
uh impervious ground in the front is quite a lot. Not all of it seems very necessary. Anything to add? >> Okay. I think we're all kind of on the same page about the impervious coverage of the front with all the various

606
02:55:49.200 --> 02:56:05.680
parking areas that that are causing us to even be over the R40. Right. Um with that being said, if you'd like to present more testimony, we'd be like to hear it. I do want I don't know if there's any members in the public here

607
02:56:05.680 --> 02:56:20.399
who want to have anything that they want to say public. >> No. So I I think what I would say before we move forward is that on an application where we haven't even heard any

608
02:56:20.399 --> 02:56:38.000
testimony short the screened porch about what's going to happen on the inside. I think that it is a mistake for the board to not be really focused on what standards were. I think we're all faulted to the idea that the house is

609
02:56:38.000 --> 02:56:52.720
not improperly sized relative to the lot. But then I think you really need to dig in on what standards you're applying. And if the planner is going to argue that the R10 standards are the right standards, then I I would just

610
02:56:52.720 --> 02:57:09.120
suggest to you that I I think this design was put together based on where we can make the existing structure better and not based on if this were an R40 lot, what would we build? I have tremendous respect for Mr. Anderson. I

611
02:57:09.120 --> 02:57:25.200
am confident that he could figure out how to make that garage something different, move it to some other area, center this house, separate it from the neighbors, and create something that feels appropriate in the area where we stand. If if the rest of the board

612
02:57:25.200 --> 02:57:40.560
doesn't feel that way, then we're good. Let's go. >> I don't think the garage is a problem. I'm I'm not focused on the garage side. I'm focused on the other side of the house, to be honest. But if the garage moved back, then the entire house could be moved into the middle and you could

613
02:57:40.560 --> 02:57:58.319
grant the appropriate setback to the neighbors and this could be developed in one as if it were our 40 which I thought we was move the house forward because that does the same effect other and then you be you maintain your

614
02:57:58.319 --> 02:58:14.720
let's call it rear wet. >> So that's fine. I don't know if we're triggering B's. I think we're triggering these. You're going to need five out of seven. >> Why are we triggering? >> Because when twice the Oh, because we don't have a >> we don't have a Okay, fair enough. So, you only need a majority. So, that's

615
02:58:14.720 --> 02:58:32.240
fine. I'm just I'm just making sure that it's clear that that to me we started the wrong >> I thought you were just asking about impervious coverage. I didn't think we were covering it all. So, that was my opinion on the impervious coverage that Peter brought up.

616
02:58:32.240 --> 02:58:46.960
No, I just want to know everybody's thoughts on how the whole thing that you're you're getting to this much narrow corner side. >> So that's so that's true though. But if

617
02:58:46.960 --> 02:59:02.000
you think about what that variance would be versus a sideline to sideline sideline variance when you're starting from scratch, that's an easier one for me to to to grant because it isn't it's in a different location. That house is

618
02:59:02.000 --> 02:59:18.880
all the way up there. But look, I'm not >> Yeah, I know. It's It's We're in a kind of a gray area. We're not in following the normal course of things. I know. >> Um If there were other members, if other

619
02:59:18.880 --> 02:59:35.920
members like one of our members thought we were focused on improper cover, but you have additional issues with regard to the overall location of the house, variances by way of height, by way of combined sign. sometimes you should speak up because the the planner is going to offer an

620
02:59:35.920 --> 02:59:53.520
opinion either C1 or C2 based upon whether or not each individual variance can be carried with their proofs that they presented so far. But if if you're going to this is my thought if you're if you're want to send and see if the

621
02:59:53.520 --> 03:00:11.439
applicant can maybe redesign something to either eliminate or remove entirely or minimize variances that would change the planners testimony for you. So I ready to go forward. Um, no, I do want

622
03:00:11.439 --> 03:00:28.160
to hear more than yes, I focused on the improper because I'm I'm I don't have a huge issue with the sighting in the house. If we can minimize, as Mr. Dr. Lford had pointed out, minimize the the nearness to the house um to the west, that's fine. If anybody has other things

623
03:00:28.160 --> 03:00:44.319
to do on it like you do >> you move the house if you move the house slightly forward would you increase the distance between u that the uh the western side of the house and the adjacent property.

624
03:00:44.319 --> 03:01:04.080
>> That's what I think. >> When you say forward you mean towards >> towards the west? Yeah, I think technically well >> it would improve. >> I'm not the engineer, but it seems to me that it would be this corner setback of the step, right, which is the trigger

625
03:01:04.080 --> 03:01:19.040
point, >> right? >> I mean, I think you improve the proximity to both houses, both the one to the east and to the west by coming forward even 10 ft. You you eliminate the variance to the west. You don't trigger anything to the north. Yeah, you

626
03:01:19.040 --> 03:01:35.920
have a smoke from the garage to the side yard to the side yard there, but it's it's less impactful because there's no neighbor. That's the neighbor showing up. And I like the I like the steps on the on the river side of that uh uh that porch. And uh I too am concerned about

627
03:01:35.920 --> 03:01:53.120
the improved coverage. I think if you resolve that, you move the house slightly forward. I think you're uh I don't have a problem over there. So, >> okay.

628
03:01:53.120 --> 03:02:08.240
>> I mean, we've seen large houses, a particular large house on on a large lot, but we're talking significantly more than the R4 here. We've been a lot more within the house of other. That's why I don't personally don't have

629
03:02:08.240 --> 03:02:25.040
a big issue with the size of the house. It's more the sighting of the house for me. I mean there's no question that this is a unique and special uh premise and I think you have to make a place for a way to stated and I do agree that putting a conformant or ten house on this just

630
03:02:25.040 --> 03:02:40.720
wouldn't make sense to us that's why we're here but given all that um a blank slate be nice to minimize or eliminate various >> right I mean if we can eliminate that

631
03:02:40.720 --> 03:02:59.439
one to the Yes, >> in my opinion that goes a lot. Now, do you trigger by eliminating that or you trigger other said you can further back to eliminate that? There's a possibility. >> Yeah, I asked Mr.

632
03:02:59.439 --> 03:03:14.800
Bringing 30 and I kind of knew the answer before you go stuff. So I think you have to apply um judgment here with what makes sense

633
03:03:14.800 --> 03:03:34.080
given what the zone is but what perhaps where it fits best. >> Do you think that you could Mr. You think you could bring that house forward from the mud room that need move the garage and mud room back and move the house. You know what I'm saying? 140 going back like trying

634
03:03:34.080 --> 03:03:50.800
to the eliminating as much as they can. >> I haven't heard from the applicant and I very much respect the professionals that are trying to guide this homeowner along the way. I haven't heard a single reason why we couldn't have designed a house that would be completely conforming to the R40 standards. And candidly, I don't

635
03:03:50.800 --> 03:04:06.080
care about the 35P. I don't care about the 6,000 square feet. That isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not if you were building it on boarding if you would grant the advantage. That's what I to me that's what it's literally all about. >> But which are 40? What? I'm just trying

636
03:04:06.080 --> 03:04:23.279
to figure out what we're missing. Okay. What what setback aside from the one that Jason house was? >> Well, we haven't done a full analysis of it. my concerns misplaced, >> but I I >> I mean for me it's lot coverage was the one that that that >> So the combined sideyard setbacks are

637
03:04:23.279 --> 03:04:40.160
37. I'm understanding that the combined sideyard setbacks would have to be big >> if we were if we were in our 40s. So that's one. um with regard to the to the width and the additional square uh the additional distance that you would need because the water and looking at it at

638
03:04:40.160 --> 03:04:56.000
150 I think that's neutralized by effectively I mean that's just I think what boing about the proposal is again we're seizing on the lowest common restriction as to a lot of it and then

639
03:04:56.000 --> 03:05:12.800
we're deviating wildly from the core of it and So either you apply it all or you don't and and can get your baby, but I think you take it apart one at a time to get there. I think the law coverage is crazy. I I don't know why you would permit anything more. I mean, this is

640
03:05:12.800 --> 03:05:28.240
30% of an acre and a half or 30. >> No, it's a huge amount of law coverage. >> And and and the other thing is with regard to drainage, I mean, Drew's right here. I mean, they just passed this ordinance. They want a detention basin, like it or not. And so barbecue for me

641
03:05:28.240 --> 03:05:43.359
to say that it's impractical because they haven't shown us any analysis of what they could do if they show us that none of the other things work or it would be too disruptive to the way they work. A long driveway presumably with none of that long being utilized for

642
03:05:43.359 --> 03:05:59.040
normal lawn purposes. It's a detention base. >> If you're not doing it here, you're doing it nowhere ever. >> Yeah. The product. But but again, I I think that what we've heard is that they've come at this from where they are versus what they want to do. And I just

643
03:05:59.040 --> 03:06:14.479
don't think that's the right approach. You got to start with the lot as its own thing and then see if you can build something that conformity. And if you can't, we can give you so you know, I think there was some effort to make comparison to what's

644
03:06:14.479 --> 03:06:29.920
there existing. And I this is obviously a world use of the property. Mr. Anderson sign is is something you bring that but if you're going to tear down the the house I think the arguments focus there kind of goes away

645
03:06:29.920 --> 03:06:48.960
>> no that goes away so you come in as conforming as you can and it's said there's going to be some things in the 40 that you're not going to be able to pull off but what else can we pull off >> honestly don't think any needs further

646
03:06:48.960 --> 03:07:06.640
reset that so you heard kind of where Yeah, I I I have and it was kind of I was getting an impression of if we address these three things, we can kind of blaze forward and and that I I do feel the pressure from the applicant to do so candidly. Um but and hearing more

647
03:07:06.640 --> 03:07:22.160
of the commentary, I don't think that's >> I'm just one vote. All you need is a majority. You got all your guys here. We'll stack. Let's go. You can put I'm happy to to, you know, put a debate if if that's what it takes. So you've kind of heard how people feel, right? Some

648
03:07:22.160 --> 03:07:39.359
people are okay with the size. Some people aren't. And you only need you need four out of seven. So um there are for these sticking points, there's way too much invers. >> Sure. And if we were to represent that, we could reduce that by the let's say

649
03:07:39.359 --> 03:07:55.760
the 3% or whatever and make a representation. You haven't seen that on a plan. I could tell you where it's coming out of. >> Yeah. have to I I honestly would have to see something. >> Right. So, where I'm going with this is do are we even in a position to go forward and bring it to finality even if we can overcome some of these hurdles

650
03:07:55.760 --> 03:08:13.040
tonight or do is it the board's pleasure to us to come back with the full analysis? >> I mean, normally my my ideas is is I'd like to put that as many of as many cases I can while we're all here and we're all deeply invested in it. That being said, for me personally, I need to

651
03:08:13.040 --> 03:08:29.680
see something because saying, "Oh, yeah, we're going to remove 3%." Really isn't doing it. I need to see some something on paper. I don't That's just me. If anybody else has has a different >> You could always you could always proceed vote and if you approve it, make it subject to seeing plans that that I mean, you don't have to do the whole

652
03:08:29.680 --> 03:08:46.040
thing or carry it if that's if that's if that's all. >> I'm just thinking in terms of everybody's here. We have scheduling issues like crazy. I don't want to have to make you come back for something that we can put fake time. Thanks.

653
03:08:46.640 --> 03:09:04.880
All right. Um I I guess there's I guess you want Do you want to present your planning testimony? I guess I have to let you go forward. Yeah. >> I think you should absolutely hear from the public. We got people here. for open.

654
03:09:04.880 --> 03:09:21.880
>> Well, you didn't do it for general comment. You did it for >> all the public now then. Is there any member of the public that has any questions of the professionals or has comments in general? Please speak now. Glad the rec.

655
03:09:22.640 --> 03:09:40.399
So, um yeah, Mr. Sardo, you want to have your planner testify? I'd be happy to >> um can you give me just like can I ask for two minutes? >> Yes. >> I'm going to just I'm just going to go through because the average is getting late. I'm just going to go through and

656
03:09:40.399 --> 03:10:03.760
administrative. >> Um >> I don't want two days to leave. >> That's okay. Resolution from R gas 10 way back road. I'll make a motion to approve submitted >> motion second. >> Yes.

657
03:10:03.760 --> 03:10:29.720
>> Yes. >> Dr. >> Mrs. Mr. I was recused. >> Yes. So resolution from Flanigan 223rd Street. I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. >> Second.

658
03:10:34.720 --> 03:10:52.560
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. >> I recuse myself. >> Mr. I abstain on that >> Mr.

659
03:10:52.560 --> 03:11:49.399
>> Yes. Then it's from April, 2026. >> Mr. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. Thank you. Um probably days I'll share with here

660
03:11:52.240 --> 03:12:06.399
>> Mr. She >> here >> um I've talked to the applicant and um as much as we like to perceive tonight, I think that there's things we need to to look at, comments we need to respond

661
03:12:06.399 --> 03:12:23.359
to and and have that clearly delineated as to what how we're responding and then be in a place with our planner being prepared to also address some of the analysis and things that um we've heard tonight which I don't know that he's prepared to do. So, with that said, I I

662
03:12:23.359 --> 03:12:39.120
would ask uh if it's possible, I know that the board's got the June agenda um that has three applications already. I I would ask just to be listed on it in the event someone falls off or if something goes through just so we would have the

663
03:12:39.120 --> 03:12:56.160
chance of an opportunity. >> I think we >> Okay, I appreciate that. and I know the applicant would and um I don't think the kinds of things we need to make changes to are going to be of the magnitude that's going to take us a long time to do. So I believe we probably can get

664
03:12:56.160 --> 03:13:12.160
that. What is the what is the date again? >> That is a quick term. Um okay I I I don't think any any changes in two weeks right it's fine >> like if you did revive the plan and

665
03:13:12.160 --> 03:13:31.760
submit we can do that in two weeks. >> Okay. Request to adjourn. Wave time limits from the writing to the secretary. >> No stipulation extension time. >> Yep. >> Yes. I will send email correspondence to

666
03:13:31.760 --> 03:14:01.520
Miss Olson tomorrow confirming that. >> Okay. Motion to move to June full. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> open public public comment. Yeah, maybe

667
03:14:01.520 --> 03:14:39.920
it >> Thank you for staying all >> right motion. >> Wait, do we have three tonight. >> Jordan, did you want to Did you have

668
03:14:39.920 --> 03:14:56.239
something to discuss storm water or >> I I think I just said zoning which keeps pushing. I think that's probably >> Yeah. No, zoning. We're waiting for Still waiting. >> Is Drew still here? >> No, I think he left. >> So, should we assign Le Franks? >> Yes. Yeah.

669
03:14:56.239 --> 03:15:16.319
>> So, interception. Thank you. For the record of I am assigning the duty, relieving Mr. Mr. Ryan of his brave past service. Mr. Forte and Mr. La will be completing the 125 zone for

670
03:15:16.319 --> 03:15:28.600
>> got to be 24. >> 24 25 start 26. >> I don't think we need to vote on it. I think this is like order.