Yeah, >> this is a regular meeting of the Fington Zoning Board of Adjustment. Notice this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. At the time of the board reorganization in January this year, the board adopted regular meeting schedule for noticees schedule sent to and published in the park press on January
31st, 2025 and the and the two times on January 23rd, 2025. That notice is also posted on the B board hall and has remained continuously hosted various reports of the statute. Copy the notice is and has been available to Republicans on file the office of cler. Copy the
notice has also been sent to members of the public as it requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the state and the minutes. >> Oh, sorry the hat. No, I'll catch up with that.
>> Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I'd like to say a few words to the applicants or experts in the audience about the role and authority of the freight and zoning board of adjustment. The board is a separate independent municipal legal entity and its limited authority was specifically set forth in Burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipalities law. It's quasi judicial
nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and council. Zoning board does not enact the burdens laws of regulations council act. Zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough of fair haven. This is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer. This board deals with appeals for relief and
the requirements of the bureau zoning laws or denials by the zoning officer. An applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal landings law and the ordinances by satisfying certain
required standards approved. The board has no authority to wave these requirements. Word of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled specifically requested. The applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh the detriment of
its own plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations. Roll call please. >> Mr. Mitch >> here. >> Mrs. D'Angelo >> here. Mr. Ryan >> here. >> Mr. Forte >> here. >> Dr. Lawer. Mrs. Newman
>> here. Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Aliance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Okay, we have three matters on the agenda tonight. New business, but I understand that not all of these are proceeding. First one on the list is the rainy matter. Rainy rainy matter proceeding today. Yes. >> Uh the other one, let's just make sure we've addressed the ones that aren't
being heard. >> Uh 66 Kemp Avenue, LLC. Is that being heard today? >> No, they requested her. >> Okay. They have also requested that we take jurisdiction, confirm their notice. That's up to the distraction of the board to do that. the
the effect of that is to do to be the courtesy to them so that we can then set a date without having to have them make notice. >> So, I want to comment to the board on this before we do anything with regard to their request. Um, it it's starting
to seem to me like we have some applicants that are providing notice and then are carrying their matters not after being heard, not an extension, but rather just not being heard and asking to not have to renotice. If you have something going on in your neighborhood that you're interested in, the last
thing you want to do is leave work early to come here for a meeting that doesn't happen and you really lose the effect of the notices if you wind up not believing that they're actually going to go forward on that night. And so I'm going to suggest to the board members with regard to 66 county that we proceed with
a request because this is the first time that they've made such a request. But I'm going to further suggest to the board that in the future that we not be as willing to grant these extensions without the obligation to renotice for the good of the neighborhood and people's ability to rely on the notices
and the the dates being um real. So I I don't need any commentary unless anybody strongly disagrees with mayor wants to tell me that. But having that may I ask do we have jurisdiction over this matter? >> Yes. >> Okay. have jurisdiction and they've
asked Gary for a date >> January 9th >> January 9th >> what what was the we've had this discussion on the side what is the agenda for January right now >> uh just the at this point it's just the reorganization but we do have this
matter that would carry and then the the following but they're not available for that date so they would like to come >> believe it's January 8th >> sorry >> January 8th Yeah, January. >> Okay. So then if we move 66 count to January, there's no one else on January.
So it doesn't create a problem for anybody. >> Right. >> Okay. I'll make the motion to carry it subject to a written stipulation of extension of time with no requirement to renote. >> You know what? Let me I'm sorry. I I forgot. We do have the Hagerty
application which is carried to January. >> Already married to January. >> Yeah. So >> 66 would be two. Okay. Sorry. >> I think they're both aren't they? >> Yeah, >> that's fine. Doesn't change my motion.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. D'Angelo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Mr. Forte. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gella. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr.
>> Yes. Kowalsski. Oh, Federo, sorry. >> What's the history of this one? These >> that was the the question of the notice that they um omitted. >> They failed to they failed to provide
adequate utilities. >> So, they've not carried before. Correct. >> No. >> No, they were supposed to be on tonight. >> Okay. And they're asking for an extension to February because they can't they can't be here in January. Correct. >> And they getting you giving you a
written stipulation of extension time to act. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I'd like to speak about the notice issue, but I suggest that we deal with that at the end um during administrative. So I'll make a motion to uh carry the Federo uh matter to the
February what meeting? >> February 12th. >> February 12th meeting. >> Sorry. Is that >> the holiday weekend? >> It's the week after the holiday. Y established yet can >> well I mean it hasn't been officially
>> has been officially >> adopted >> but they haven't noticed properly anyway so you can't >> right and they have >> I got a good feeling about that date >> and if it changes we'll address January >> okay >> you have a second >> yeah I second
>> Mr. >> yes >> Mrs. D'Angelo >> yes Ryan >> yes Yes. >> Mrs. Newman. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I didn't vote. >> Oh, Mr.
>> How about that being out of the way? Rain the application, please. You have jurisdiction at this time. >> Yes. people up and watching the testify. I think they're going to testify. Mike testify
the testimony. The whole truth about the truth. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Just state before you start testifying back. before you start testifying stationing the record spelling your last name follow the direction of your
council um commission gentlemen if I'd like to mark somehow A1 is the statement legal base assisted variances land development applicated checklist and zoning board adjustment application
A2 are the architectural plot plan by David T daily architect revised in June 4th, 2025. A3 is the survey by Ronald Trinidad dated June 11, 2024.
A4 is the zoning board objective resolution um prior resolution dated July of 1985 addressing a deck in the shed. A5 is the dorm board objective resolution of July uh 7th, 2000
addressing any second story edition. A6 is planning board resolution dated April 5th, 2000. This is a subdivision. A7 will be the zoning permit denial prepared by the owning officer dated March 31st, 2025.
A eight or seven color photographs of the subject dwelling in adjacent properties undated. That is all I have for exhibits for the applicant. CB1 will be the review letter by CME signatur
October 1st 2025. ZV2 again a CV CME letter December 2nd 2025. Um the signature and I guess are there any waiver issues that we should address? Um, really quick
for the exhibits, um, there was an additional survey submitted this week by email, uh, with building pointer. >> Yes. >> Elevations. I don't know if you want to introduce that other explain, but I think that'd be important for the application. >> Yeah, we might as well go ahead and mark
that. >> That would be an additional exhibit, >> the applicant. >> Yes. >> So that we're at A9. You just read that into the record for me, please. It's a um location survey by Ronald
Trinidad um dated June 11th, 2024 with a revision of November 10th, 2025. 11, 10, and 25.
>> Yes. >> And then as far as checklist waivers, there's just one. It is uh the 200 foot uh property owners list. >> I they do have it on the plot plan. Would that be acceptable to you? >> Yeah, I don't take exception to the waiver. I do see it on the plot plan.
So, I think that that's fine. The actual document from the burrow was not submitted to me. >> Okay. We we we submitted that. So, but it's on the plan. >> Yeah. Either way, I'll come into that.
>> All that I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Rossky, on behalf of the applicants, Kenneth and Elaine Rainey. The application before you this evening pertains to the property located at 67
Willow Street um here in your R5 zone. Uh the application seeks variance uh relief to permit uh the construction of a of a two-story addition to the rear of the property uh to the rear of the home.
Um the uh uh the application uh necessitates a couple of variances. Two specifically there are a couple of first there are a couple of existing conditions. One is with respect for the lot depth. The required lot depth um in
the R5 zone as you know is 100 ft. Property is just shy it's it's about 95.4t uh on the lot depth. Um that's one existing condition. Second condition is and and that existing condition is is
relevant to to the the new relief being sought. And the second uh existing condition is for front setback existing front setback for the home the existing home uh uh 25 ft is required in in the R5.
Uh the home itself is set back 25 ft. However, the porch the front porch is set back 18.6 ft. That's not being affected here. It's not being changed uh by the application. Um the home is uh is
we think built around 1920 or so. So it's over 100 years old. Um the Iranianis have lived in it for 32 years or so uh with their family. Um and uh um
and they're looking to do what I would describe as a modest addition to a to a modest home. Uh the existing home is got an 881 square foot footprint. Um and they're looking to uh and it's two
stories. Uh so uh it's got uh approximately 1762 square ft uh in total. Uh and they're looking to put on a uh an approximate uh um
addition of 324 ft to the uh footprint. So 648 square foot addition proposed addition. Um the property is uh um well under with respect to lot coverage.
It's well under with respect to building coverage. It's well under with respect to floor area ratio. However, the new variances that we that we need to achieve this addition this this um 684t addition are one is the rear setback. So
the rear setback that is required in the R2 zone is 30 ft. Um what's being proposed as part of the application is 27.1 ft. Um, and what you'll hear uh with respect to the testimony is that with
respect to that rear setback, and I'm sure you've looked at it, um, it it it's it's a little unusual or I mean it it's you've seen it before, but it's an existing condition whereby the property
is a corner lot. Um and so the rear of the property where they're proposing this addition actually is adjacent to the sideyard setback of the immediately adjacent property right on Oak. And so as a result
um you know even though uh our so so our rear yard the applicant's rear yard is adjacent to the next property's sideyard and and we'll go through that and so and so you'll see that even though um we
don't hold the 30-foot required setback and with respect to the proposal we do have 27.1 speed um But we're bumping up to the sideyard of the adjacent home, right? So I mean, you know, where and the sideyard set back is
seven feet. So I mean, theoretically, if the house was uh torn down and fronting um frontage to the other street, you know, it could be a house could be as close as seven feet to that to that adjacent property. So just point that out in terms of putting it into
perspective. So we need the rear set back 27.1 ft where 30 is required and we need the maximum floor area but we need maximum floor area not floor area ratio which we comply maximum floor area in the R5 as you know 2200 square ft is
permitted and um what we're proposing with this addition gets us to 2410 2200 permitted 2410 posed and what you'll see as as we when we get to Mr. um uh Daly's testimony,
the architect um the again modest house, 1700 square and change square foot house proposed to be a 2410, no issues with coverage. Um it's exists at three bedrooms and it was
proposed with the proposal and the expansion will be three bedrooms. Uh uh as a result, you'll see you you're seen on the second floor that second floor edition basically um enlarges an existing one of the existing bedrooms.
And then the real driving force um uh is with respect to that 324 square ft that's proposed to be added on the first floor which gives the Rainies a little bit of a of a family room where they can
fit, you know, more than the two of them and and and one or two kids. Um it gives them a better family gathering area. So that's really the genesis and motivation behind the behind the application. So I
think in a nutshell that kind of summarizes um I think summarizes everything that we've we've got puts it into perspective >> on on the existing uh rear yards 38.6 Six on the CME looks and face to the
second stair. Is that to the deck it says the principal structure that I assume that's actually to the deck? >> Yeah, >> that's going to be that's correct. So attached accessory structures cal >> and I'm taking my number to the base of the settings there. >> So even though the bulk isn't there,
it's actually going to be further back from where the deck extends into the setback now. Is that correct? >> That's right. >> Go forward improvement over those things. Okay. A and also thank you. I just do also want to point out that there's no increase uh to to the lot
coverage because the proposed addition is going over an already impervious deck uh that's existing. So we don't have any increase in the lot coverage. There may be a slight decrease. I'm not sure. Okay. >> Mr. Rosski, can you speak to the the and and you mentioned the 96 foot depth of
the lot. Yes. I've got paperwork from a subdivision that was done in 2000. Can you speak to the what was there before and how that changed and how we got to 96 feet >> the 95.4 for I don't I don't know Jim if you have >> yeah any
idea on the fire subdivisions >> okay so something >> so what originally when I uh bought the house in 93 I had all backyard own actually six inches off the back corner of my house the people behind me to the right a little bit had absolutely zero
backyard and all sideyard so what we did back then was that He subdivided and made it conforming for both lots. So he could have a backyard and six feet off the side of his house and I could have a backyard and a side door cuz I'm on the corner. So that was how we approached that back then.
>> So you spoke Mr. Yeah. Um Mr. Ros spoke to the the house off the back. What was that what was that setback like before you did the submission? because now he's probably got what seven feet or five feet or
whatever it is from the corner of that house to the rear lot to the rear lot line. >> I believe he has six feet. Well, it's Steve Sheen's house. He has six feet off the side of the house which back when I did it requirement was only 5T setbacks before the town changed it to 10 feet later on. So, so we gave him six feet
and then you know that's how we went about the house. >> That all that happened. You gave him a piece of your property. You >> we traded it. >> What? What did you get? >> Can you think you can just like trace with your finger maybe? So basically they were long narrow lots.
My lot was the width, let's say 30 feet by 166 ft deep. He had about the same width and the same length going this way. So like I said, he had zero backyard. He didn't even have a back door to his house because he had zero backyard and I owned six inches off the
back corner of the house. So if this was the existing house here, this was my existing house right here. This is the addition house. So I gained sideyard. His house was right here and he had all sideyard going like this up to all along
Oak and up to >> Oh, I see. So his lot went all the way to to Willow then. >> Willow. Yeah. And mine my lot was right here. Went all the way back down past his house. >> Show it on that one, Ken. >> Okay. Yeah. >> On this one. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, yeah. So, here's we're
going So, yeah. So, yeah. So the I built out towards Oak and I he had all this property. He had all this property from here here and I had this property going back behind his house to here up to Oak also.
So they're just narrow lots not very wide. >> If you if you look at the top left corner of A1 >> Yeah. the two lots to the left of this. But here's what those two call their lots.
>> I got it. >> Did your house Your house hasn't changed since then. It's fit. It fit on the original lot. >> No. So, after we made it conforming, I put an addition on. My joke always was I doubled the size of my house and made it
twice as small. So, the what it is, so I just went out to the left towards Oak. >> Okay. And like I said, he now he had a whole backyard he could use because he had nothing. And he owned six feet off the side of his house, which is >> But that required a variance to go to 96 ft from where 100 is required. You just couldn't
>> Right. I couldn't go back any further. I couldn't go back because back then was 5T were required off the side of his house. >> Right. Right. >> Right. And so and now and that's now the existing condition that has >> Mr. Broky, can you run through the other pre-existing nonconformities because it seems like there's quite a few other
pre-existing non-conformities. would like to understand what went out. >> Sure. So, with regard to the pre-existing nonconformities, what I have is the lot depth that we just discussed and the front setback of
the existing home. >> I didn't see the front yard setback mentioned anywhere in the resolution. It's three separate resolutions on this property highly unusual. When was the front porch installed? Is there a variance for this?
>> I'm not aware. Yeah. >> Front porch. >> Yeah. >> So, the front porch was added back in 2000. I mean, the right here, the house, if you're looking at my house to the left, was always existing. So, what I did is my front porch that is set back
like a foot and a half on the addition side was installed in 2000. You get the front of the house, the lower side of the survey. I've not followed any of the things that you've done on the survey. That that's the corner, right? So, it sits like this with your house in the middle of it.
>> This right here, >> you're pointing at the house, right? >> Right. >> Where are the roads? >> The road is right here. Here. Here is uh Willow and this is Oak right here. >> Is that Oh, >> I'm sorry. Right here. I'm sorry. Yeah. This is uh this is Steve Sheen's right here. Right here. So, the streets out
here. No, here's >> oaks. Oak. >> Sorry, guys. I don't like glasses on. This is real small. >> Oak. >> Yeah. >> Oak and >> Oh, we're little. I'm sorry. Yep. I should have been able to see that. Big enough writing. Yeah. So, this is the front of my house. Here's the front
porch that was existing right here. This park is set back about a foot and a half that was added in 2000. And this is the front of the house right here. So, here's Willow and here's Oak. This is Steve Sheen's house right here that has six feet off the side of his house right there. And this is his backyard now
which he had on because originally it went back like that and he had no backyard. >> So when was the Porsche installed that what Mr. Bro what what is the required front yard set 25 ft? >> Required is 25 where the helm sits >> the porch is at 18 and a half.
>> Okay. And is that mentioned in the revolution? How how new is the porch? >> 2000. Yeah. the uh the the the porch looking at the house to the right right here that this is Willow Street looking at the house. This side of the right
hand side was uh built in 2000. >> Is that the same time that the addition was put on? >> Yes, that is the this side of the house right here is the addition. Okay. >> That started in 99, ended in January 2000. >> The addition's on the oak side of of the >> Yes, there's a photo on page seven of my
letter. I think you can pretty clearly see what the addition is. You look at the notch out where that porch is and you go and chop that that block off that that's the addition. >> So >> yeah, but the porch set back a little bit there. >> It is, but that that is where the demarcation line is. So if you draw a
line straight up, >> so okay. >> So I'm going to correct what I said because the 2000 resolution is so detailed. It actually does call out the front yard setback at 18.83. Is that where we are? >> 18.83.
>> Yeah, I see 186 and 18. on this close enough >> 18.6, right? >> So So this resolution addresses the front yard. >> Yep. >> The planning board subdivision resolution addresses the short lot. >> What other pre-existing non-performings are? >> That's all I have. There's two. I have
those two. >> Those two and only those two. >> Okay. I now understand. >> Okay. Um uh Mr. daily. Uh you've been sworn if you could just uh for the
record give uh the board the benefit uh of your background and experience as a licensed architect here in New Jersey. >> Yes, I've uh testified before the boarding floor and uh been licensed since 1991, went to NGI, a degree in architecture
and >> and you've testified before this board. Have you lost any certification since the last time I accepted you as an expert in architecture? >> What was that question? >> Have you lost any? >> No. No, I have not. I just recently read. >> Anyone have any objections to accept Mr. Daily once again as an expert in
architecture? >> Okay. All right. Mr. Dailyaly and of course you prepared the architectural plans that have been submitted as part of this application and that have been marked as um A2. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. So, I see you have a board up there. just describe what first of all
let's let me tell me is that an exact copy of of that of what has been submitted or is there some color added to it? >> Uh well there was color added to it just to >> Okay, >> Doug, do we need to >> you can mark that as what are we up to? A10.
>> A10. >> Okay. And >> mark the board A10 while you're sending it. >> Put A10. And that's that's uh so to say it's it's an exact copy of what's been submitted except for various highlights. Okay.
>> Go ahead. Ah 8 A10 and referring to that if you could just walk the board through the site as it is today. >> Right. It's it it's all the stuff you mentioned prior plus uh the fact that um >> just going back to if you look at the survey too, there's the uh the striped
section here that's that's shaded that that that was um previously there was deck there. I'll I'll get to the plans in a second, but it's smaller than deck, but there's a deck there now. That's going to get removed. And then the addition is within the confines of the deck. So, it's probably a foot less from
the rear and 2 ft in from the two sides of of the current deck. That's that's the size of the addition. 324 square ft. >> And and that's on both levels. It's it's the same exact size on on two stories. >> Okay. >> Um
then what else we got here? You've discussed the setbacks already that the the 27.1 in the rear. Um, all the other setbacks are existing. Um, he has this little shed in the back
that's that's on there. Also, can you talk about the accessory structures in that area? I I saw two um storage containers. Are those going to be removed? >> Uh, yes. There's just going to be removed flat, right? Yeah. They're going
to be removed. Yes. Yes. Yeah. As a part of this. Yes. And then the generator that's there is going to be relocated. Uh that's >> uh maybe closer to the corner of the backyard of the house but not exceeding the sideyard. >> Yeah, it's got to conform with this
location. What are these two pre-existing conformities with regard to whether it's path? You didn't mention those existing. >> They weren't mentioned because the plan shows them to be removed. I just wanted to clarify on the record tonight that
they'll be removed. Why are they there in the in proper location? >> To answer that. >> So, the they're just little like Rubbermaid sheds that I got from Home Depot that I just need to store some furniture in,
outdoor furniture, nothing big, you know, not anything per not permanent super structure or anything like that. And they're I just emptied them out, so they're going to be removed. Got it. All right. So, that's that's that's the sheds and uh the generator and then uh I
think we go this point go to the plan itself. >> Let me see what you have there. >> A2. >> Um okay. >> Colorized rendering the house. >> Yeah. >> Right. A slight uh gray shading here for the the addition itself. we added.
So, this is the existing floor plan of the house. Got orange, white around it. And we're maintaining three bedrooms and that's what's there now. And we're just making one of the bedrooms bigger and then we're getting some extra closets.
When this was built in 1920, the closets are pretty small. There's almost no closets originally. Can you talk about the existing bedrooms? I see existing master bedroom, existing bedroom in the front left. is the third one in the in the back left. >> Correct. So, there's a bedroom there now and some of that bedroom will be used
for additional closets for that bedroom and then >> so that so it's essentially shrinking to put the linen closet and expanded bathroom and then now correct bedrooms just pushing to the back level. >> Correct. Yeah, it's an extension of of the bed part of the existing house will be part of the bedroom and then you're
extending you know making the bedroom a little bit. >> How big is that existing bedroom? Looks like a closet. Oh, it's pretty much Yeah. >> No, I was confused with that front. >> This was the existing bedroom right here. >> Oh, I see. And you're >> Yeah. See the dark walls?
>> Yeah. >> Those are getting added into what the existing. >> How much of the existing house was added in 2000? >> The whole red side. >> This whole This whole right side here >> on both levels. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. And that brought it up to the 1764. Correct. >> How many square feet was this house originally? >> The original house was just this little >> If you know the house next to it, you can see what the original house. >> Oh, probably had two bedrooms upstairs
and small bathroom. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It looks great. >> I mean, even now the the rooms, if you even look downstairs, the the um the existing dining room in the front here, pretty small rooms >> and then on the third floor.
>> So, yeah. So, here's the third floor coming in. You have the stairs going up. That's that's going to a basement. And we pulled If you look on on that same thing, you see that dotted line? That's where the deck was. the D line to the perimeter.
So, we came in a little over two feet off of both side corners and then a foot off the back deck this way. So, this is 11 ft six on the right side. This is 13 ft six on this side.
>> And that's creating that room that we we talked about, correct? That >> I mentioned. And this gives you a family room on the first floor. >> Okay. And then on the second floor over top of that same footprint, we've got the extension of the bedroom that we just talked about. And then the master
bedroom stays the same. And then that that gets an additional part of that room is walk-in closet for the that third bedroom. And then the rest of it is a walk-in closet for the master bedroom. >> Why are there so many closets on the second?
>> They're adding 160 square ft of closet. So, you've had two cracks at this already in terms of making it useful. It is inaccurate to say that it's back to the 20s because the house was substantially remodeled, I assume, completely 25 years ago, but I'm looking
at the utilization of space. Look, you can go up to 2200. The issue of the setback can be discussed independently, but you're going over 2200 by 200 and something, right? I'm looking at utilization and most of what you're adding in the back right is all closet.
And as I look across the floor plan to see what you've got for other closets, a lot of closets on the second floor. What what are we using all this space for? Well, it's mainly it's an extension of the one bedroom. And honestly, these are
not large closets over here. This this this was their master closet before. It's just a script closet. And then this is a little six foot long closet for that front bedroom which is very small. >> But there's a second closet there too, right? >> Yeah. Well, then here's your master closet. >> No, no, in the front left room. >> Well, yeah. This little two.
>> No, no, no. The front the other >> this one here. >> Nope. The other one. >> Yes. Yep. Down left >> over here. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's the closet for this this that little six foot. >> And then there's another one there, right? >> Yeah. This one down like this little thing over the stairs.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Like >> Yeah. Little mark. Is that a closet? >> Um, yeah, that's a small closet, but it's just like what's left over over top of a stairwell. >> So, it's a it's not much of a usable closet, honestly. Neither is this over
here. This is a linen closet here. >> So, um, and that one should be labeled as a >> What do you use for >> that? Oh, that's a original. That's like the original closet from the original house.
It literally is like this wide and not very deep and it's just extra clothes closet. You know, that was my daughter's bedroom. So, we kind of just try to do what we can. You know, that we had to get a bed. We had drawers underneath the bed to keep her clothes and everything like that. So, it was never easy, but we
made it work. >> Is there an attic? >> There is an attic. >> Pull downstairs. Correct. >> Pull down steps in the hallway. >> And then when basement's finished, please. >> Yes. Well, ceilings aren't just when I did the
addition in um 2000, the existing basement, uh the new basement got um finished, but no sheetrock on the ceiling >> cuz it's the low ceiling. There's no grease in the >> Is there foundation going in under the under the addition? >> Base. What's that? >> Is there additional basement under the new addition? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Okay.
>> I just want to clarify there's an existing seller and then there's an expansion on the seller. So, yeah. Just just so clear. The subsurface >> right >> was not included as a story nor square footage and they provided the necessary um average resisting grade calculation
demonstrate that if you held the 30 foot mirror setback could you tell us how that would impact your architectural design and how would would affect the utility of what you're trying to do on the first floor and the second
Well, it pretty much made this as it is. I think this is kind of a narrow space here, the the 13 ft, but that you know what what people today consider a family room. Uh so that would take 3 ft off that. So you'd have a a family room that's 10 ft wide by
>> 26 ft long, which pretty narrow. >> What's the room with all the stairs there on the first floor when you walk in? >> That's just a foyer entry for it from the original house. 25 to 71st floor footprint. It's not used for anything. >> No, that's that that's that already
existed there. Unless you he has to completely remodel that to you know that's what was there. I'm I'm sure see see this little powder room. I'm sure you know he this was before you even went there. But I'm sure that powder room wasn't there. This was a room. This stair wasn't here. You had the stair
going on. That's back then they said if I did anything with the stairs I'd have to make it conforming which would be make it wider >> because they're a little bit you know they're older steps so they're a little bit more narrow and the town back then said just don't touch them you'll be fine. >> So what do you use that area for? >> That's just when you walk in the front
door. It's just like where you hang your coats. I got a half a bath right there to the right and you know little hallway that walks into my dining room or you go straight out into my living room. >> Were both of those stairwells there originally? The water >> one to the B one to the B seller. >> No, the basement one. No,
>> no, >> the basement one I had to add. Uh because that those put that under the one that went up to the second floor >> because originally because that's where a closet is underneath the steps going upstairs and that's very narrow and that's where my original steps were right there. was very narrow and I just
felt as a safety issue you know you know I wanted to do something different and you know so then the architects I used at the time put the step that's you know legal size steps you know going down into the basement in the middle of the house you normally if you have a step going to a basement older house like
that the the foundation bumps out so we'd have like a twoft wide basement there is what you'd end up with if you did that >> and that also goes with the part where the town said don't mess with the steps. So, I couldn't get a wider step uh stairwell going down into the basement
because I would have had to mess with the steps and would have just threw a monkey wrench and me everything. I mean, you added in an entire half of the house. I just feels like that would have been an opportunity to put in stairs
pop the bottom on the new side of the house and and eliminate those obstructions to you know like you said about 25%. >> You're probably you're probably right. I'm not going to argue about that, but back then I was a lot younger. I didn't have as much money back then and I did
what I could with stay within my budget. Strain, can you describe what's going to happen with the the vegetation in the back? There's a pretty substantial tree and some shrubbery. Is that going to you going to be able to work on that or you have nothing to rip that out?
>> Well, right now there are no um the no trees in the rear just they're just bushes. Um >> just like some >> Oh, yeah. Well, that that tree, I'll be honest with you, uh God bless her. My mother-in-law who passed a few years ago gave me that tree. It was a little stick
and I did everything I could to make it grow into a big tree like that. I love that tree. My main thing is is I want to see if I can save that tree because that tree does mean a lot to me and my wife. So, I really would love to get a professional in here, dig it up if I could, and replant it.
>> And what about the other plantings that are now >> Yeah, I'd love all that stuff. I'm going to definitely um save what I can save and >> replace >> replace it or redo because you know if you knew my wife she loves her landscaping
kind of putting things out from you know place sideboard where your addition would go right where that vegetation is. >> Excuse me. Can you repeat that? >> So that vegetation is going to help to screen where your addition is coming >> right. Yeah. Yeah. I would like to uh
absolutely put some kind of um something where you know looks beautiful and kind of grows and >> and the addition is going to go right on where that deck >> right right where the deck is. >> Is there any plans to do anything with the drainage coming off the addition drive all
>> Well, right now I don't have any problems with water in the basement or anything like that. I never did. Um, so, uh, not not not to my knowledge. I mean, I had a sump pump down there, but no pump in it, and I never have
water. >> And you're not increasing the coverage at all. It's not decreasing. >> Okay. >> There's a condition where the opposite. >> No, not at all.
>> It doesn't have to be by a professional. I'm just saying >> something that the engineer would do. >> Sure. >> Before you you switch to the elevations, could you go back to the um floor plans for a second? >> I want to point out for the board that I
came up with a floor area calculation that was 8 square feet more. And the reason for that is in the first floor front left there's a bump out. It's a bay window. Um my interpretation at the time is that the town's floor area that's 8 square
feet but that's that's the delta and my number in the report which is 2418 versus the number that's been redundant at 24 pics and there's a photo of that on page uh seven of my life show
user Now, >> uh the basement right now, I mean, uh basically when I had kids, they're moved out now. They're adults. Um just play area, build our toys down there and watching TV, play video games. >> So, it's finished and usable. >> Yeah. Right now, just storage.
>> What about your attic? >> Attic is just storage, not finished. Now, >> what's the what's the height of the attic to the roof? Uh well, you know, it does go up as uh depending on where you're standing in the attic, but if you
stood perfectly in the center of the attic to the top ridge, it's probably about 10 ft. >> 10 ft. >> Yeah. The framers really bitched about framing that attic when the architect gave it to them 25 years ago. >> Did you explore the possibility of using
that space and finishing it with warmers in order to make some additional space on your second floor? >> No, I would never do that. >> Why? It's to me it doesn't make sense. Well, it doesn't, you know, why first of all, I got full steps in the hallway. I have nowhere to add steps in the house
upstairs to go upstairs. Um, it's unfinished. It's >> I'm not suggesting you live up there in its existing condition, just to be clear. >> Yeah. >> But you're allowed to do that. >> Oh, well, no. >> Versus what you're not allowed to do, which is this, which is why you're here. >> Well, yeah. I mean, I'm getting older.
My knees are getting taught, so I'm not going up any more steps than I have Stephanie. That's the highest point. So then what does it come down to on the sides? >> It comes down as far as maybe um five and a half ft
on the sides. >> So Mr. Daly, how short are you on the interior setback? Three feet. >> Three feet. Correct. >> And there was no way to design this and give the same interior space without >> really. I mean part of it is the fact that it's the the lot itself. If it was a
conforming lot to the 100 ft, then we'd be okay, for instance. But it's a shorter lot and he did the lot swap. So that's part of the reason why the the lot is short. So that's a factor here. Um >> well, he doesn't suffer from a problem by adhering to the front yard setback.
It's been deviated from that by seven or eight feet already. The house is effectively already been pushed forward. Right >> now you're pushing it back and not fitting in the back either. >> Um and and what about the square footage? What if you were to trim this to the 2200 which is per minute? What would happen then?
>> I pretty much take off the additional it's >> Mr. D in fairness in fairness for the record. >> Yes. >> So what you have right now is 17 777 >> 1772
>> 1772. So you are legally permitted to expand the house by 228 + 200. So 400 I I would certainly think that that almost 500 square feet you could add if you were able to put it in your setbacks and not be here. So what
would that look like? I assume at least at least the value isn't bad. Sure, but um it would be 200 ft less than what we're talking about here. So >> I mean you could do the entire first floor edition. >> Yeah. You wouldn't be able to do it on
two floors. >> Not the exact same foot. No, it would have to be 200 ft smaller. >> But but what would that look like? >> Um I I don't see how >> like a a family room that was 18 by
>> you'd have to substantially >> by 13. >> You'd have to substantially remove or reconstruct part of the existing house. That's what ends up happening in these deals because you got these old houses that have these small rooms. So then you'd have to reconfigure
um certainly the second floor in order to and reconstruct it in order to >> and then on the first floor it would just reduce the depth of that family room, right? >> Correct. >> By 3 ft. >> You'd have to take out this whole back wall, you know, it's a structural problem. It's a it's a cost structural
problem. probably cost about the same amount of money, believe it or not. But, you know, construction wise, because because you got to go back into the existing house and reconstruct it. >> If you if you if you pushed the right wall of the addition 7 ft to the left,
you'd cut 200 square ft off of the addition. You'd have a 17 by13 family room and you'd have 100 square feet less of walk-in closet on two rooms that already have
other closets and you'd be compliant. >> Well, you wouldn't make this rear set back then, >> right? you still wouldn't you're not going to make the rear set back, but you wouldn't be over the cap and and you have an argument for the rear setback because
the re you have a short length length of your lot. >> So, let's do it this way instead. Rather than trying to figure out what you might have done, tell us what you did. What was the what was the the goal of this design was to do well? I mean, the
rationale was to extend the size of the onebedroom, which was quite small to start with, to be able to get an increased bathroom size here, which was quite small. Uh, and then >> what's the size what's the size of the bedroom that you're expanding right now? What's the existing size in there?
>> Um, that is what is like 10 10 by 10 by 12. >> And what do you wind up without doing the additional? >> Uh, 15 by 13. 1510. >> So, I mean, you got this little bedroom
up in the front. So, >> right now you have two small bedrooms and and a >> So, so those were the pre-existing. >> You're increasing the size of that bedroom by how many square feet. >> Oh, I don't know off the top of my head. >> 10 x 12 is 120. Everything by 15 is
>> 195. >> You've increased it by 75 ft. Right. >> Everything else on the second floor is closet. Um, no. Well, you expanded a bathroom, >> but that's not an that's not an expansion. That's interior. >> No, I understand that, but that's all
worked into this. And then, um, you know, you're moving stuff around here. And then you got a lin. Yeah. And then you have closets. >> So, you're over by 200 f feet. I I You're clearly not understanding where I'm going. You were allowed to build to 2200. I'm trying to understand why you're going over it. And so far, you've
convinced me that on the second story, the reason you've gone over is because you need no plaus. >> Is that what is that understand? >> Essentially, correct? Yeah. I mean, it's the same amount of bedrooms. So, you have more usable size bedrooms and more usable. I mean, the original closets in the house were little 3x2. >> How many bedrooms are changing size with
the addition? >> Just one. >> Okay. By 75 ft, >> right? >> Okay. >> And that was a very small bedroom. These are two original bedrooms >> in in the original house. This is the original house was only 16 ft wide. That >> I cannot speak to the poor utilization
of space. It is clear looking at the plans from the inside out that it is a very bad layout, but we're looking at it from the outside in as well. And it is pushing on all sides with regard to setback. And you're on a corner exposed on two sides. >> Right. >> Well, that's part of the hardship of
this thing is he's on a corner, too. So, he's kind of off center. >> But is the is the rear setback problematic? I mean, I know it doesn't comply, but based on the fact that it's that the adjacent property, it's a side. It's it it it it
backs up to their side setback to their side property line. >> And so theoretically, like I said, if you flip this house, it could there could be a house as close as 7 ft uh within that property line if it was, you know, if it was shifted um you know, a
new house for example. >> Probably would be shifted in though on both the other sides though, right? I mean faced oak, right? >> Nobody would do that. You couldn't be you couldn't build a house if the front were to open because you wouldn't have the rear yard. Your house would be six feet wide. >> That's the
>> So it it isn't the setback. It's it's what what's the need for the variance? How did we get here? All of my questions are geared around trying to understand the hardship, the reason that we're being asked to expand this house to violate two additional ordinances given the
existing conditions. That's the purpose of my questioning. I'm understanding that on the second floor, we need 75 extra square feet for a bedroom and we need more closets. On the first floor, it sounds like what we're trying to do is get a room that's wide enough and large enough to be able to add it to the existing structure without having to
mess with the house. >> Correct. >> And to be fair, we don't have an issue on the it's it's not pushing on the on the oak side because we're cutting. So, we don't have front side like the last side. Can we have an attic that's usable
because you have 10 foot in height? You could add dormers to that, but we don't want to use that because we don't know where to drop the stair, which I certainly understand looking at the floor plan, but I point out that you could do that without being here. That's the way the ordinance is written. It's intended to cause you to absorb space inside of the existing structure so that
you're not interfering with airlight and open space in the set. And the basement's finished. How tall is the ceiling in the basement? >> Seven. No, it's like 6' three or four. Mhm. What are you doing in the rear yard where you're removing the sheds where
you need the sheds in order to stay? >> You're removing it because it's been cited as an existing violation. But where are you going to store your stuff in the future? >> Just going to eliminate it. >> You're going to eliminate your outdoor furniture. >> Well, if I put the addition on Yeah, because my outdoor furniture is on my deck.
>> So, once that the deck is gone, there's no reason to have it. I'm >> sorry. What does the deck have to do with the sheds? >> Because I take the furniture that's on the deck during the winter time, keep everything in the shed. >> So now you're just going to leave it in the yard. >> So the shed the deck is gone. So that I don't use the furniture.
>> We're not going. >> So the furniture is going. >> No, no patio. >> No, no patio. >> This the second floor footprint have to be the same dimensions as the first floor. And you bring that down. No,
>> that's more for constructibility and to keep in line with what was there already. >> What is the little space uh before the master walk-in closet? It's 6 feet 8 in wide. Is that serving any purpose? >> No, it's just an extension of the master
bedroom. >> Where is that? What are we right here? All because there's a 6'8 by 4 foot. >> Oh, I think could you start the the >> actually part of this is to get an egress window in to the bedroom cuz these are not egress windows to the master bedroom >> in the new addition.
>> In other words, when you put the addition on the back, there was a window here and then that window gets removed. So that's to get the egress window in for the master bedroom to comply with the code there. So that's what that little notch is because you lost the window at the back.
Isn't that a window on the back of the closet, Mr. D? >> Yeah, that's a small window on the back of the closet. Correct. >> But you could use that as an eress window because you'd have to go through a window. Yeah. >> And Mr. Chair, that's all. That's all. What
do you Oh, let's look at the elevation. >> This is the rear elevation. This is the long side on oak. Then this is the driveway side. And then this is to the west. And then this is the front of the house. >> That's the same siding dedication to it.
>> No, it's all going to match. I want to point out the house is really nice. It's a really nice house and everybody spends a lot of time looking at it because if they're not looking at it, they're going to run right into it, right? >> Because everybody has to jog around it. It's very visible. Um
>> any sense of square footage of the houses that are around the Yeah. So, um >> Yeah, sure. We got point A12 A1. These are the neighboring houses. >> A1 is the public school plan I had.
>> Oh, sorry. >> A12 is just a series a series of nine photos that you took, Jim. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there a date on there? >> So, let's just put on today's date,
December 4. that depict existing conditions. >> Correct. >> So these are these are the photos of the of the rainy house and then and then the three bottom on those are neighboring houses. >> Which houses to show us?
>> Well, they're just the immediate neighbors. So this this is the neighbor right behind him that he did the land swap with. >> That's a home, right? >> Correct. Oh, no. And that set back into a garage side, too. By the way, that's the back of his house faces that garage. And then this is the one um across the
street on the um on the other corner, the opposite corner also on um Oak. And then this is the one that's under construction across the street from him on Willow. It is in keeping with the neighborhood.
you know, and the character of the rest of the other houses. >> All the way down street. >> No. >> Right. >> Uh, >> right. Across. >> It's just facing oak instead of >> correct. Correct. >> I I I apologize. I I was I was thinking
this was the house at the end of Kemp. And when I just said that I liked it, I wasn't talking about your house. >> Very nice. I was talking about the house at the corner of Allen Place and Willow which is the one where you go down Cap. >> So I have to reposition myself. So the
house directly across the street directly across from Oak is the one that this board approved with regard to the addition which is set back. What's the square footage of that house? >> I don't know. I don't know what happened. >> That's the one we had to push it back. >> They came like
>> Yeah, they we really Yeah. And that one on the second floor in the back corner there, >> they pushed the ignition in and left an open >> that open porch. Yeah, >> that's also an art back from
>> But they had a setback issue. There's no setback issue here. >> Well, that was that was I thought that was >> No, they're right. >> Was that part of the solution? >> They're right on top of the building of the property line. The reason that we had to move it was took a lot of >> Do we have intersecting zones here?
These on the same zones >> cross our 10. >> We're in R5. Join us. Three houses. What zones are they? >> One is a 10. >> No, one's a 10 on the right. >> Five. This is five.
>> One under construction is a fan. >> Correct. >> So, how big is the one? I don't know. The one that we spent the great dealings on. You don't know the answer to that. >> The one on the corner of Oak the street.
>> It's 26 or 2700 square feet and it was radically reduced because although it didn't tend a lot is basically a Where are you at? 26 or 27. >> Oh, just it's memory. >> Well, they were right up top of the street and they were also the pushing up
on the back up against the park. We made them considerably reduce the second floor. >> That's right. stepped. It stepped in. >> Wait, wait, hang on. No, >> we're talking about the one that >> we're talking about the one. >> No, >> we're not talking about the brand new construction. We're talking about the
one that wanted to add. There's >> That was a while ago. >> Yeah, but that you're talking about two different two >> I'm talking about the one. >> I was also talking about new construction. >> Frank was asking about the small old house that's on the corner of Willow and Oak. >> The one in the lower right hand corner is in our tent, right?
>> That was here for at least five. Yes, it's a different size, different configuration. That's where your number came. >> The one directly across the street, the one directly across Oh, came before this board several times. >> You were asked if you could help us understand the sizes of the other houses in the neighborhood. You showed us that
board. That's a neighbor, but you don't know what the square footage is. >> Got a little deck. >> There was a question to the >> So, you're just showing us that character the exterior now. or was it? >> I mean, is it larger than what we're
talking about here? Does it >> He doesn't know how big it is. >> You know, it it's >> pretty much the same size. >> I can pull up the uh resolution >> 770. >> And it looks like the new variance relief was for the minimum required sideyard setback and for the guitar.
>> So, what I what I would point out is that it's relevant to me what size that what size that house is >> because it's a very similar sort of lot. However, when the board is being asked to grant these variances for these types of things, often times it's reconfiguring an existing house and it's
a little bit of an addition that just makes the whole house work that you already have room for a little addition to make this work with it still being conforming. I don't remember the circumstances on that. The other thing is that you have pre-existing non-conformance.
Where does your house sit relative to the other houses that are on Willow to the west where you have the non-conforming? What what's the setback on those homes? >> We don't have that. >> It looks like you're proud of the And
you're not doing work there, so that that isn't a question I necessarily expect you to be able to answer. But it looks like it's proud of the other houses on Willow, is it not? >> Looks like it's what? >> Proud of. He he stated it's sticking out further than the other
>> I think that's generally correct because as you drive down if you go to the school there are those couple of those older homes on the skinny lot that used to rain used to have some of them appear to be further back than >> I mean the original house is where it is >> I think the point the porch was granted by varants
>> right >> in 2000 Well, >> the left hand port to the right. That's not the >> He's saying the left as you face the house. >> The left part was there. >> Left part which is closer to the road supposedly was there before 2000.
>> The notch and the setback Porsche on the right. >> That's the one that was approved in 2000. Well, then the setbacks don't make any sense because the resolution approves a porch at 18 something and that or maybe
is the portion deeper on that side? >> It is deeper on that side. >> All right. All right. >> Yeah, it notches. If you pull the back of the house back to three feet or 2.9
>> whatever it is, >> what is that? How much does that reduce the square footage roughly? >> Two floors, right? >> Yeah. That's about 15 feet. Yeah. 78 times. So, >> yeah. 156.
>> And we're close to the delta on the cap, right? >> Yeah. On the cap. >> Yeah. We're We're 210 210 is the delta. >> So, that solves both the rear yard issue. Get reasonably close to the cap.
We got that house on 77. Just under 2,000 ft. >> Just under two. >> Yeah. 1965. It was the original was was smaller than that. >> It's a small house. >> That's really why it's relevant. >> Yeah. >> So, but
Mr. Dale, you didn't look into the the the design of that house and what the board went through on that house. That wasn't part of your diligence in doing >> No. No. Not this particular case. What is relevant is that house I happen to know it and the layout is much more
accommodating. Right. So although it's a 2,000 square ft call it that's not it's it's >> it doesn't feel anything like the layout that you see here. >> The reason they went short on that house though to be fair was they're constrained by the back by the rear yard is the big garage is right there. So
they couldn't go back any further. They were kind of dealing with what they had. >> Well and they also have that short little driveway there. >> Yeah. But nevertheless, it's imminently more livable than >> probably this in its current state quite candidly with no consult to the way the house is
laid out. It's a whole house. I get it. >> All right, Mr. Cross. Anything more? >> I have nothing I have nothing further. Uh, Mr. Chair, the um I mean I've heard I've heard some comments. Can I just take a minute? I just want to talk to
Mr. Sure. We're open to the public and we haven't deliberated yet. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. You can open to anyone in the public have any questions or comments with regard to the this application the rating application?
No. Okay. >> You want to take a minute? >> Yeah. Two minutes. So I I want to talk about this notice issue on the um on the Fidel matter. >> Yeah. So my understanding is that if the
the rebank water needs to be noticed under certain circumstances and our instructions to the applicant indicate if you're on one of three roads you would need to notice rebank water and the the Federos are not on one of those three roads did not issue the notice but
yet they still actually are within some distance of rebank water border. Do we know do you know my I should my reading >> even though they're not covered by red war they have the most red board >> believe the reading of the ordinance is
that they do but I'll read the ordinance >> it lists three roads and then it says etc. >> No no this is the problem with trying to be helpful. I mean you lay it out and I don't know what etc means. It doesn't seem like a good ending but
What is it? >> The list. You'll look there's the cover letter. The second page is the 200 foot list. You look at the third page, the list of utilities. That's what they work off of. >> So rebank water isn't on the 200 foot list. Rebank water on the list.
>> Says red water uh people on Lake Haden Park, Harrison, Chestn, etc. are connected to the Redbank water main. It doesn't say. >> It doesn't say they don't have >> Exactly. It doesn't say that only these people have to notice red bank water. It just says so reading this I would say yes you have to notice
>> but is the theory that you're notifying rebank water if you actually utilize rebank water on site is that why you're giving them notice? I I can't tell you what what was in the design. >> And Jordan also made the point to me that there are people who notified the Mon County Planning Board that don't
live on a county road >> as a result of this >> because it says you have to mail to the Mon County Planning Board >> and take a look where you take a look. >> It's on the list of failing utilities model county planning board. Even though you may not it may not cover you, we
tell you to notice it and realistically this the the red back order thing doesn't give you a comprehensive list of these are the the streets that must notice. So I would if I was reading this somewhere I would have I would notice them. >> Well maybe that maybe that in general should just be work that put us on a list of where work on
>> it's clearly nowhere near this >> but the normally isn't on our bank boardly close to it. >> No but it's also not on account grow but they still >> but they still have the notice on county plan. So, and in my history here, everyone has always been to the full
list. So, this is the first time. >> Well, actually, >> save three bucks and lose a couple of months. >> The issue is that for the applicant, this is traumatic, right? They thought they were coming in, they were ready to go, they now have to be back 60 days,
and we want to avoid a repeat of that if if there's anything we can do about it. If this list is supposed to suggest that everybody is to notify two different water companies, the electric gas monk planning board and two river water reclamation, then it should be clear. If
it doesn't mean that and it means something else, then it should say something else. >> There's another provision of the ordinance with this way my determination. If the utility has requested that they do not know, there's another provision with regard to that. Not knowing whether they did, but
knowing that the list my call was that they had to do it. >> So I call >> honestly that how much I hear the issue of someone expecting to be here before the end of the year. They're not. >> Yes.
If it were me, I would have noticed all of them just because they're there. Who cares? Just send another two letters out. But here's my problem is that are we sure a list of is comprehensive of do we know exactly who was under Redbank water and who was not under Redbank water? >> Yeah, the burrow knows for sure. I used
to live over here so I know that Lake Avenue is on Red Bank water because it stinks. >> Every every house on Red on Lake Avenue is Redbank Water. >> I don't think so. >> That's a it's a percentage of them. >> Yeah. So, if the if the homeowner isn't aware of who is what, maybe they're not.
Maybe they're maybe they're absentee homeowners. Um I I don't know. I just I find it if we're going to give a definitive list of this is who you have to be, then we better be damn sure that we know that 62 lake has red water when 64 on Facebook, which is >> it's also worthy of note that we've not encountered this problem.
>> No, because I think we better than a few days. >> I know that most people just probably send them out because the whole list is they send them out. >> Then that should be what it is. If there's a reason to notify with an open order. So, for example, if they've asked to be notified, then it should just specifically say you also need to notify the following six utilities, >> even if you may not be subject to their
whatever. >> Yeah. I mean, just say you have to notify the mail going through their office >> cuz I remember the town sued right water because they were overcharg like there was a whole thing going on with the people from Fair Haven who were on that water and this is going back 20. This is
when I first moved down here. So it's percentage of late that's on that but it must affect then somehow possibly red bank water. So they need to do it. I mean it's just another >> right back water goes. >> Yeah. >> Picking and choosing over there. I think
it makes sense. >> I just think we should put language in that. >> Just clarify. Do you do you have read? >> I have read. >> Wow. I didn't know what that >> So my my thought would be to take off the notation about people on Lake Hat and Harrison.
>> I would take that to say there and it should just say Red Bank water mail to it and then everybody's covered. >> Yeah. Because on on the ministerial end of it, you know, we're the applicant can rely upon what we provide to them.
if he had dropped the ball or failed to buy that that's that's not on the app that's way to reliable deal what we tell them to the extent that we have generated that list >> advised us that they did not >> as as opposed to not having jurisdiction
over something it's a difficult >> so I'm I'm not thinking that sending extra notices to rebank border is the optimal solution I would think it would be make more sense to understand why they're on the list and if you're serviced by red border and that's requirement that it should specifically
say one of these two. >> It's five bucks. >> No, but but the other thing is if Red Bank it is like they're buted up against each other and if Redbank Water now says they need to be notified and like well
we should not notify them, you know, and then somebody does something, Redbank Water might come in and be like, whoa. >> Oh, you're saying they're adjacent. Although it's not connected. I mean they haven't that gets but that gets to the heart of my point. We need to understand why they need to be noticed and be clear
about it. I don't think that >> 80 to 90% of fairs should be notified red water because they don't know why. >> No, I'm not red water. I'm on the other side of town. >> But that's not the point. These guys aren't red water either. >> Okay. >> And they're being asked to notice. They're not here tonight because they didn't.
>> Okay. But unless you lay out exactly what blocks and lots invariably have to notice red water five bucks an applicant, you can just say notify button >> because the roads that are listed are using rebang water.
>> I think what it means to say is you're notifying the water utility that services the problem and we should be clear about that decision. It's not clear. If you're doing a 200 foot list for everyone around you, do you have to does it does
it have to be within 200 if you're within 200 feet of a property that has banking? Even if you don't have red bank, you have to you should have you should know. >> It's possible. I don't know. >> Making it up. I I say we don't we don't know. I five bucks an applicant. We can
solve this without any further investigation. >> There you go. Al has a point. But also >> just notify I would rate this percentage. >> I can't believe this is never. >> It sounds like it sounds like many people in town are noticing red water even though technically they don't need
to. We don't know who's supposed to >> then you would have people on the other side of town that shouldn't have to notice New Jersey American water >> for sure. >> Then and then how do you manage that? Oh, we're really getting >> by making everybody pay five bucks more
certified letter. >> We're going to throw this to Mr. Olsson. I'm sure >> Yeah, Mike is both. That's >> a You may not have it, but somebody hire somebody new town. It's probably
prudent to to notify their water person or water power. >> And like Sheila said, planning board, too. If you're not on county road, you don't have to, but you know, you may as well send it. >> But the problem is there's always going to be somebody who's like, "Well, I'm not going to do that because I don't,
you know, you run into that mentality. If you don't make this yourself question, Mr. Broski, you do this all the time. Do you ever question why you have to notice people on our list or you just do it for as a matter of >> You just do it." See, >> would you not on this matter, did you notice American water and fra water?
>> Yeah, we did. >> Did I? >> Yeah, >> it's just the list is there. >> List is there. And you know, if I have doubles, I I serve doubles because I just out of abundance of caution, whatever's on the list.
>> We've had applicants who sent notice >> themselves >> to the prior owner of their own property because the name was on the list. No question. I tell my staff whatever's on the list, we're not questioning it. >> Just do usual >> because there's case still supports
that. As long as you do it that way, you're good. >> You don't need to deal with any of this nonsense. >> Yeah. >> You asked for a few minutes, Mr. Bowski. >> Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, I we we I did have the opportunity to discuss with my client and we've heard the comments and
concerns that board members have raised and our thought is our thought is we think we have some creative ideas perhaps that might be able to you know sharpen our pencil and and maybe do a little better. I don't know
that we can and I resolve all of that rear setback relief or get all the way down to the 2200. But I think we have some there are some ideas that that were bandied about where we can at
least improve it over that which is before the board at this point. >> By how much? >> They don't know. >> No, it's not. >> We're literally talking about 200 feet. >> Mr. What I would tell you is that the board's analysis should start with why
can't we perform? And so the design process should start with >> and the answer is we've thought about it. We'd like to and we can't and here's why. And I think that there's justification in doing an addition that doesn't cause $400,000 worth of other
work to the house. And I think that that's valid and I think you can raise that and we can talk about it. We did do that configuration. Here's what happens. it doesn't really work. >> Yes. >> The other issues here which I've already noted is that you've got other precisely nonconformities. You're not creating just a deviation by three in the back
and five in the front. So you're coming to the table already not really fitting. Um I had another comment. Sorry. >> Well, look, I I it's free so at least explore it. And if you don't want to use
it, it's fine. Mhm. >> You know, we can't use it for the following reasons. You know, you could have trusses and the framing doesn't really work right. You would have to reconfigure the whole third story in order to make it work. That's all reasonable. Um, but the idea is that it's that space has been given purposefully so that we're not expanding
beyond the footprint that we should have. And when we do expand, we want to be sure that we're doing so only under the circumstances where there really is no better option. And all in that it makes sense. And you know, look, it is only 200 and change over the number,
right? >> But you've got 500 to play with before you get there. It's a pretty large addition. And the utility of the two floor plates, as you look at them, is poor. >> Um, and it is true that you're getting 75 more square feet of living space, but the rest is closets. You can argue that
we really need them, but you've got it on a lot of other quadrants on the second floor. You've heard planning filming. I'm sorry. >> Right. Champion. I don't have such an issue with the front yard setback because they were they were existing. They were there. They were memorialized. They were given. So it's not like we're adding here and
we're adding there. >> I have a challenge about >> So one of these resolutions when they created the new 16.01 1 and 17.01
um states uh halfway through the second page like lot 17 has a front yard 74 and 1/2 ft where 25 ft are required. This was signed
dated April 5th, 2000. Then the other resolution. >> So that that first subdivision talks about no improvements being made. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So they subdividers before they plan the house. >> Yeah. >> Well then when they plan the house next
resolution >> is July 2000 and it says the setback front yard setback is 18.83 where 25 is required. So at what point in the launch was this added or they
>> different boards and the planning board may not have looked >> to the front of the porch but to the front of the house like some people choose to do >> and zoning board may have looked to the front of the porch >> which
>> there's some ambiguity when that when that measurement was adopted. >> Well, but Right. But these are only three months apart or so. >> No, no, no. I but >> I don't I think it's only over the plan. I mean, we take this very seriously. We understand
how the ordinances are written and how things are measured. This was a long time ago. Maybe the zoning board back then still did take it seriously and understand the ordinances and know how things were measured. Maybe the planning board didn't. Maybe they
measured it to the front of the house, which seems >> kind of more likely >> and three months later the zoning board measured it to the front of the board. >> The other thing that you're flagging though, which is context to the application, is that you know, you've got multiples um approvals that have
been granted and so you've got this situation that builds over time. >> Marty's Marty just pointed out that the 1985 resolution says 18.7 feet from the front yard. So must have been grabbed. >> So the planning board took that right.
So that has been there. >> So my point though is that what you've got is a series of additions to the house and each time the board is thinking about it, they're looking at what's presented to them and then when you go to the board the next time, you're building off of the the variance
that you got the last time. And so you've got three different resolutions of approval here and this would now be the fourth. And so I recognize that the efficiency argument is clearly there. Okay, it is. However, you've even got the same owner in here. And so all of
this cobbling together of making it work, I think you have to consider that when you're being asked to grant a number of varants. I also look at this as one of the few and we know there's a few on Willow that that have been
renovated, but we all know that the propensity is to screw it. We'll tear it down a little bit. And I love the old house that's been added on to and added on and patchwork unit. They just it's unique. >> Retains the character of the neighborhood. And that's why I'm more
likely to not say, "Oh, it's an extra here, extra there." There's only so much you can do with what you have. And I and and I think at least it's in my view to try to preserve that. Well, then now you can't have it. And then someone will come and tear it down. >> And you don't tear it down, you're going
to end up with a sword. >> Yes. No, you 24 get it, but you're also having a you know >> I don't know. >> Tear it down. You're going to end up with a house across the street. >> Well, and it's I mean this house is 100 years old, >> right?
>> Our goal master plan is to save these old houses. That's my So our I think that's our one of our o one of my overriding things when I consider consider Yeah. what we're dealing with. That's the extreme that's the same old house.
>> And the other thing that I look at here, I mean, we are literally talking about 200 ft. >> Yeah. If you look at this from the outside, we can go, "Oh, it's this setback. It's that setback." If you drive past this house after the after the addition, you're going to go, "That's a great addition." There's many
other houses that are in that neighborhood you drive by before we kind of got control of things. You're like, "Jesus, what the hell happened there? Who would approve that?" And they're talking about sharpening their pencil. I mean, what are they gonna They're going to shave 100 feet
>> and maybe go up into the attic and that's going to have an additional cost that I don't think >> we really want to do. Yeah, floor. I don't see where you can put a conforming staircase to go into the air. >> And the sticking point really is a closet.
>> You know, someone who, >> you know, experiences a uh on a daily basis, a uh lack of storage space other than in my basement. U to have closet space in an older home. >> It's 60 square ft of closet.
>> But al look at all these little look at all these little closets. Yeah. There are a whole bunch of other closets adding another 160. >> They are they are original small closets. >> The closets are >> the linen that I have for my three
bedrooms alone wouldn't fit in one of those closets. So, this is bringing a house keeping it in context of the neighborhood and bringing it up somewhat to 2025 2026 standard. I don't live within
200 square feet of this house. I'll say that before I say that I'm in the same neighborhood and my house is 1,500 square feet and I don't have another I I don't have 300 square feet of closets on my third floor, which is what this would end up being.
>> If they took se if they took half of that closet away, >> is it going to dramatically change? That's what I'm saying. If they sharpen the pencil, >> it could make it compliant. I don't think it's going to push that right. If
you wall in seven feet, >> then you're going to have the downstairs is going to be this ridiculous old >> No, it's going to be it's it's it's 25 by 13 12 now be 18 by 13. >> I'm just going to say I'm going to say this. I can't believe that we are having
discussion about 200 ft. That is going that is going on this far. Oh, >> as I said, I look at this as someone who lives in the neighborhood and lives in this town. If I drive with the cap, that's not if I drive past that house in a year from now, I'm not going to say, "Oh my god, what did they do there?"
>> Okay. >> I'm going to say that's a great addition. >> Stop. Mr. Brodzky, you've asked us to be able to take some time with the plan before we're able to deliberate. Deliberation actually discussion started because I think at least I wanted to provide some additional color to the extent that
there would be any. If it's okay with you, I would like to continue the deliberation. We won't vote, but I would like to see where this goes because it's not clear to me that you don't have enough yes votes up here to proceed. >> Of course, >> I think we should flesh that out. >> You're entitled to opinion. You're
entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your opinion. Uh listen, I'm taking you guys I and I respect your opinion, but you look at it from the very black and white letter of the law where what the purpose of this board is to
interpret the law and then see what has gone on and see what the benefit is going to be. Number one, they could tear this house down and build something different. Number two, this is a non-conforming lot. It was a horribly non-conforming lot previously. They have
worked to improve it. So, we talk about chips. I give them a chip for that. We are, again, we're talking about 200 square feet and we're hung up on a closet. To have a functioning closet that if they built the new house, every one of those closets would be that size.
To have a functioning closet, not a little small closet, is probably about the size of that little credenza over there. In a house in 2026, I don't think is a big deal. And if they come back and they revise it, they're still going to be over but maybe by 100 ft. So I don't
know why we are bogged down on basically what is going to be 100 ft. Okay. So Paul presents that for further discussion. Who's ready to pick that up? >> I think that Al's concern uh is why he fights so hard to stick to the cap is
because if we say oh it's just 200 over it's just 200 over. Then in a few years time They're going to say, "Oh, well, it's just another $200 over what we've been looking >> every every as they say all the time, every application is different."
>> Yeah. Just $200 over. If this house were built in, I don't know, 2020, and somebody came and said, "Well, I need another tune in script." You say, "Well, you had plenty of time to, but we're looking at a house that is 100 plus years old. Uh, has been added to once. Makes some sense, more sense to add to
it again." Unfortunately, it kicks our number out and I think that's a very different situation than I have a house that's 1700 feet that I built 10 years ago and I want to know who I that's totally different five is much different than 200 square feet
10 or 150 if you look at the size of the house that's allowed >> but can we support it is really are you going to are you going to drive by there and be like Oh dear god. I agree with you. >> That's why I asked a question about
vegetation. I wanted to know what's going to happen. What am I going to look at when I go past, >> right? I mean, I think I think this is going to be a benefit. >> So, I I want to respond to a couple of your points and then I want to hear from people that haven't spoken. The first thing is you're talking about an addition of 13 or 14 feet, which is
almost 50% of the length of the house right now. That's all exposed. That's two stories high. So, I don't think that I'll drive by it and not notice it or think that it looks particularly good because there's nowhere to hide it. Okay? It's going to be directly visible from the street. That's number one. Number two, what we usually do when we
permit a few hundred square feet over is allow someone to reconfigure their house and make it work. This is a house that's already been added to by about 50% once and the addition is coming in as an independent appendage to the house. And
so if they had asked for the 200 square feet because they were reconfiguring it and they could explain, well, we're trying to get four bedrooms here. We're going to be changing the things that don't work because there's a lot of things that don't work. You can justify a 200 foot edition under different circumstances. It's fine that you don't agree with me. I'm just simply adding
color to why I think that the analysis of how you get here is short of whether or not we can make this thing work. And by the way, a reasonable budget. I'm not suggesting that they spend twice as much and come up with an entirely new house. And I do appreciate the fact most of the house, some of the house is 100 years
old. I appreciate all of them. >> I mean, I think that's the biggest challenge. We're looking at 100 year old. >> No, I think No, no, I think No, I think the biggest challenge. >> I think the biggest challenge is that the house is configured extremely poorly and it's through no fault of him. But because of that, now it needs to exceed the cap to get normal modern living
conveniences. which I think >> to Paul's point just about to Paul's point about not noticing it and to your point about noticing it. We don't have a setback issue on Oak Place. >> No, but there is a shoot of houses. You come down there and you have his friend's house. Uh
>> well, she just has been there for I don't know how many, >> but nevertheless, it's on the road and you see the little horse things. It used to be a horse barn or whatever. And you look to the left, you see that one down there. And then you look this and it's a block of houses that are all it's it's just a wall of house. When you when you
go down Oak, it is so narrow. If you ever go down there or drop your kid off school, it is so narrow. And I'm not saying it doesn't deserve the addition. I'm just saying, let's not say we're not going to notice it as we go through because it's an ultra narrow street and everything. >> Let me let me change that. You're going to notice it, but you're not going to be
like that. Oh dear. God. >> Yeah. >> And to be fair, there's a a deck with a pergola on it there now. So there's structure there now. >> Yeah. But a per open air landscape. >> I think I think it comes down to what I said. It's it's unfortunate because it
has nothing to do with this this ask in a vacuum say, "Oh my god, it's only 200 feet. It's no big deal. It needs to be this much square footage added because the house is so poorly designed." So, for them to get a reasonable walk-in closet upstairs, they have to massacre this whole thing so that they can this this house that's chopped up into a
coffin and again through no fault of his now has to be massaged to get normal modern living needs. And unfortunately, it's over the cap. And listen, it's got a point about the cap creep. It keeps happening and it's going to keep happening. So, it's and it doesn't matter if it's 200 or it's 500, if it's
100. The point is it's there to control it. And unfortunately, he's in a situation where he wants normal modern living conveniences, but it doesn't fit with the lot. It's already stretched in the front. They're even stretching there. And it's just a wall of houses there. And it's not his fault. It's just this is the reality of the situation.
>> I'd like to hear from you. And I'd like to hear from you, Marty. >> Um I agree with Frank what you just said. I um and I and I do think I feel like maybe not enough thought was given to trying to make it informal. didn't
hear that went past um the the thought process of getting just jumping straight to the 24. Um I I think maybe there there could have been areas where there was a little bit more thought given to to keep it to keep it closer to the cap. I don't have an issue with the rear
setback, but the cap is a concern. Um, like Marty said, because it is in this R5, it is 200 square feet is a bigger deal in that location than it is in some other location. Plus, the fact of where it sits is also um
more noticeable than other areas. So, those those are my concerns. Um I but I but I do agree that they may not be able to get it down there because of there's so much wasted space given the way it was originally designed. So
>> I mean are are there dollars better spent? It's not my money, but are there dollars better spent to making the space that exists more livable and it's still going up to the 2200 and having something that's a much better house? Again, that white house there feels much different on the downstairs. I've been in plenty of smaller homes in my house
pretty small on the bottom floor. It's not laid out like amazing, but it's not horrible and it feel like you can use the space. The problem is it's basically a center uh you know a center um core here and then you're just rotating around it in these micro rooms and then every now and again turn a corner
there's another closet. >> It's a 100y old house. It's not a 50-year-old Cape that was designed to be 1700 ft² whatever 1500 2,000 ft. that is much more functional. This is a 100-year-old house that
>> I think the point is most people come in here and they say, "Hey, how do I address the problem and this is what I want to do and why?" This is just saying, "Let me take a problem that's not great and and just >> well, it's trying to do it without reconfiguring the whole you're you're on the second floor of the house. I don't
know how the addition was done back 25 years ago, but I'm assuming that the you're not having these these closets in the middle of the house are not loadbearing. Your your outside walls should be carrying what your your roof load. So,
is there an opportunity to reconfigure all of these oddly shaped closets and nooks and crannies in the middle of of the second floor of the house? >> Well, you've got a bath there. that's probably existing, that's being renovated. That's not going to come out. The master bath is the master bedroom.
>> Down the down the middle of the the house, you got all these long narrow closets and and this L-shaped closet, and you're throwing in a a 10- foot long hallway between the the master bedroom and and the rest of the hall of the
thing, and you're putting in a linen closet, >> but none of this stuff is is loadbearing. I'm I'm assuming, but I don't know. That's something, Mr. daily would have to figure out. Um, but is there an opportunity to to fix that
and maybe not add that, you know, additional area to the house. >> So, at the end of the day, it would be nice to know that that was I can't do it. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, so but I just want to clarify the
house is not 100 years old. Half the house is 100 years old. The other half of the house was built 25 years ago under a very similar circumstance. I assume they effectively added the master bedroom upstairs. >> The skeleton is 100 years old. And I think that's the problem. >> No, the right side of the house was
added in in 200 Mr. Le you're right. >> And a master bedroom was added. It was probably two bedrooms before that. >> But but my point is that if you had the opportunity to just rethink it as it sits, kind of like what Al says. I'm sure there's structural in the middle because of the way the additions are
generally done, but the the problem is that when you piece it together, you wind up with a a something less than an optimal utilization of the space. Your point is that you're okay with it. Your point is that you're not I think everybody has a sense of where I am, Marty. Marty, where are you?
>> Well, for sure, I think we have to preserve, you know, the older houses in town. Nobody wants to see this house eventually get knocked down. I think you can work with the applicant to uh preserve it. Um my sense is I'd like to see what this comes up with. I think
that product could come in with a better application that may serve the applicant better too. >> I think it still gets knocked down to be clear. Like let's let's be very frank, right? If he moves out, someone comes in this thing, it's a maze. It's a labyrinth. They probably knock it down anyway.
>> You don't know. But I don't think that's a reason to say >> but you don't know that someone you don't know that someone could just because we don't do this that someone is going to knock it down and build 2200 square foot. Goes it goes both ways. But I think the house as it is look at the other house the one on uh Dormine that
we had come the flag lot and they they the house was sold seven times in like 15 years because no one can live in it. So who's to say just doesn't retire moves out and someone doesn't come in and knock this thing down anyway. They go to the the downstairs and they say, "Oh my god, how am I going to live here?" And they gutt it or they knock it
down anywhere. >> Okay. So, the reason I held back and deliberated some was because it was very clear to me that where Paul was, what Paul would need is three other people that believe that the plan that sits in front of you tonight is acceptable and they'd be willing to vote in favor of it. So, I wouldn't give anyone an
opportunity to speak up because if we can do a strong poll and there's four affirmative votes, then then I don't want to see these people go back and try and figure out how to change Is there anybody else that feels to call us? >> You don't like simply think I've been fairly clear about that.
>> So, so, so you're on the court. >> Thank you. >> Rest, you are okay with them taking a fresh look at it. Okay, that was totally irregular. >> No, I appreciate that. Appreciate it. >> Appreciate it. >> The best we can to try and make sure
that you're not doing things that are feudal. um and um that you didn't have your desk votes up here. So um with that being done, uh you want to carry >> Yes. >> How much time do you need to build? >> Be um be back here for the next one.
>> So we've already got two for January. Um and it's reorg on top of that. So I'm not inclined to have a third. How many do we have in February? >> One. >> So we put you in on February. >> Notice that date. >> February. Does it does it formally get carried to
January when we then formally carry it to a date that exists that shift? >> No, I think we would formally carry it to February and if for some reason there's a change then we'll have to deal with that. Um there's not a majority of board members turning over. I know that my appointment's up. Who else's
appointments are up? >> All right. So, so three of us may not be here. Um but there's enough people here. Anybody have a conflict of February? Any reasonably February is going to change? I I possibly I don't know. It's uh that's I think it might be a long weekend for my son. I don't know. But I
this one I might make a point to be here because I mean I'm really I can't believe they're making a comeback. Yeah. >> We're not we're not making a comeback. They've asked. >> I know. >> Okay. >> I know. But >> So you're not coming out for a drink or
this later? >> I'm hearing static right now. I got I got a tenative abstaining from >> uh what is the February date? February 12th, does that work for you? >> Yes, it does. Clear on my door. >> We have time limits. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. February 12th. >> Yes. Yes, >> Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the board, >> thank you everybody for tonight. I
really do appreciate. Thank >> November 13th minutes. I'll make a motion to approve and suspend second. Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Newman. Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Resolution for Greater 60 Long Drive. Wait a second. We want discussion. The other one. Did somebody make the appointment for the other
resolution? >> Resolution as sure. >> Uh you sure I'll second. Angelo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Mr.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Resolution. We have discussion. >> We want to have a discussion on that. We've have been asked to take a look at this. We received a >> picture of the resolution in your mind.
Uh no, we had a we had a provision in the resolution that said the board's approval is granted based upon the new ridge height of the addition but allowing the applicants to raise the floor of the addition. So there is no need for a step down within the interior of the addition and allowing for a step
down to the patio. Mr. Greer had written to us to ask that if basically to revise that so that where it says so there's no need to step down within the interior of the addition with the new language Mr. Greer is
proposing and I think you may have this in front of me by the way >> and adding back the extra space removed from the step down to the height of the ridge line. Okay. and then basically adding that language. So we had, you may
recall we had the discussion of leveling the floor. The reason I put the language in as I did and I'm not not arguing one for or against was to make sure that if Mr. wanted not to have the step down, it wouldn't bog
him up with regard to the permit. I know that there was discussion concerning whether or not that would include the height of the midlock division. My review is that that that was not clearly approved by the board. It's not there. But rather than make that call,
brought this back to the board because it was requested. And so that you know, this is not unusual on a regular basis. I will and and it's the reason why we send out the resolution in advance of it coming back to the board. And I receive comments on a regular basis from
council, from applicants. Can you revise this? We modify that and to the extent that it is not substantive, I can make those calls and you'll see that I've sent a second resolution out to you. This I think is substantive and I don't make that call. I don't get ahead of the
board on this. >> I think you preferred the hire. Well, my >> Well, Mr. Sure. Uh, thank you. It's good to see you guys again this month. Um, >> no, it's not. >> We just told Mr. Olsson, I don't know what I'm doing in January. that can't
come see it. Um, >> so so this this point came up in a bunch of different circles. The step was added with plan two so we could keep the higher ceilings and not work against us from that square footage that we scaled back on with the plan. I think collectively when we sat down and talked
during the second meeting, everyone including myself all agreed that we don't really want to step down from a safety reason, from an aesthetic standpoint. And I think we all kind of were getting to the spot and my understanding was if we then eliminate the step, I could just put it back up top.
>> But that's not what the resolution read. So that's why I kind of came forward and and proposed it. So >> the ridge line right now is at 11.7. All I'm proposing is if we eliminate that step, it goes to 127. I think the original plans are up to 147. >> Um I know we talked about what it looked
like on the other side with the garage as well. we're within, you know, a half a foot e plus or minus on either side depending on what we do here. Um, but part of the reason we actually added the step was to have the higher dimension on the ceiling. And if we're taking the step away, all that's really doing is
compressing the view and and what the ceiling is. So, all that that's all I was looking for. >> And you know that we're not requiring you to put it flush or drop it. That the intent of the resolution, the reference in the resolution was to give you the option. The reason that that's in there to give you the option is because the
resolution technically is to the exact set of plans that you submit and so it's intended to give you that flexibility. So I think the open question is whether or not there was conferred in our discussion and in the resolution of approval that we granted orally that they would be able to increase the ridge height to the extent that they decided
to make it flush. What I remember was putting that to all of you and saying I didn't think that reducing the ridge height between plan one and plan two was material. I didn't like to step down and I was asking other board members whether or not they felt strongly that smaller
space um was making it more likely for them to vote in favor of it. And what I remember specifically uh was Pete said that he did like it lower. And what I thought then from there is that we kind of then talked about it some more, but we didn't get back to the idea of do we
actually care about the ridge height? And I thought that the approval was for it as proposed because the resistance, you know, that I >> Well, the the the difference being though that the original ridge height was 14 something and this was even if we eliminate the step and bump the whole thing up, we're still not at that
original 14 ft. >> Well, we're not changing what we did. The question is what did we do? So I don't remember I remember I I remember it being the if you want it here that's fine if you want to put it up if you want to eliminate but I don't recall saying you have to
hold the ridge height at >> I remember there was the option I remember he preferred it being larger and we still said it would still not be symmetrical with the other side of the house was correct so it still be below it if he eliminated it I remember the
step being a little higher than a foot but it's irrelevant if it's still below And I also abstained from his don't recall I don't recall saying we had to hold the ridge height. That's >> I I I specifically recall that and I wrote that down. It's part of my notes >> holding the ridge height. >> Really?
>> The option internally was partly on the applicant. Doesn't even matter because it's internal. But that the rich side. >> So if they bring that up then you lose the the then your interior space is you can't bump the whole box up. >> And that was their choice. Fair enough. >> Yeah. I I thought we had talked about this in a bunch of different cir because
this Todd you had brought me forward and said what would you prefer we appreciate all the changes you made what would you prefer and I said hey I'd prefer to go back to the original the bigger and then there was the commentary less bulk we don't want that but then the whole discussion revolved around this step down safety and parents for holidays and
people falling and you know I think everyone collectively said hey it doesn't really look right but the part of the reason is why we did the step down was to get the higher ceiling in the volume right to just bring the step back up and not move the ceiling kind almost defeats the purpose of why we'd be doing it. So like >> I I I'm not putting people words in
people's mouths. I just I left here very confused and when I read that I wasn't certain that was what was intended. So that's kind of why >> as well you said well we said we' written the whole box up and the ridge height changes but >> yeah that's not correct. >> I know we both agreed that we like the lower ridge height to begin
>> and just so we're we'd be going from 117 to 127 nowhere near the 147 and the 127 is within that half foot of what the other side even is. What is the garage size? >> Not to be exact, but it's around 12 12 somewhere in there.
>> This this this I will tell you that the the that the way that we reason I don't usually write a resolution that says so there's no need for a step down. We were giving them the flexibility. I did not address
the the ridge in in this and Mr. is right to call it out. I I think if the if the board can't obviously the folks who abstain aren't going to be voting, but if if the board is of the mind that look, it wasn't clear, but we don't have a problem if the maximum rig is 127. We
can put that we you can put that language in. I don't think that sub it doesn't result in a new variance, right? We're we're still >> I don't know the answer to that. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, >> so can I ask you a question? So if the
resolution is is memorialized tonight with a static ridge height not changing and the applicant wanted to raise it in the future to a compliant height. They would still need to come back to this board because that was part of the granting of the bearing. They can't just
go to the zoning office and say we want a compliance refund. >> No no they can't go up to 30 if 30 is permitted for sure. >> Approval is based upon the new bridge height of the addition but it doesn't say what the new rich height of the addition was. Well, >> so Doug just so Doug just clarified what
he just said was numbed that we are just simply trying to figure out what people thought at the time that they voted. What Doug is saying is to the extent that with the additional information and what I believe is sincere confusion from the applicant side as to what we actually
does how does everybody feel about allowing them to increase the ridge height by the foot um in order to permit them to raise the floor by a foot >> and and so so that is something a little extra so why don't we look at it that way rather than trying to figure out what we did >> right
>> I don't have an issue with the foot I had an issue with 141, but I don't have an issue with going up. >> Okay. How's everybody else feel? >> I'm out of the conversation. >> Paul, you weren't here. >> No, I >> I have thought, but I can't say no.
>> Skip voted yes. I voted yes. >> Voted. Marty, you voted. >> And how do you feel about the height? >> So 141 was what it was. That was the original >> 147 >> 147 >> and that's that's from that space. >> That was the original plan. >> Right. Right. Right.
>> So if we it's 11 whatever or 12 whatever it's still not going to count as >> that's right. >> Um my recollection was that we have given the height and we didn't really care what happened on the inside. But that being said I don't think this is
material to to the application. I like the new lower ridge height which was lower than the garage on the other side. If we go up, if we eliminate the step and we bump it up, it'll be marginally higher than the other side, but not as high as the original plan. Right. >> That's why I said I don't have a problem. >> Great.
>> Doesn't have a problem with it. Doesn't have a problem with it. Doesn't have a problem with it. I never >> So then, um, can I ask for a vote then on amending the resolution to permit the elevation of the ridge height by Jordan? You you don't have to have the plans, do
you? >> No. >> So, I think what we're doing is we're translating you you can use the language that's proposed because you're only taking a step down whatever that step down was originally, >> right? >> Which is fixed in the plan,
>> right? And then adding that back in. >> And so if you use the language, >> thank you for the creativity. And adding back the exact, it says exact space removed from the step down to the height of the ridge line. I think you're there >> because you're still then basing it on
the plans. >> Correct. Because it's it's this the plans that we that we finally marked in. It's only going to go up the amount of inches that the floor gets raised. Right. >> So that's my motion. I'll second >> I'll have the I'll have the revised
resolution to this tomorrow. We're done. >> M. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Mr. >> Did you vote? >> I don't think I did. >> And Mr.
>> Yes, that's a second. That's a second first tonight. Well, >> you abstain. >> Oh, did I? >> But there's a >> No, he can't. He can motion. >> Most certainly have voted. Yes. >> Okay. Should I stand again? only
in fact motion cars. >> Okay. >> January. >> I'm good. I'm good. >> Thank you all for your time. You guys do a great job. I really appreciate it. >> Thanks for coming back. >> Thanks, guys. Good luck. >> That's all I got.
>> We did all the >> uh are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments? Mr. Olsson, I'm going to ask you to come forward. I've got a few questions for you. Uh >> oh. Yeah. >> Do you swear to >> All right. So So M the first thing the first thing I want to mention is what
came up tonight with regard to the notice. So um you know from some of the discussions we've been having committees that you know one of the goals of of moving things forward is to make things clear as possible. I don't know what the right solution is. Obviously, the easy solution is to just give clear direction
that they should notify both water companies of laws. The alternative solution is for somebody to confirm when Red Bank and when American get notice and to give clear instruction to the Apple. You heard from Mr. Brodsky that he just give notice to anybody he can to make sure that he can be heard. And so
what happened tonight was we had somebody that wasn't able to be heard and be pushed back 60 days. So that's enough of a reason for us to spend a few minutes with it anyway. >> And that cost them money, correct? Sometime time >> perhaps two months sets them back and >> perhaps money.
>> Oh, this sets this set that out. >> Oh yeah, it is money. >> It's not always it's not always advocate what's at stake in the room because you hear particularly for me a lot of discussion about the structure as it sits and not the people that are in the room >> because the truth is that they're going
to move and someone else is going to be here and the house is going to remain. In this case, what we've got is people that are trying to get through something that's hard and we just don't want to make it any longer. And so, anything we can do to make this more clear and if in the end it's just send all the notices that let's just clean up the
instructions. Um, and I would leave that on burough staff to figure out. The second issue relates to the list and the the language committee. And what I what I just wanted to let you know is that we worked with Jordan with regard to those items. When the committee was set up, I
thought that the committee was supposed to be reviewing things that are being recommended for change. And so what I think that the board has done and we spent a couple of hours one night going through the list. I think the board has a clear idea of how to fix all those
things. But it was my understanding that um the committee was going to look at it so that the board isn't just directing. The alternative to having the committee look at it would be that the zoning board would be happy to say these are the 18 things that we've got. This is what we recommend and we'll just send it
right to council. I think that the preparation of the ordinances themselves shouldn't be undergone until we know that we're going to make 18 changes because if we're only going to make 12, why why take the time? >> Um, but the items that Jordan's got that he's worked through with Joe, I think
are regular nuisances for residents. And so the reason we want to clean them up as soon as we can is so fewer people similarly have fewer frustrations. They won't know it. They'll still be frustrated. They'll still not find. >> But at the end of the day, once we've seen them more than once, um, and we
know that Jordan's telling us that it's difficult to interpret, there's every reason in the world to go back and tweak them, particularly the ones that stem from the changes, the substantial changes that we made three years ago. Um, we didn't constantly anticipate everything that could happen. and the last applicant was caught up in that
idea of this phantom hundred feet. Um, and that was when I said, "Hey, let's meet. Let's go. Let's get it done because it's been best." Um, so in the end, it's up to you as to how you want to handle it. But I just wanted to present it, let the board members know that, you know, maybe they would be asked to do something uh to try and make
a recommendation to council. >> Yeah. So, there's a second email I tried to send to you tonight that didn't go through because I don't have the Wi-Fi, but it it sort of um matches up with a lot of what you're saying. But what what is in my mind is trying to minimize the
amount of deliberation especially if there's people on the clock. Um and so if there's a way to what I propose in the second email is to try to find common ground. The easy stuff get set aside and then have deliberation on a part that maybe isn't
doesn't have agreement and maybe there aren't any. Maybe it's it's unanimous on the 17 or 20. >> I think half the list is easy. >> Yeah. So half the list is easy. get that aside and then when people are on the clock um you know use that time for the stuff where there's disagreement
>> go with that. So then you would like board to provide some sort of a written recommendation as to the ordinances that we've identified and send it straight up to council. >> Yeah. So what what I proposed to you is I was planning to meet with you but it can be the board on the things that like
what are the top 10 or what are what are the priorities what are the things you think are easy and then I would try to meet with uh Joe Mule and Rich and see how they respond to those 10. If there's agreement there then I consider those
are e common ground set those aside. If there's a couple in there that they they don't see as practical or don't work for them for whatever reason, then we sort of hash that out and we either find the common ground or punt it. >> So identify some of those in the first
meeting we had through the low hanging fruit >> the low hanging fruit. So remember I was like okay we can let's take this one this one this one this one. >> I don't remember which is the problem. Um >> yeah the same and to that point I mean I struggle to keep up with you guys. This
is pretty hard stuff. And so there's things that that maybe there was a sense of agreement and I didn't catch it. That's >> I haven't seen minutes from that meeting so I'm not sure. But I I know we started with the let's go through the ones that are glaring and we know we can push through like the new construction
basement stuff and you know that the first floor elevation things that are catching people up that shouldn't be called up. But >> so I know no one has anywhere to go or anything to do. Why don't we take a half hour and do them now? You're on the clock already. >> I do it somewhere.
>> What are you talking about? >> Yeah. No, I'm not going to project today. >> Oh, you can >> if you can you do it on email. Can you can you give me the 10 or the eight or whatever it is that are easy? And then during the holidays, I'm taking the last
two weeks of work off and I can go in during business hours and meet with Joe and Rich and they respond. >> I don't want to do it myself. So, so I don't you wouldn't know it because you've been here, but I don't want to just have my opinion. I think it's
really important that everybody on board and what I would need to know is that everybody is generally seeing it the same way. I think that that's generally true, but if we don't do it tonight, we won't get a chance to do it before the end of the month. Um, but that's okay. We can we can leave it and we'll do it as soon as >> Is it something that requires discussion
between us or is it something that can be sent to us and we can say >> these are my top >> these are my top 10 and send it back to >> Jordan. How is your list? >> So, I'll say this first. I think that there's probably going to be a unanimous decision that we need to update the the
whole list of I don't know how much discussion there's been as to what the actual solution is, how it's going to be written yet. that that's where we might get some dialogue and some back and forth as to how we want to achieve it. But that's that's the thing that I noticed is there was agreement that there's a problem but not agreement on
what the solution is and it was very nuanced um lots of detail that I got some didn't get some uh you know you guys are experts and and there it's it's uh you know fifth level kind of thing about the solution to see so
>> some things were as vague as when we met with the in the uh the old church building some things were as vague as we need to look at the the floor area and we just left it at that. So there hasn't been any out. >> Well, those aren't the low hanging fruit. So I So that's something that
really warrants broader discussion. >> We were talking about block coverage and that's kind of a what do you think and I don't know and >> also not on the list of I mean if it's on the list it's not part of what linking as the list >> right and if we're going to have that discussion for efficiency I would like
to look at the list have thoughts then come to discussion. Yeah instead of doing it ad we'll just be spinning here. Well, or they can be ran or they can be ranked because what happened last time was we went down a crazy when we were in the church. I remember and now I remember and and and Paul you were on
the end Paul's like dude like some of these are like this is crazy like why are we even going and we were like so in the rabbit hole and some of them were irrelevant some of them were real things I don't know maybe it's like a group in their rank that we can tackle them >> here's the reason they're all important
because they were all raised either by Jordan or Joe based on review of applications with applicants and so they're things that are confusing to them that they don't have clear direction on how to handle and so they all need to be thought through and in the end maybe the decision is to just simply tell them what it means. But why
don't we do this? Why don't you circulate your list when you get a chance? In fact, don't circulate your list yet. Let's circulate your list in January because we don't know who the board's going to be. I'm not on the board next year. So, someone else is going to do it. So, we'll we'll collect the list. We'll dedicate you will
dedicate a half hour at the end of your meetings for a few months. Get through things. As you get through, you'll send them to council and we'll get through. You're not going to be here and you're telling us that they get the help. >> I'm the chairman tonight.
>> We're going to get 28 minutes. I'm the chairman tonight. So, I think that's the way to deal with it. The new board get the list from you in January and then spend time picking at it and then three, four at a time, whatever it is, that direction can come
from the chairman to Brian to send to council. These are the four things we worked through. here's what we think you need to do and then you'll have it and then the things that aren't like that you can separately send to the committee and the committee sure >> realistically I'd like to get the the top things that we know we can fix in a
short order the council so because that process is a three-month process to get the ordinance done >> so Jordan's already put together the list I don't want to ask Jordan to do any more work so the list exists so we can just circulate you sent it to me so I've got it and so I can circulate it after
>> I'm gonna be here next year so I mean the morning. >> I'm not sure you are. >> I think your term's up with me. >> Oh, >> your in terms of the your term expires, but we'll see what what the January board looks like. The bottom line is we want to get that the easy stuff through
so we can get the the first flooration stuff. Every time George gets a thing, he has to do the thing. Let's just get that get that stuff out of the way. >> Yeah. So, so that issue by example, right, is that there's it's not clear in the ordinance that we intended to do first floor elevation on only a new
addition or new house. So, it complicates the issues with regard to an addition to an existing house, which may not conform to FB. So, that may not be super simple to solve, but I think we know that we don't want it to be confusing. Uh, we also know that people don't generally raise and lower their houses based on a change in the
ordinance. So, we need to address, >> but it flags it and it adds time to Jordan and it adds time to we don't need to do this. >> Right. Right. Right. All right. All right. We got plan. Anything else? >> No. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Last official motion.
All in favor? I >> And I'm sorry. requires peace.