Everyone, >> this is a regular meeting of the fair bid zoning board of adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. At the time of the board reorganization in January of this year, the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of the schedule was sent to and published
in the Asbury Park Press on January 3rd, 2026 and the tournaments in January 22nd, 2026. The notice was also posted in the bullet in the board in Burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file
in the office of the burough clerk. Copy of the notice has also been sent to the members of the public as having requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minutes of the meeting. Before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight, I would like to say a few words
to the applicants, their experts, and the audience about the role and authority of the Fair Haven Zoning Board of Adjustment. The board is a separate and independent municipal legal entity and his limited authority is specifically set forth in burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipal land use law. It is quasi judicial in nature and the members of this board are
unpaid volunteers appointed by mayor and council. The zoning board does not enact the burough land use laws and regulations. The council does that. The zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough fair. This is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer. The board deals with appeals for relief from the
requirements of the burough's land land use laws or the 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 criterion required by the New Jersey municipal land use law and the fair ordinances by satisfying certain
required standards of proof. The board has no authority to wave these requirements. The burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show show that he or she is entitled to the specific requested. The applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulation will advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation
would substantially outweigh any detriment to the zone plan. Variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations. Ro >> here. >> Mr. Leer >> here. Mr. Dangelo >> here.
>> Mr. >> here. >> Dr. Longer >> here. >> Mrs. Newman >> Mr. Lava >> presence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Rash Mrs. Newman has joined the dance. >> Before we start, um I want to do one administrative thing while we have every audience here and I want to recognize an
individual who passed away in March who embodied the concept of civic involvement in Fair Haven that everyone in this room probably has run across at one time around. So I'd like to read this resolution resolution of fair zoning board of adjustment recognizing the dedicated
public service and participation of Ruth A blazer. Whereas the members of the Fair Haven Zoning Board of Adjustment wish to recognize individuals whose consistent civic participation and commitment to local government contribute meaningfully to the community. And whereas Ruth Ablazer, resident of Fair Haven since 1968, was
an active and contributing member of the Fair Haven community, coaching girls softball, acting as a Web's Denmother, and serving as an active and impactful member of the Fair Concerned Citizens Organization. Whereas the zoning board notes with particular admiration Ruth Blazer's faithful attendance at the zoning board's monthly meetings over
many years, demonstrating sincere and unwavering interest in these affairs, development, and welfare of the burrow. Whereas through regular attendance, thoughtful observation, respectful participation, and continued support of the public process, Ruth Blazer has amplified the important role that engaged citizens play in maintaining
transparent and effective local government. Whereas the president involvement of informed residents strengthen public confidence in municipal land use proceedings and promote civic responsibility within the community and whereas the fair zoning board of adjustment desires to formally acknowledge and express its appreciation
for the dedicated interest and community spirit shown by luxer. Now therefore, we yet resolve that at the zoning board of adjustment of the bureau of Fair Haven, County of M state of New Jersey, that the board hereby extends its sincere gratitude and appreciation for Ruth Blazer's years of faithful attendance
and interest in the work of the zoning board on adjustment. It further resolved that the board recognizes Ruth Blazer as an example of exemplary civic engagement and hereby expresses its appreciation for her valued presence and contributions to the public process.
forgoing resolution offered in by that. >> Can I ask for a motion to approve that resolution? >> I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. Stanford >> Mr. Foron. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Enthusi, yes. >> Mr. Dandel, >> yes. >> Mr. Ryan,
>> yes. >> Dr. Lawer, >> yes. >> Yes. And >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, okay. Starting tonight, we are going to start with uh Dina Lafri, 24 Gentry
Drive. >> Yes, I do want to make an announcement for any parties who are here on the Federo application 66 to Normandy. This application will not be heard this evening. It was carried through April 16th. Um there will be no testimony on this matter. It will be carried to the
October 1st, 2026 meeting. The new notice will be required. So, anyone that's here for Vido, we will not be hearing this today. you waver on the time limits to that is that >> I think it was done um last month >> we approve resolution before the carc
>> Yes. >> Okay. jurisdiction in this matter. >> Yes. >> Witnesses to step forward. Everybody thinks they're going to testify this May testify. thinking about testifying on this
stand. >> I do. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> General instruction is that before you sit down, my general instruction is before you start testifying since we're taping these matters, state your name and spelling the last name in the record
so we can have clear identification of who's speaking. Uh Mr. Pros, is your permission. May I mark some exhibits? Sure commission. >> Yes. When I mark A1 two inhibits the completed zoning board application checklist and the completed land use development application checklist as A1.
A2 will be the architectural plans uh dated February 2nd, 2026. A3 will be the plan survey once she prepared by control layout dated October 14, 2021. A4 will be the color photographs and
color images. Three of the front of the subject of them undated. A5 will be two exhibits listed in list of variances undated and the statement legal basis for granting variances sought also undated. A6 will be the zoning permit letter of denial by zoning officer dated
February 10th, 2026. Also, we're going to tell our going to mark uh the review letter for April 246 as ZB1. >> Any other exhibits? You're up to A7, Mr.
>> Um, yes, we've got we've got one uh exhibit which has some additional notations on the submitted plan. >> If you can mark that as A7. Sure. Is this one just one sheet or is it the
full set? >> Tony, you have the full set there or >> it's the full set, but the only thing that's different. Thank you. The only thing that's different is the uh >> sheet marked that as A7. >> Yeah. >> Revise first sheet. >> Okay. >> Anything else?
>> All set. >> Very good. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Sorry. Excuse me. Real quick. You might run through the checklist items. >> Um there's five here. The first one is uh regarding attic access, which is not on the plan, which I don't take exception to because we're discussing a
proposed covered porch. Um the next is the 200 foot map on the plans. I asked for that as a condition just be added to the plans. And then as that agency approvals, M County Planning Board, SEDD and Health Department uh were not provided, but I don't take exception to
those because I don't think that they're necessary. >> The only documents if you want including the we have the map, did you say? >> Yes. The math of 200 foot radius. >> Okay. >> Have that designated
objections is making that as condition. >> Yes. Yes, that's accepted. >> Okay. Anything else? I'm all set. >> You recommend those? >> I do. >> Yes. >> Dangelo. Yes. Mr. R.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Johnson. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. President. >> Okay. Thanks. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Rick Broaddsky, on behalf of the applicants, Brian Dina and Julia, uh, Julie Laferty. The application before you this evening
pertains to the property that's located at 24 Gentry Drive. Um, and that property is here and found in the R10 zone. Um uh as Jordan had indicated earlier, the sole subject matter of the
application is for uh seeking approval to construct a covered porch in the front of the existing home. No other uh construction is proposed uh as part of the application. Um the uh variance
relief that is necessitated by virtue of the application is uh with respect to the front setback. Um a a portion of the front setback sorry a portion of the proposed covered porch
uh is which is basically the uh first riser the entry is 28 ft from the property line along Gentry Drive uh which is where 30 feet is required uh
border the front setback. Um although not shown not called out on on the plan that you have before you. Um the majority of the front porch proposed front porch
on either side of that little stepout is uh actually is about is 29 1/2 ft from the property lines which facilitates a 30 a 30 an 8 foot wide porch. And so, so
you've got the majority of the porch being located at 29 1/2 ft from the property line and then you have I don't know maybe a third of it or less which is actually at 28 ft. Um so that's so
that's the uh variance that we have with respect to the porch uh for the front yard. There's also a second variance which um consists of the combined side
setback. Um the combin combined side setback which is required in the zone is 25.5 ft. Um since the proposed porch on the
north side, left side facing it, um actually extends out from that the uh the side of the existing home which is the existing condition at 10.7 ft. The propo the proposed porch is at 10.7 ft. And as a
result, when we do the combined setback, which is an existing condition, not being uh not getting any closer, but is exacerbate is exacerbated to a certain extent by um
quote unquote extending uh the north or left side setback to bring the 8-ft porch out uh along the same line as the existing homes. Um and that is that's really the sum and substance I believe
of this application. Um the uh as you'll hear from Mr. Pandora, the project architect. Um, you know, the covered porches are, you know,
popular along this, uh, block, very social, very active. And, uh, and so, um, Brian and Julie want to, our desire is of putting adding this porch so that their kids can sit out front and watch
the other kids ride their bikes and head towards the park. >> One second. Mr. Bros. Yeah, Jordan, there's also the 25 and a half ft between houses or something principal dwellings. I see it called out on the zoning table on the property, but not on. >> So, it is a variance. Um, I'll cut to
the chase. There is an exhibit that's going to discuss that. >> Yeah. Um, I think we'll get to that variance, but yeah, there is three total variances. >> Three. All right. And the one is an exacerbation of the condition. >> Yeah. So the house is an existing condition with regard to the combined yard setback, but because the porch is
new, um it would consider kind of variance. >> Yep. And the porch is simply heating the house at that. >> That's right. >> That time. >> That's right. And also, Jordan, with regard to that distance to the other home, which is why I didn't mention it, but Mr. Condor will speak to it. Um, I'm
not sure how that measurement works, but the actual porch itself is in front of that adjacent home. >> It would be where the the back of the porch meets the front corner. >> So, that's existing condition, I would call it, right? >> It's existing with regard to the existing home. >> Yeah.
>> And the back of the porch. >> Yep. The back corner of the porch is clear clear as the corner of the house that's next door. >> So, >> what do you mean by that? Uh the >> well let's yeah I can show you >> we'll go through here. >> Yeah. I'll take your measurements. I mean
>> he's been more on the credential in just states for last name. >> Uh Honduras C N D O R I S. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and I testified. >> I don't think anybody else is. >> Well, you're all my licenses are current as
>> Yes. >> this afternoon. >> Correct. Okay. All right. >> All right. Tony, if you would now that the exhibit that you have up there is mark A7. Um, and if you could just briefly just to start off just
>> it's the same as what has been submitted and what has been what what all the board members had before them. Correct. The only change being calling out >> calling out the dimensions to the adjacent properties. So, okay, on the on the right side of the house, which doesn't really get affected by the porch,
>> we're 20.4 ft away from that village. On the north side of the house, we're at 24.6. Um, so that the uh we don't meet the combined yard setback for >> for the existing home. >> The existing home. Um, what Mr. Bos was
saying before was that currently that is a non-conformity. But just as a note, the the porch which is extending out toward the front actually is not lined up with that house next door. So the new part of the porch is the next building down is pretty far in the norly
direction. So we're out in front of the corner of that house basically if that if that makes sense. >> But it's it's 24.66. >> It's still 24.66 100%. >> Okay. >> The the existing home but not the porch. Not the porch portion. >> The porch the porch is 24.66 ft from the
adjacent house. >> Yes. If if you draw a parallel line Yes. >> No. No. Not if you draw a parallel line. If you draw a straight line between the corner of the adjacent house to the back corner of the porch, it's 24.66. >> No, it's actually that the back corner of the of the house in question is
actually in front of the >> No, I know it's in front. Do you draw a straight line >> from this porch? >> Yes. >> To >> to the corner of the house. Not perpendicular, but just to the corner of the house. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> The question is, is the is the porch even with the corner of the of the
neighboring house, or is it proud of it? >> Not. is proud of. Yeah. >> Proud of >> then then that measurement is more than 24.6, right? >> Well, I guess I don't know. You can you can do the measurement on an angle. >> You can do the measure. That's why I said I
f the requirement is 25.5. >> Right. But not straight. But >> Right. Yeah. If you take it from an angle, yes, >> which is how which is how we do we take of course. >> Got it. Got it. Okay, Tony. uh back to uh just walking through the
plan and and the home as it exists today and then what's proposed as part of the application. >> So uh if you look at page Z2 first floor plan uh we're proposing an 8ft porch and that 8ft number came from uh it's just a comfortable size for a
for a front porch if you're going to put chairs on it and and be able to use it. Um, often times the columns take away some space. So we we started at 8 ft. So with that 8ft dimension, the main body of the porch encroaches into the front step back about 6 in. Um, but there's
also a middle section of the porch which encroaches another 18 in. And that was done that way purely for aesthetics because um if you look at the elevations, that little part in the front that juts out is it's it's in line with this
gable. It just gives a little bit more of a of a definition to that front entry. So that's why we're seeking the variance to just come out a little bit in the middle. >> Got it. And then on the left side or the north side, uh, the porch lines up with the existing
>> the porch lines up with the existing north wall. >> Okay. And and I guess to bring that in kind of silly trying to bring that in, it would look weird. >> It would look weird. It would interfere with the window. So >> interfere it's brick now, but it's going to be the party or something. Is that
right? Um, either hardy or shingles. It's a little but you are cheating. Yeah. questions for Mr. um indoors. >> Yeah. >> The uh the survey from 2021 if can you just verify that there's been no changes
to the property and that that's a true representation >> uh no changes to the property. >> So the porch is going to be closer to the street than than a garage. >> Yes, it is. >> And the porch is how many feet wide? 8
ft wide. >> The depth is 8 ft. Yes. In front to back. >> Size of the columns, Mr. Defenders. >> Um, they'll probably be 8 in uh 8 to 10 inch columns. >> Um, what about neighboring properties?
How proud are we of neighboring properties? I know Gentry is kind of the sameish type houses all along, but um, are we going to be proud well proud of neighbors or >> No, not well proud. Um there there I I actually tried to get some addresses of houses that have similar porches, but
there were so many of them that I just I took account. There's about at least 10 houses that have porches that are similar. Now, whether or not they're more proud of this, I don't know, but um again, we're only 6 in in that one spot and then a little bit more in the middle.
>> So, the property to the north, um I did notice that their garage comes out quite a bit more from the house. >> It does. Would you be would you know if this is going to be proud of that garage >> or is it just proud of the like front
door house on >> uh I did not take a setback measurement of the adjacent property's garage. Hey, I I do believe the garage actually is this. I believe this Porsche is not proud of our garage, but I I don't know for sure, so I can't really. >> So, I noticed I walked in through today
and I noticed that that one direct neighbor is probably the most proud on most of that whole space. >> I think I believe you're right. >> Um >> that's the garage. >> Yeah. No, it's more it's more of a it's not it's not a full They do have a covered
porch. They have a covered entry, but it's not >> apologies. RF tonight. Hello. Any more questions, Mr. Condor? >> I just have one, please. >> Yeah. >> Your plans don't show any railing in the front. So, are measurements taken to the
guess the face of the second step? If you were to put a railing in, that would be the new measurement before. >> Yes, I'm aware of that. But we're not required to have railings and we we won't do them. >> Okay. Yeah. Confirm. Thank you. >> Mr. Condor, you're changing out the window on the second floor and putting in I guess a French door, making that a
functional balcony or something. No, >> no, it's just it's just a >> it's just a new window. It's it's not a balcony. It's a it's a triple window. It's like a palladium style window without the arch. >> This is proposed balcony on second floor
plan. >> So that's a full balcony. >> Oh yeah, that's that's mislabeled. I apologize. That's not a balcony. So it's not going to be functional. >> It's not going to be functional because it's just a window. You have an intent device indicating bathroom. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> The style of it's very nice. The windows, it looks like they're larger windows in the bottom. >> Yes, we actually switched them out to French doors going across. >> Oh, very nice. >> Any any uh effect on that tree in the front right of the property?
>> Yeah, >> we would like to. It's not a big not a big deal in the front. >> There was a process on your studio that >> to remove trees. >> Yeah. And replace and I assume that you'll be replacing >> Yes.
>> somewhere else >> somewhere else. Not yet. >> It's perhaps so. So, just make sure that that permit. >> Yes. We've gone through the process. >> Okay. Um Okay. Any more questions? Members of the public have a question
for Mr. better. Thanks. >> That's all I have to share. >> Okay. Um, fairly straightforward. Any more? Uh, >> I have a question for you, Pete. Actually, >> yeah.
>> Um, if the front yard setback's getting shorter, front yard area is getting smaller. >> The driveway's already over 25% and it's still going to be over 25%.
I have to get varian. >> Do we have that measurement joined? >> Um don't recall if I did do it then I didn't flag it but based on what I can find here which is the driveway from
this is front yard. I got the width, divided that out of the area that they need for the driveway and the length of the driveway. And we'll apply that width by the new front
yard setback comes out 560 square feet, six feet over 25% of the front yard area. It's already over. It just >> You say it's already over 25%. Just barely but yeah. So but does moving that
does changing that number >> requiring there means that's all >> memorializing difficult. >> Yeah. >> It's it's maybe square feet. I'm just saying does it require variance if
you're going to >> I don't know >> approve it. Is it possible for language without it being specific to his? So if it's like testimonies within your >> well we say it's Tony you have any numbers on it? I I could I could do some scaling with it
maybe, but uh technology is covered. >> Definitely implies Mr. is identified >> if they're here any variant be additional item discussed >> I'd like the record if you go back as to
what it is over so you make sure >> I mean it's really close so I was just ask >> no let's get the number that you see what the number looks like I'm just the phone >> so the front yard is taken Jordan, maybe you can answer. It's taken
from the the the closest building line, right? >> Yeah. So, it's your front yard set back times your width. >> It would be the the proposed front yard set back of 28. >> Yeah, >> I got it. Give me the numbers total. >> What do you got? >> So, 28 time 80
>> 28 by 80. >> That's the front yard. And then the driveway >> 2240 direct. >> Yeah. air over 40 ft. The driveway is uh 25 ft because if you take it to the front building that is
more than I thought >> the wid so the width of the driveway >> the width of the driveway is 20 ft >> right >> the depth of it if you take it to the building line is 28 right >> right >> what
>> yeah it's 20 I'm getting 25.6% 6%. >> Like I said, it's really tight. I just >> That's existing, right? And then >> that's the new >> I don't think existing matters. If it's a new condition, it's not >> that's fine. >> Then we don't realize that unless
somebody has issued. >> No, it's a good cut. >> No, >> that'll be documented. >> You get 25. >> Are we deliberating? >> If everybody's good with that, yes, we discuss. So, I think the tension here is fact that the Gentry houses are all the
same and were built basically to regulations that were built at the time. Um, I'm glad to hear that for only the I think is really the minimum have a functional porch. I would certainly encourage the applicant to consider the slightly smaller columns because it does
make a difference in terms of how things lay out. Certainly helpful to not have to have a rim. Um, and I just wanted to highlight the fact that it really is a dimminimous difference and it is certainly uh a value that the board has recognized in the past to be able to get the front porch in. But I just think it
needs to be highlighted in any resolution of approval that it is um noted uh that it really is a dimminimous deviation so that we aren't starting a slippery slope of even moving too close to J. >> Exactly. Where are we um where you is
piping the extra storm water off of the porch? Were you piping it anywhere? >> Um you know that we didn't talk about that. Um do you have a drainage system? Are you guys going into the granny or they just >> No, we think they just come out.
>> Yeah, we'll just we'll just route them towards the street best we can. >> Yeah, >> we'll walk with we'll work with Jordan. >> Yeah, I think that's I mean >> so it doesn't get out of control. Yeah, >> as long as they're I guess discharged a grade going towards the street. Yeah, >> it just get >> Sure. Yeah.
>> Yeah, I think that's that's appropriate. >> Impervious coverage and it's under the floor. >> Yeah, there's no need to tear up anything. >> Any more thoughts? >> I think it's a really small it's a nice design. It's very small difference.
I think the column thing that Todd shares uh valuable I think it'll make it look less bulky to the street but more importantly when you put chairs and other stuff on that it really does you know you have that 8 foot thing there you have little gaps and depending on what 8t really we talked about this in
depth that I mean no you can and people have done it last >> oh I did and it's fantastic >> but but it gets it gets particularly nice can't really have two chairs across from each other if you do a single rocking chair. >> No, right. You can't put >> You know what? If this proposal were 12
and we're coming in four or five, you want to come back to eight, you'd want it to be minus three porch. You're small, >> but you have small. That's on the record. >> That's on the record. Any other uh any
other board members have thoughts? Contrary. >> So, locked down through today and I took note of all the houses that had porches and all the houses that had just front door coverings, all the houses that had none and all the houses that
had what I'm calling both, which is kind of like what they're proposing where it's like a porch but also like a proper front door covering. So, it's like an allin-one. They definitely I think improved the look of facade of
these houses. Um, and they're most of them have coaches and there's just as many that have what I'm telling both as that have only door covers. So I think that this is in
keeping with and would um improve just the overall facade of the street that I know everyone who lives there is very proud of the wealth of their neighborhood. >> Yeah, >> it's gonna look good with a new Santa in front of it. I also walk gentry and uh uh the house
to the to the as you face the house the house to the left is uh considerably more proud to the street >> than uh than this house will be even with the porch and I think it's a good plan and I support it. >> Having said that I'm going to make a
motion to approve plan um >> the addition of we get the driveway coverage at 25.6%. >> Yep. So there's four total variances now. >> Uh right from balcony. >> Yeah, I have the balcony prog to to make the balcony decorative. >> The drain the drains go to this tree.
Yeah, great drains to the street. Uh >> yeah, >> the condition obviously on the approval to uh remove and replace the tree which is handled outside our purview at the moment >> and uh I don't think there's any >> I think there was there was a reference to make sure that the drainage at the
site went into the street. Yes, >> just a consultation. Wasn't it wasn't a formal meeting. >> That's right. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Members of the board. >> Um, Mr. Broski, you can stay there. Miss half measure back does work. Um, we're going to go to the
50 river levels. >> Well, if you put columns on and then have to set your ra%. >> And you know what? Mine the seven foot porch works because we use a six inch column. >> Yeah. I only have three wides.
That doesn't ask me to ask how long the witnesses may testify. >> This is a continued uh hearing to go. >> You continue to be sworn. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
>> good evening again, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Rick Rossky, on behalf of the applicants, uh, Sean and Eileen Hickey. Um, as this this property, uh, the property form, the subject matter of this application is located at 950, uh, River Road. It's actually a corner
property. Uh uh and um when we appeared last time uh there were and and just just as a refresher um there was essentially two components uh to this application. One was uh with
respect to the construction of a covered porch um on the west side of the property along the frontage of Woodland. Um and the second component of the application was an addition to the home
on the easterly side uh of of the property. uh the purpose of which was to essentially um uh add two bathrooms up on the second floor um uh to service two of the
existing four bedrooms uh that are up there. If I could just interrupt you very briefly just to market exhibit ZB3. >> Oh sorry >> which is the June 2nd 2026 revised engineering report.
I don't know if there are any additional issues preliminarily that you wanted to address so I think we took care of all later. >> I'm good. >> Thanks for interrupting. >> No not not at all. >> Mr. Rocky can you clarify what what variances are triggered by the revised plan? So um the revised plan um the only
variance that is left is the maximum floor area uh which is there's about an 84 square foot correct exceedence over that which >> okay um previously in the in the prior
application there was also a setback variance off of woodland with respect to the proposed covered porch which we've moved that covered porch totally inside of the required setback off of woodland. So there's no longer a setback
variance there. So that's that that box is checked and we're now left with the uh the maximum floor area. Uh no other variances are assoc are are associated with the application. >> Board appreciates the over. I think it
makes more sense than it was nice where it was for the applicant, but I think the exacerbation of the woman would have been would have been a problem and this is that faculty. >> Yeah. And and and you know um I think Jim did a good job to make it work uh as
best he could for the for the applicant. So Jim, why don't we go ahead and um just walk the board real quickly through what you've had there is actually Mr.
Tovatz, does this need to be marked? This is this is submitted. This is the revised plan that's been submitted, right? >> I believe that. >> Okay. >> I don't know that we marked it. >> Okay, that's this this will be new. This will be A95
A2. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Jim, just referring to A9, just walk the board through real the porch move to the center of the
property off off the back of what's the kitchen. We also blended the roof in and actually cleansed up the roof lines. Um, and we centered the peak with that. Um, you'll see it in the elevations. um kind of line things up a little bit better. There is a little corner um
fireplace in there within the within the roof line. And then you still have this this has remained on on the left here on the right rather. Uh the additional um to increase the one and a half
bar a garage to a two full twocar with two doors. We also did a swap of the pavement. So we kept that the same. We just slice a little pavement off the the large curve here and then put it in front of one of the doors on the right.
Uh it keeps coverage the same there and and and that's it really. This right side remained the same. That's a 10 foot setback. We had 10.4 over there. >> The set back for the porch is 34.5 where 30 is required. So we're well within the
setback over there. And the purpose, Jim, of of shifting out that um that coverage, that portion of the uh driveway was was to keep the proposed coverage as as proposed. Right. While
>> correct while providing for entry into the newly widened, >> Right. Right. Right. You have an oversized door and now we're doing two separate doors, which seems a little better for the >> right style of the house. So now we have a two a two garage two >> two garage doors. Correct.
>> Two garage doors. >> Hey Jordan, am I reading correctly? It's under the 400 square foot replacement. >> That's correct. 393. >> Yeah. Questions um for Mr. Dailyaly. >> Are you going to bring up the
architectural? >> Yes. >> Oh yeah. >> All right. So that's that. Here's the plan. And nothing's changed on the bathrooms that have being added from >> correct. Correct. From the board's benefit, please if you could just break down that. >> So, so we still have that little work
room down below, little office space, and then on top of that and over a portion of the garage are the two bathrooms. So, we have two on suite now off these two existing bedrooms that have no bathrooms. Uh those are back to
back. And then you have the roof of the on the first floor here. This is that porch that we're talking about that got shifted over from here. This patio uh that's there now that remains. We're not touching it. So that's it's there. It's existing. We're not making it bigger.
It's it's it's at grade and staying. Uh and then when you get to the elevations, this is the the porch in the back that got shifted over from here where you see the the French doors. That's where it was. Now we're moved it to here. kind of
centered the peak with the window that's there. We blended this um roof on the sign. You can see it uh see it right here actually on this side elevation upper left. That's the rear elevation. You don't see anything from the front.
And then this is the side um on the garage side. >> Okay. And the floor, you have the floor plan. >> Well, that that that I just showed you. >> You just went through a little bit. Okay. >> Yeah. And the photos were saying >> and these these are the photos of the existing. >> Yes.
>> What's there now? The porch is going right here where you see these triples on windows. That's now the breakfast area. >> Any questions? >> Anybody have questions? Mr. Daily, >> really appreciate the configuration.
So you're 84 ft over >> 84 ft and 22 of which is that attic uh calculation over the existing. So if take that off or not it's 62 piece >> over the cast on an oversized top.
>> Yeah. >> Well, I think you did a good job to uh to move that porch. >> Thank you. Any more? Any members of the public have questions? The architect reflect it.
>> Previous conditions included that the rear coverage porch will remain open. No screens are windows. >> And I believe Mr. Wizard, this is this is not even deal with minor development. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes.
And the impervious was >> you'd like to know what the increase in impervious coverage is so it can be tracked over time. It's 393. >> Thank you. That's a good idea. >> Um and I also uh asked last meeting that
they consult with the burough engineer with regard to a potential payment in loo for no existing sidewalk along Woodland. Mr. Brazo, your understanding of that sidewalk fee is charged in all cases
universal, whether there's a sidewalk to be installed or not. >> I believe so. Um, but it's a one-time fee as well. They carved up applications. >> Yeah, I find it I find it kind of a
strange and I can't I try to find information. It's very difficult. the end of hand. >> It's not it's not strange if it's universe. Either you have a sidewalk or they have an extension of sidewalk and they want you to put it in or there's a payment and live. There's something that isn't this application that there was a
note in the comment. They've been told it wasn't. >> I think what's strange about it though is if the that whole area doesn't have sidewalks, it's >> Yeah. It's kind of like the general sidewalk fun. >> That's right. Well, okay. You're just paying. >> Yeah. But sometimes they they want the sidewalk there because there might be a
project down the line like take fair and road they building two new houses to the right and part of the application was adding a sidewalk and then when they did fair road the sidewalk was already there >> and they adding >> so there is there's a method to this. >> Yeah. Or they move the money somewhere else you get a different kind of sidewalk. It's a way of getting
participation. >> That's up to the that's up to >> that that's what the ordinance choose. Correct. Okay. Um, >> don't liberation. Well, I'll start. I mentioned it at the
last meeting. I didn't have a problem with the two bathrooms 84 feet over, but I think they're out of the way. I think they're away from the well within the sideyard. Um, the porch was an issue. The porch has been moved. I don't have I don't have further issue with the
with the presentation. >> I just want to thank Mr. Mr. Sandy, really appreciate you guys. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I wasn't happy with the covered porch encroaching on the side on the setback from Woodland and uh I'm glad it was moved.
>> Other than that, I have no no issue. I'd certainly appreciate the movement of the porch. I with regard to the deviation for the C with regard to the additional square footage, you know, you do this when it's appropriate to add utility to the house. here. The efficiency of getting two additional bathrooms is such
a small additional amount of square footage um is really is really good. And I think that the working around the existing structure and trying to find make the house even that it is with the Memphis aviation I think is fully
motion. Make a motion to >> second conditions. >> Yeah, sub are we do we have any conditions? >> The condition the sidewalk paper l the condition was
that they're going to reduce the impervious to the new impervious coverage um no screens and or windows removed >> and noting for the record 393. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yes. >> Um, >> I'm going to abstain. >> You're going to abstain, but you can still second the motion. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. That's just procedural. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Leader. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Dangelo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes.
>> Dr. Lawer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Yes. >> Mr. La. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Nintend. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. the kids going to be Davidson.
Davidsonif. eliminated on the road forward >> just to test. >> Yes. >> For the record testifying your last name permission
exhibits. Um A1 will be the completed zone board applications and the checklist. A2 will be the architectural plan sheets. Uh the section revised as of
March 9th 2026 will be the survey of the property one sheet last revised as of January 30th. A4 will be the resolution of the zoning board of adjustment dated June 4th, 2001. A5 be the submission letter
prepared by John Lee Anderson. The third expire dated March 10th, 2026. A6 do not have an A6. Um ZB1 will be the April 24th, 2026
uh engineering review of a cityo. Uh ZB2 will be in June 24, 206 engineering week. Second one over to Mr. Rizo and so if you have any additional exhibits, we are up to a sixth in the
next few days. >> Uh Mr. Kovatz, uh good evening, Johnny Anderson on behalf of the applicant. Uh just with respect to the architectural plan, I think we had a subsequent revision to May 20th of 2026 uh to respond. >> Sorry. Yes, you did. That's I'll leave it to your discretion if you want to
mark it separately or just >> mark it as A6 devised again to >> All right. Thank you, sir. Um, we'll probably have a photo board and an aerial if you want to premark them for identification. We could do the photo board for photos as A7 and the aerial as
A8. We'll we'll authenticate them as we get to them. Seven, >> sorry, 88. Uh, >> just an aerial photo. And then with your permission I'll >> anything? >> Yep. I'll run through the checklist
waves there. Uh I have complete floor plans and then uh elevations of all sides of the structure. So the remote garage has been provided and that's where the focus is for the application. Nothing for the the house. Um
details to the calculation of the habitable floor area for the house. that's not changing with this application. So, it hasn't been provided. And then uh attic access location for similar reasons hasn't been provided. And then there was a request for SCD
uh so conservation district. It doesn't appear that that's going to be required. Um so I wouldn't take exception but if it does um end up being required >> otherwise I don't take exception. >> Mr. No problem additional. Yeah, if the
board is so inclined to approve it, we'd certainly provide a certification or exemption as a condition approval. Um, and and then just to speak really quickly to the attic access issue, I can represent to you that's a pull down. It's not stairs. So, >> that represented on the plans. >> Uh, it's not, but just
if it were an open question as you're considering the waiverss that that is the case. >> Mr. You recommend the waivers? >> Yes, I do. Make motion to accept the waivers as presented. >> Second, Mr. >> H. Yes. >> Mr. L.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Y. >> Thank you all. Um, so I'm John B. Anderson on behalf of the applicant Scott Davidson with respect to 30
Katherine Street. Uh, this is an existing single family home. It's got an existing detached garage. It's a relatively newer build, maybe six, seven years old. I believe it's a Petcon home. And Mr. Condor is seated to my right. I think it was the original architect on that. >> That's correct. As far as I'm aware, it
was done um as an exempt development with the development permit and with no need for a board appearance. Uh the resolution that was marked into evidence earlier this evening was from a prior home on the same lot that's you know since been torn down but it did memorialize the existing condition
regarding the lot width. Lots a little bit narrower than otherwise required in the zone at about 90 ft or so where 100's required. Um, but generally speaking, what the what the lot lacks in width, it makes up for um more than makes up for in terms of square footage
or area and in terms of depth. It's about 60% larger than the requirement for lot area for the zone. So, it's an oversized lot in that effect. And it's uh a minimum of about 75% deeper than the minimum depth required for the zone,
ranging up uh on the the opposite end of the lot to closer to 80 some odd feet of of additional depth. So it it reads a little bit more I would say like an R15 lot even though we are strictly speaking located in the R10A zone. Um the
proposal here is really just to install some improvements pretty much entirely within the rear yard. Not doing anything to the existing home itself. Uh but we are proposing a pool with pool patio in the rear yard and then a um sort of a
partial addition within the existing um footprint so to speak of the garage. It's taking it straight back um following the setback. It's a compliant setback. It's going to stay within the height. It's going to be located on the rear side of the garage. For all intents
and purposes, the look's not going to change from the street. It's still going to appear as two bays. Uh the goal would be though to get a uh a third space uh in the rear. Uh technically speaking, I guess it's really four spaces because
the homeowner would like to install like a rack or a lift within that space so that you could have two cars stored uh one on top of the other. The reason being is he's a a racing enthusiast and he has cars that are not street daily drivers. They're more like track cars,
things that would have to be stored within the interior of the garage, both for the integrity of the vehicle as well as, you know, safety. They'd be an attractive target, I suppose, if anyone were to try to steal them. >> Is that seller is that seller for the equipment for the
>> Yes. So, the seller, uh, it's a partial seller as well, only within the footprint of the expanded garage. Uh, it'll be accessible via stairs, and it will cover, um, some seasonal storage, but, uh, tires and wheels for the track
cars, and he hopes to put a like a larger air compressor to fill the the wheels and possibly even the pool mechanicals if the pool installer says they can be down there. So then we don't have them, you know, in the yard looking, you know, less than desirable or making noise.
>> So, uh, strictly speaking, we have three new variances. Uh, they are for the setback to the pool patio. It's 7.8 ft or 10's required. We've got a um sort of a a ratio or a comparison between the principal
structure and the garage. your ordinance for the R10A limits you to 40% for the accessory all structures all accessory in comparison to the principal we exceed it we're about 45 um what I will say is as I look back at it we took a really I
would say conservative approach in our calculations so when we were looking at the principal building we mentally disregarded or eliminated any of the open porches on the front and the rear of the house and we only included the interior interior of the ground floor
when we did that 40% ratio. If you were to include either of those porches, the front or the rear, we wouldn't even be talking. >> What's your take on that? >> I want to see if it originated from zone denial. Do we count for porch? Do
we not count? >> And we we sort of opted in saying out of an abundance of caution, we're going to give you the most conservative calculation and we need the variance. And if you say we don't, you know, we're more than happy. >> I wouldn't think it would. However, it was first caught in the zoning denial.
>> I don't know if that's because it was offered up at that point or not, but >> I don't want to ignore it and then it get flagged again through zoning. So, >> it's I I tried, you know, we'll we'll give you planning testimony on it and I tried to kind of go through the definitions and say,
>> you know, how should Fair Haven do it or how how would you do it? It's a little less than clear. Um I'm just thinking if if you're trying to compare two things, doesn't seem right that you would read out as we did the front porch because it kind of makes the house seem smaller
than it really is. >> George, I have one more question for you. Um so the garage housing four cars in it, >> we're limited to here's the question I have. Is it is ours limited of bays or is it actual amount of cars that you can put it in?
>> The number of cars. Okay. >> Yeah. There's no more than two motor vehicles. >> So, it doesn't discuss side by side, front, back, up, and down. It just says the number. >> Yeah. So, we we concede we need the variance, but I think as we try to make
the case to you, we're going to say, well, it's not going to read like it's a three or certainly a four park garage. >> Um, so yeah, those those are the variances. Um the rationale as I said is is mainly for the racing cars. Um side
rationale is uh Mr. Davidson also has an electric vehicle that's presently stored in there with charging station and what he'd like to do eventually uh his wife suffers from visual impairment. She unable to drive. He's hoping that the technology advances to such a point that
he could get her a self-driving vehicle to store within the garage as well. That's not happening yet, but you know, there's that's the the optimism in the family is that that'll happen in the next couple years. That's down the road. Um, but none of it's going to be habitable. Um, it's all off the rear and
we're just trying to grab a little bit of reasonable space for the automobiles without really changing the look from the street. Um, we've got Mr. Condor seated to my right if it pleases the board. I'll have him put his credentials on the record. Sure. Or actually, you already sworn previously on the sworn, >> right?
As you might Yeah. Condor c n o r i s. I'm a licensed arctic jurist. >> Last time >> has not changed since my last essay. >> Mr. Condor, as you get your plan up on the board, would you just confirm you're familiar with the property that you were the architect on the original build with
Petcon? >> Yes. I I actually was the architect for the original house. Um and uh that was about I guess seven or eight years ago. All right. And you you prepared the plans marked in the evidence this evening as A6. Is that right? >> Yes, I did. >> All right. Why don't you tell the board what's there now? >> Sure. So, right now, um, here's the
existing house. There is a covered porch in the rear that's existing. Uh, this is the existing garage. You can see it's a square here. So, the piece that we're adding to the back is this section here that you see in the rear of the property. Um, the other variance we need
is for the pool patio. Uh, we have the pool, the proposed pool centered on the back porch. Um, and we just widened the patio on the one side there to allow for some lounge chairs. So that's why we're seeking that variance. >> Okay. >> Why? >> I'm sorry. >> Why? You have two other sides that you
can go to where you wouldn't need a variance. Why? Why do that? So >> uh well that was the desired the homeowner's desirable location for those chairs. We um in preparation for the hearing, we talked about alternate placement. I I think that the idea was to get that
symmetry and to align it, as Tony said, with the rear uh porch to walk out and be able to have the lounge chairs down the side. If the board felt strongly that that was a determinative factor of this application, that's that's certainly not the main thrust. I think the the garage is more important to the
homeowner. >> I find it inconsistent to argue that you have an oversized lot to request a variance of that type. >> Not lost on us. We did talk about that beforehand. >> You thought I might say that? >> I anticipated you might. >> Yeah.
>> So, you know, if that were a driving factor, I think we could probably move the lounge chairs to the rear of the pool or to the interior of the lot, stay within coverages and shed that one variance. >> Pretty much similar to the previous application, which you you may or may
not have a bird. They were space in the middle of the lot. Why not use that rather than try to stick it close to the street? So, so the car lift is that proposed to be done now? >> I think the car lift is a present improvement so that if the approval were granted by the board, he would expand,
put the lift in. I don't know that he has the fourth vehicle at this point in time to, you know, to make use of all those places, but he would like to do that for a >> How tall would that addition be? >> The garage edition. >> Yeah, it's going to comply with the 15
foot the 15 foot ice >> and Why does it say exact height to be verified >> on the zoning table, right? You're saying it's going to comply with the 15 foot, but on the the zoning table on the front second, bottom second, right? It says like exact.
>> Yes, that would uh the reason for that is because because of any grading um it could that could affect the height, but whatever the grading turn because you take it from the four corners of the building. So if there's any reason why we have to drop the ridge, we're just saying that it will be 15 ft based on the >> modify the grade based on
>> we'll verify the grading and if we have to raise the roof or lower the roof to make it comply what is the distance from the front of the garage now to the to the street to the property. >> Uh I could tell you like a scale >> 70 something.
>> Well, Mr. Condor is grabbing that on on the height. I look back at the survey that we submitted with the application which is like an asbuilt survey and I think the surveyor actually had it under 14 feet presently. Um we have Mr. Kosuba who come up next who's an engineer and planner and he could maybe speak to a
little bit more about how the addition could impact the uh the height. It's about 90 92 feet about the pool if the pool is not built today. Why not why not slide it a little bit over to the to the right um and get rid of that variance?
Um or just put the chairs in the back. >> Yeah, that that's what we were just talking about before. I think we've conceded we'll do that if >> we're willing to do that sticking point for the board. >> We'll make the patio compliant. >> Jordan, I have a question about the measurement to the patio. The patio is a grade. Why are we measuring to it?
>> So, it's part of the pool. It's a it's considered pool patio. >> Okay. >> So, heard a little drum pool. >> Yes. So any patio associated with the pool counts towards access. >> I think when we first came in in all honesty we didn't have that setback at all dimensioned. It got flagged in
review. It turned out that we had designed it so it was a little bit closer. We started to think well it is that great. It's kind of dimminimous. Maybe the board would tolerate it but we we knew the board may say well what you know what's the rationale for it? So >> okay. Um, so, so really, so if we're
going to make that concession, then we're really looking at the garage. And >> Mr. Gondor, can you explain these other improvements? So, I'm I'm just noticing for the first time, what is this patio to the right of the garage? >> That's actually an existing PA patio
that's there now, right? Yeah. So, it's a I think the previous owners put it there >> behind the existing patio where it says new patio. No, I actually wanted to understand all of it. I was just starting with the patio. What What is it used for? Was it permitted? It seems
odd. >> Happy to get >> Let's swear Mr. Davidson in real quick. You can speak to testimony. Truth. Truth. Nothing. >> What is your last name? >> Davidson. D A V I D S O N. >> Thank you.
>> So the uh patio that's here, I think this is the one you're referring to. Um, in all honesty, I put that in when it was flooding. Um, I had just moved to town. It was just built. I had a ton of flooding back there. That's where my trash can sit. Um, I'll fall on my sword
here. I was not aware of the regulations. So, if um that needs to change, then we can change as part of this. But, I would love to retain a piece kind of right on the side so my trash cans could sit on something solid. >> That's not also the notch out is off of the trash cans. That's for something
else. Yeah. So that notch out actually I put in some drainage at the same time. So those are two big catch basins. >> Got it. Understood. Thank you. >> Sorry. Going to say something like drainage on the on storm water catch
basin or pit or something. The drywall >> there. There is I believe it's up front >> the the drywall for the gutters and yeah >> that yes >> but there is an existing one >> and I I think Mr. Rizzo and Mr. Kushubar
engineer will be having a discussion when he comes up about you know your storm water ordinance and how that might impact things moving forward. >> Right. >> It looks to be a pretty heavily treated lot. >> So um how many trees are you going to
take out to get sunlight on the pool? >> So there's one tree that we may need to remove that's close to the corner of the foundation. It's likely going to have to go. The rest we're not going to change >> the foundation of the garage or where you're going to put the
>> We can draw the area. >> That's not the winter picture. >> That one. >> Yeah. Not ideal. >> Yeah. >> And you'll comply with obviously the tree permit process and yes, we'll go through that and add it or replace the tree. I I can't quite el.
>> So, who did the lock coverage calculation? >> Uh, we did. >> So, you did them based on the site plan that's shown with the existing patio that wasn't originally there and the new development. >> Yes. >> As did I.
>> Are there any other drainage improvements that are proposed? >> Could we reserve for Mr. Kosuba and conclude with this witness and then he'd speak to that? >> Sure. Mr. Dors, can you explain we've had an explanation of the existing patio to the right of the garage. Can you walk
us behind the the new portion of the garage and that stuff to the left? What what is all that? >> Yeah, that's that's an additional patio where they have an outdoor uh kind of kitchen bar thing. And then we have some stepping stones connecting that to the pool. And the total the total additional
square of additional coverage that they're putting on on the lot new space. >> 1286. >> Oh 1286. Okay. >> Yeah. The garage's 299 and all the pool patio stuff's 123. >> Any if you want to go check.
>> So then I'm assuming there will be additional storm water remediation required. >> 100% because it's over the 400. And I think part of this is um so you have your max floor area which I believe Tony's calculations would show the existing house consumes that
>> but you have all this coverage that we have that's left. We can't really do anything with the home. So you he's going to use some of the coverage for these yard improvements, some of the coverage for the garage. >> Well, we're just speaking to the new the new store. >> Yes. So what what would be helpful since
house is that old is maybe you give Mr. is on the compet drywall that exists already. So he can understand what what sort of >> doesn't truthfully matter all that much as long as we know where it is and we're not impacting it that way. It's based on an increase in peries coverage riding
storage for that >> and dry wells are a last resort. >> Well, they already have one for the current but not enough for the >> Well, that's but that's what I'm saying. If we understand what size it is, >> you want to pipe it to the same one. I think why would you want if the why would you want a second one if the
existing one's in front of the house you're going to put all of that it doesn't >> where is it booked in the in the yard >> say also has catch basins on the side >> why don't we have the applicant testify to the best of their ability as to where the current storm water systems are
where the catch basins are >> and and if it's going to be the other individual who's going to testify to that we can hold that off >> it seems like you're I think Joe may be the best to address >> existing as far as I'm aware is
>> somewhere. It might not be dead center but between the road and the front porch and between the driveway uh and the edge of the lot. >> So all your leaders go forward to the house then. >> All all of our gutters go into that including the current garage. >> Really? Okay.
>> I actually have a little bit of a a concern. I don't know how to approach it. the volume of concrete that the pool is going in and how that displace displaces the median water line, right? Because we're talking about storm water
and the 1300 square f feet. That's just on the surface, but depending on the cubic yardage of concrete that's going to the pool, there could be a much larger storm water issue. I don't know how to address that. I don't know if we've talked through that, but >> I haven't been I've been sworn, but I haven't given my name. Joseph Kashuba,
KBA Engineering Services, KOCCI, UBA on the uh planner on the application. We're also the engineer. We did do a soil boring on the property. I just got the results this morning to see the high water table. >> Put your qualifications on. >> Uh certainly licensed engineer licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I
have my uh engineers um bachelor's degree from Ran University in uh 2000, master's degree in 2001. have testified for numerous boards in both my capacity as an engineer and planner, including this one several times, but it's been a little while since I've been here.
>> Anybody have questions about Mr. Chuba's credentials? >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. Uh, so we did have a soil boring done. The seasonal high water table is 9 ft below grade. The pool will not impact the season high water table at all. >> How much cubic yardage of concrete is going in? >> Correct. That that doesn't have any
impact on the water table because we're not digging down into the water table. the the the cubic yardage of concrete doesn't change the weight very much uh because the water weighs half the uh the weight of the soil. So by the time we remove the soil and put a pool in, we're actually putting less weight on the
ground than previously existed. Check. >> And then the lift itself, what type of lift is going in? >> I'm trying to see if it's going underground or if it's above. >> It is not. It's a four post lift that would sit on um the new floor of that extension. >> Check. And Jordan, are there any EPA
rights with a car lift and fluids? >> I know from a public perspective there was cuz we did on DPW. There's all the EPA rights with fluids. Is there anything from a residential perspective? >> Nothing that I mean nothing I'm aware of that that would have impacted this application.
>> Mr. Gors, I'm noticing when I look at the plans for the garage, there's no there's no indication that this bar area is going to be there. And and I'm wondering why you have not represented
on your plans what else is going to be outside because it it it leads one to wonder whether this is going to function or could function more like a cabana for the pool which I I don't know whether or not we would look at it differently but I'd like to talk about it as if it was
another whether or not that would trigger different applying. >> Right. Well, the reason I didn't show it on the floor plan because it was I looked at it more as a site feature. Um, the intention is not to have this be used as a cabana and I believe the homeowner can testify to that as well. >> No cover over it. Correct. >> No cover. No.
One of the reasons we put it there. It it was a nice private location to put it because it's kind of back behind the the wall of the uh the front wall of the garage. I think as we were designing it before we ever came to you, the the plan was to maybe do a full width and go straight back. And we said, you know, is
that too much? uh you know we're 80 square ft 80 something square ft over if we consume that with garage that would have amplified it. So we thought well we really only need to get one vehicle back there with the lift and we just trimmed it in and it became a nice area to
receive the the bar for the >> Can you just highlight where the doors are that might also >> there's a there's a door at the rear of the garage. >> So there's nothing that's inside the bar area. >> That's correct. Yeah, there's no there's no doors there. Right. >> There's an ex existing door close to the
home, right, Tony? >> Then the side like >> by the back patio. >> Uh, is there a side door? >> Yes, it's not showing. It's not >> show left if you want to put the photo board up behind it.
>> This was marked as uh 87. >> Yes. So, this is the front left corner of the garage and there is a there is a a drawer there which would stay which would stay. Yes. >> So from the street the the facade of the garage does not change. >> Correct.
>> Is there going to be very much visible from the house immediately to the right? Looks like on the saddle I know something on my phone looks like there's a pretty dense hedger there. >> Yes, there is there is a lot of landscaping on on this side of the property. >> Is it tall or is it short? >> Uh very tall. It look like evergreen
like a holly. There's a photo if you want to look like a page seven. >> Yeah. So how far is um from surrounding neighbors? You know the distance >> from their houses? >> Yeah. >> I I do not have
>> ballpark 25 ft 30 ft. >> Well, the pool just from the the owner the property line in question here the pool is actually uh the pool itself is about 18 ft from the property line. So whatever's whatever
it's set on. >> Yeah. We we'll bring Mr. Kushuba back up, put the aerial up because there's kind of an odd situation on the um I guess on the westerly lot line that you can go over. We um we're very deep. Our neighbors somewhat shallow. So we
actually kind of touch or border on the home behind us on Lynen. Is it you want to review that? >> Certainly. Uh so we looking at the aerial which I think was marked as A78. eight. >> Um, you can see the boundary of the existing property in yellow, you see the
property immediately to the right. Uh, looking at it from Catherine, their property is only about half the depth. The rear yard of the property uh to the north is uh extends back. So, it's actually their rear yard that is aligned
with the rear yard of this property. It's kind of a unique uh layout, but there is a dense uh landscape buffer between the two properties there um that uh looks like it was installed. It's about, if I had to guess, 10 to 12 feet in height and very well screened. And as
we were kind of developing the application, one thing that came to mind was with our yard and their yard sort of uh co-terminus and then having an outdoor space there at the garage kind of served as a nice buffer to to give a little privacy at our pool so that we're not agitate agitating them and vice
versa. >> What uh what's the topography? Which way >> the topography actually heads uh towards the house. The high point is in the rear. Uh the drainage runs through the backyard and around the the back side of the garage or through the patio or the connecting area here covering. Thank
you. >> The house on the left, how deep is that lot? I think it's 40 right there. Is it number 40 on the left? >> Uh on the left I think that is equivalent depth. >> That lot that these two lot lines match. It's the one on the right that's shallow. >> Got it. Understood. Given given this
room the drainage to the front makes more sense. >> 100%. I mean, in all the stormwater research that we've done, like the medium water table run is increasing, right? Like, so I appreciate that it's 9 ft. I appreciate the volume to take the weight off it, but that's a huge displacement
of work. And we've seen it before where there was an assessment that it wouldn't impact the neighbor's house and then you put it in not going to bring up that one case that was not too long ago and it sent all the water in the neighbor even though the poverty said it wouldn't. >> So
>> well if the if the mean high tide is below that doesn't mean that periodic groundwater elevation couldn't become an issue and the rule is going to displace it. We don't have regulation that technically addresses that. It's seen as impervious. But what you got is someone that's already testified to you that
they've installed something because they had a drainage issue and you're looking at a 40% cap on an oversized lot and they're right to the penny on what that is with a lot going on. >> Mr. Rizzo, if this were proposed as a cabana, I just want to make sure we
covered this and not as a garage, would there be any difference in terms of what's required by way of setbacks, usage, square footage? >> No, it's still an accessory structure. Um, if it had a roof, I'd look at it as building coverage. Um, but they're about
15 or 14% below that percentage. Um, it wouldn't be an increase in impeous. Um, no, I wouldn't see it changing. >> And independent of that, um, there's no restriction with regard to putting a seller in beneath a garage, is there? >> There's no restriction. The only thing I
I noted is that they'll need to verify the seasonal high water table, but there's a separation of two feet. >> Well, so that's another issue for you. You have two areas that are actually going down from what was there before. I remember this lot from when it was developed. There were a lot of trees that have already been cut, >> correct?
>> Um and you basically have sub, you know, it's changed a lot already and it's going to change a lot more. You're talking about a lot of new. not practical, but there's no way to determine by adding a pool what happens to all the surrounding lots, right? We
don't I know we don't require that. >> No, I'm just I can't >> we can't. It's just a practicality of what we deal with. >> But yes, so there's no areas. >> So So how far Let me ask you something. Where the pool is going to go and let's say
you move these chairs to the back, right? We've all all acknowledged it's not the right appropriate area for the chairs. So, let's say you're keeping track. That's three votes. >> So, let's say let's say you move it to the back here, right? What do you think the closest point from this patio is,
right? And where the pool is, if on on his topic of displacement, what do you think the closest point is to the rear of that neighbor's house, the the ranch on the left, number 40. So, >> number 40, the the house here. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Um, so >> this is a good bit back from that house
in terms of planes. I'm just trying to understand what you think the the distance is from where this hypothetical it's not hypothetical this placement you don't know the amount right the nearest point of the pool the bottom left corner to the back of that branch on 40 what do you think that is distance wise
>> uh so so again that that pool is about 20 ft off maybe 22 on the angle heading towards the corner uh and I would say that the corner of that house is at least another on the angle 14 feet uh so in total 36 6 to 38 feet somewhere
around there from the corner of the house to the corner of the pool. >> And does the topography of number 40 is it very similar to this where there it's running the same back to front? >> Uh it is running from back to front, but I will note it runs from not necessarily straight back to the house. It actually runs more towards the right. So the
runoff from the property line heads uh >> away from number 40 >> away from number 40. >> So I'd ask a question as to what drainage improvements are proposed. they they told us to wait for you. So, we're trying to answer to >> So, we have not designed fully designed
a system, but I have um conceptually put together uh an idea what the system would look like. Uh I had a conversation with Mr. Rido about the new ordinance. Um there's not process. Now, we originally >> it's not so >> this has not been submitted and has not been uh officially reviewed by anybody.
But >> yeah, have a name for the document and a date. Uh we could call it the drainage uh concept >> that is this market as a I think what you say A9 concept >> and I do have uh 11 by7 copies of it if
the board wishes wants to see it closer. >> Yeah sure >> and we we apologize we would have submitted it earlier but I think Mr. Kosuba was awaiting the results of the soil borings. We knew that they were required. We got ahead of that ordered them. We're waiting the results. He got them today.
>> I appreciate you doing that. That's awesome. Is that >> uh so we did size it based upon the increase in impervious uh the increase in impervious as we talked about about 1,286 square ft. Your uh ordinance requires two gallons uh per square foot
which is 2572 gallons which is equivalent to 344 cubic feet which is a sizable uh drywall or drainage system uh for this amount of increase. So your ordinance is definitely providing a substantial
amount of storage for this quantity. Um obviously drywalls are not preferred based on the ordinance. You need to demonstrate that you cannot install any of the other options. What we would propose is a smallcale infiltration basin. It's similar to a drywall. Um all
drywalls are smallcale infiltration bases but not all small scale infiltration basins are drywalls. Uh so in this case uh a small scale infiltration basin has a a couple more requirements. Uh one uh that it has an outlet control. So we would provide for
an outlet control that drains onto the driveway so the runoff can make it to the street uh without having to dig up the entire front yard. >> Is that like a pop-up emitter like as you hate the pop-up emitter? >> I'm just trying to think of like mechanics. >> It typically be I would typically have a
14inch yard drain. Uh that is for overflow. >> Check. >> Um my concern with the popups are they ice up easily. Uh they get clogged easily and they don't allow enough flow out of them. >> But but this is automatic. It's not like he has to go and bleed his valve. >> No. And the point is it's a yard drain
that stays open all the time. So the water can always exit from it. >> Understood. >> Uh so the the size of the basin, the small scale infiltration basin, uh it accounts for 344 cubic feet. It provides this has been designed for 346. Um, it
has, uh, stone surround around the sides. It has Coltech units, ColTech 280s, uh, which are, uh, the underground. They look like a an HDP halfpipe essentially. Four of those, uh, in a stone base, piped to, uh, that
outlet controls. Uh, and all of the runoff that's created by the proposed patio improvements will be captured. The anticipation would be there would be a yard drain uh in the center of the area here to capture everything between the pool and the new patio and a strip drain around the back end of the patio so that
nothing exits on the opposite side towards the neighbor towards 40. Uh Catherine, >> what's a strip drain? >> Strip drain is um you see them regularly next to a walkway. It's got 4 in between three and four inches wide and long and go along the side of the
>> It's got the slots on top of it. >> Exactly. So that'll capture all that runoff before it goes uh anywhere off the property >> and even even though it's naturally it's going to come this way anyway as an extra precaution. Is that >> correct? Correct. So the patio you would still but you still always kind of
umbrella drain that off the uh the pool. Uh and we're going to have the yard runoff coming at the pool. So it would capture all of that and transfer it to this uh small scale infiltration basin. >> Why not add strip train to the expanded garage as well? Um, we could the the
expanded garage most likely what we would do is just capture and I didn't note it here, but we're going to have at least one more roof drain that's connected. I have been on the site. I have verified all of the house down spouts as well as all the existing garage downspouts are piped. You could
tell to a drywall um, as the applicant had indicated that is located in the front of the property. Uh, the storm water improvement that he's placed over here. Uh there is a small strip drain right in front of this door that he placed as well as another dark drain uh
to capture some of that runoff next to the garage. >> What What's going on over there? You're you're the engineer. I understand there were no permits, but there was a problem. What What's there by way of improvements? And do we have a solution to a problem or >> Yeah. Can't you incorporate that part
with I mean especially if you're moving those if if you're going to move those lawn that push out to the back that's going to change that configuration a bit. >> It it will. So what I would say is what I wouldn't remove that system but where
the system that I'm proposing is going to capture all that runoff that was creating that concern for him before. All that runoff is from the backyard coming this direction. our script drains and yard drains are going to capture all that before it ever gets to the system that he installed. >> What is that system and how does it impact the game?
>> Um it I did not open it personally. I did see there's two sistns in the ground there. They're about uh 24 in diameter. Um I would assume a perforated system. It's a small system. >> Yeah. If if I may. Um, so when we did landscaping around the back of the
garage, which was not there when we purchased it, I had them run a corrugated pipe all the way around into basins there >> approximately two column probably 25 or 30 gallon of 60 gallons. >> So they have stones at the bottom and
they're a vessel that effectively the water goes into and then percolates from there. >> Correct. >> And did it solve the problem? >> Yes. And what's happening on the immediate right side of that in your neighbor's property? Do they have a similar problem or is it entirely contained on your own? >> It's entirely contained. They just
actually did some work back there and it's dry. >> Does it ever overflow? >> It hasn't. No. >> So, I'm wondering the non-peritted patio if it were to be removed, Mr. Sha, you think that the system you're putting in
would eliminate the need for that those two systems? Is that correct? >> I believe so. Yes. I personally I wouldn't remove it uh because it's also benefiting. It's not providing it. There's no negative keeping it there, but we're going to capture all that runoff before it makes it to that system for the most part.
>> Is that system going to be damaged when you install the conditions? >> The only area I think it might be damaged is when we connect this pipe through. We'd have to be careful. You're going to have it run straight through where you're going to do that. >> So, the pipe on the back of the garage
would be impact. Yes. >> So, are you are you are you going to move it or are you just going to nix it? >> This should cover it. We would keep the part that's right here. But >> if the the piping gone to correct, >> but if the board said get rid of this, >> I mean, that is additional impervious
coverage that seems >> unnecessary. There's also practicality. >> Here's the tension. He's he's under the number, but I'm looking at it and by the eye it's too much. >> Yeah, >> it's your lot line to lot line your
asphalt for 100 ft. This is kind of completing that. And you filled every nook and cranny with something. The issue relates to the garage, but it's the only constraint on your development. And I'm I'm looking at the garage and I'm getting it. I'm getting the basement. I'm getting the pool
generally, but what I'm seeing is a lot. >> The sum total of it is a lot. I'd like the drainage improvements. I'm interested in what Drew thinks about them since it's kind of the opposite of what the ordinance directs us to, but I am looking for some sort of a some sort of relief here from all of this. And
that whole thing on the right seems like it's not providing a lot of value. You could even do, you know, just large slates to sit your garbage cans on over there without all of the full PA. >> So, as the board's been discussing it, I
grabbed the homeowner and he's amendable to removing, you know, the patio. We'd like to just keep enough for two trash barrels. >> What What does that reduce it in terms of percentage? If you if you keep enough for two, do you have that separately item on your plant? >> I do not. I can scale again. It might
have been in your coverage in your calculations separate >> because you really you really need you really have to >> you really need more than two trash cans work very part of this functions as the the causeway to get them onto the driveway. Right. >> Exactly. Yeah. It would be nice to keep
you really keep it. >> Typically we would keep a three-foot strip along the side of the garage all the cans and allow roll them >> this horseshoe and then anything here back. That's exactly what I have. What What does that work out there?
>> It's about 200 square feet. >> 8 by 25. Yeah. This this the patio on the right is side of the garage. >> When what what's the number? You're going to keep that little >> by 12t here. >> Yeah.
>> 3 by 12 plus this little piece. or who that what's the best * possible >> so approximately 60 square feet there so a reduction of about 180 square feet you're estimating I created this
>> no it's not a lot given the amount the size of >> lot something else put it in like a like a phenomenal system. So, did you do that system yourself? >> I had my landscaper do it. >> Okay. So, I mean
>> this is going to be fully engineered. >> It was not engineered, >> right? Like it's going to be fully engineered. You're going to need to get back to the existing garage. So, you're probably going to send a machine that way, I'm assuming, anyway. >> Correct. >> Right. So, it's going to get banged up. There's no way you're going to salvage that. So since you're building an
engineered solution, just do it correctly 100% that you need patio for the garbage cans. Um just clean up all this little grass. >> Um >> yeah, and Todd, just answer your question. I mean, the only thing I would
recommend is landscaping. You know, I want to push that in a little bit, but landscaping here. I don't know if you're going to put any landscape around the pool or >> we haven't designed that yet, but there's a plan to get >> Yeah, cuz that would help with further water. >> What's the fence situation
>> given that what do you have? >> A couple of sides. So, there's new um metal aluminum post fence here and here and here. >> Uhhuh. >> Same fence this way. And then a very old
wooden fence here which we would likely replace. >> So we're completely enclosed then >> the exact the existing backyard is completely enclosed today. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It has to >> and it does have the it already has the pool compliant clothes uh locks.
>> Okay. What's the what are the dimensions of the pool and what are the dimensions of the patio area around the pool? pool is 12 by 18. Uh the patio which is small
pool. >> Yeah. >> You want the the per the entire patio? Well, the entire patio including the pool that we're proposing which we're probably going to change is 30 by about 30 by 27 something like that. You say 30 by 30 >> including the pool.
>> Including the pool. >> Yeah. >> So it's like not even 900 ft. Could you just shift in the left side the 2.2 feet and then shift the pool the equivalent amount? Keep generally the same footprint. >> I'm sorry. The Could you take the left line, shift that in the 2.2 feet and
then just shift the pool the same dimension to keep everything else the same chairs? >> Yeah, we were trying to keep the pool centered on the on the >> honestly. I think what we would do is flip it and put the chairs on the right hand side or the back or the back. Yeah, >> the back. But on the back, you're adding
more coverage. So >> potentially, right? >> Well, we'd be we'd be removing this and just adding it to the back. >> Yeah, >> less actually because you you're not going the length, you're doing the width, >> right? Exactly. Yeah,
>> that's what part part of the reason they started there was that gets the afternoon sign. >> Mr. Kashub, I have a couple questions on this design. I obviously have to review it in more detail. >> Yes. Um, and this is a newer ordinance, so we haven't seen it apply this way all
that much. The ordinance requires two gallons for every new uh square foot of impervious. >> Yes. >> So, are you essentially creating void space for that amount or like how do you how did you calculate to determine how much is actually getting to the system?
>> Uh, certainly. So, I have sized the cubic feet of storage of the drywall based upon uh that two gallons per square foot. Um I I I did not do the question. I did not do a routing
analysis. It's it's kind of and a volutric determination is usually the volume of the drywall versus the or not drywall of the BMP versus the the volume that's required. Um similar to the those that use the water quality storm. Um we
are attempting to capture all the runoff created by the new impervious using the strip drains and yard drains. uh with that the intention there being uh that by capturing that we've met the intent of the ordinance uh but I I did not do a routing certainly uh if if a routing or
or additional uh calculations are required we'll certainly provide >> so the the uh blue line drawn between the dry well and the outlet control is that a drain as well or that's the pipe underground >> that's an underground pipe >> so everything all the water that hits
the patio all the new patios walkways where does that all drain It's not going to go back to the strip drain, right? >> Uh so this walkway here, these stepping stones are pre-existing. Uh the the intent is that all of this runoff would make it to these strip drains and obviously we would provide a final
design with full grain. >> You're going to pitch it back. So >> we would pitch it away from the pool. Correct. Uh so the we never want to pitch towards the house if we can avoid it. So we'd have a a ridge point here would pitch towards this strip drain here or pitch here to to this yard
drain. Uh, and the back and sides would all pitch towards that strip train. >> What about the third garage and the kitchen area? >> So, the the third the additional garage area, I didn't show it. I apologize, but we would provide roof drains. Uh, the gutters would be piped into the system. >> So, when we were when we were
contemplating the ordinance, we were going back and forth between Atlas 100 and Atlas 250. Can you talk a little bit about the the volume that the strip drain and the inlet and the outlet can handle as far as the volume of rain
coming in a small amount of time. >> Right. Because it's one thing if you get 4 inches of rain over three days. We've seen storms now where we get four inches of rain in two hours. >> Yes. >> Right. So can you just talk through a little bit of that? Uh so I don't know the exact uh the the
flow or uh flow per foot of the strip drain. What I will say is the anticipated grading since all of this grades down and the pool grades down. This is going to be at the low point. Uh so uh and there'll be a ridge uh somewhere around here. So it needs to
flow into this system before it overtakes this. So all of the water will remain in the back here until it goes into that drainage system and into the uh small scale infiltration basin. Uh I can certainly provide they do have documentation of those numbers. I don't
know what they are. I do not anticipate I put these strip drains regularly. Uh they make some that are very narrow that are they're so thin um they're like a half inch thin so you can't see it in in a patio. I don't like those. They they clog up a lot and they don't have enough
flow. Typically what we've set proposed is a three inch or 4 inch wide which has plenty of flow uh capability but we can certainly provide you the exact numbers on there or provide it to Jordan as well. >> And then my last question is is there any need to slow down the water as it comes from top left down
>> right so you know like sometimes the velocity they'll put like certain mitigations in to prevent it from like washing over like a wave. >> Is there any requirement there based on grading or topography? Based on topography, I've been on the site. It is a gradual grade from the top uh left to the pool area. If I had to guess,
there's maybe three feet of grade change in that area uh give or take. Uh and it's all uh you know well-maintained lawn area. In fact, I have topography here. I can tell you the exact numbers uh at the area of the pool. You got a
magnifying glass if you need it. Right. >> My eyes aren't as good as they used to be. uh 45 give or take at the back corner 41.8 uh right there. So about four foot grade. >> Can you I'm sorry. Can you clarify where those readings are from?
>> Certainly. So 45 is at this back corner here. 41.8 is right here. >> Left of the property owner to the left. What what is it property? >> The property owner to the left is at approximately 42. and it goes down and it go slopes this
way away from that side uh and down into the low point is here between the existing garage. >> I just I just want to flag for the purpose of any resolution that that grade maintaining a positive drainage into the property versus out of the property is important. What about on the
other side where the other patio is? uh where the other patio is. Um that there's not a lot of grades there and I wouldn't eat that magnifying glass that cooking. >> It does look it grades like it grades
away from the garage there slightly maybe one to two >> as it as advanced. Right. So >> today so the water that gets around the garage on that side is probably channeling to the neighbor. Uh well, it's probably I think it's captured by the system that he installed. I think
previously it did likely make it to the neighbor. Uh right now, if I remember correctly, there's a little curb uh along there. And also the neighbors that that well-maintained um I think it's Laurel or Holly uh screen is on a landscaped burm. Uh so there is kind of
a a bit of a burm between the two properties stopping water from going from his property to the neighbor. >> Whose property is the burm on? >> It's actually on the neighbor's property. So they've burned it so it can't come that way. >> Correct. >> The not the same condition on the other side. >> Uh I honestly the the screen is well
enough I can't see the other side of that material. >> So I'll probably hold something. >> So Mr. Davidson, if you start at the beginning of your garage and you walk back along the property line, explain to what a flip of screening is on the right
here. >> Yeah. Explain what the screening is on that property line. uh very tall hedges on their their side of the property. >> Jordan, is that one caption >> on the other side of >> It is. Yes. >> Um page seven.
>> So that looks like pretty good representation. >> And how about on the other side? Uh over here there's on the fence there's a bunch of ivy and then there's some plants that she has on her side poop out >> browsely here and then it's uh wooded
non-maintained. >> So you mentioned you had some ideas and thoughts about landscaping but I don't think that we have them here tonight. So can you share with us what you were thinking about looking for mitigation you know of all the additional development. So what are you planning on
doing? I'm looking to hire a professional to give guidance. We haven't gotten there. Um we wanted to go through this this discussion first. >> Okay. And if the board were interested in commissioning an approval under there being screening on what I believe is the east side where you have the chair set
up there, would that be something that would be agreeable? >> I don't see why not. We'd have to figure out exactly what that is. But >> you said that there's a wooded area there now. >> Um on her side um on my neighbor's side. So her house would end roughly here.
Sorry about that close. >> No, that's a >> um and then from there there's probably 25 ft of yard and then it's wooded area. >> Okay. >> There's it's open adjacent to to the proposed ruling. >> We have another photo if you like that
wasn't on the photo board. We could mark it in and pass it around. It it should show that common property line pretty well. >> Identify that. I don't think it's reasonable and and I understand you didn't develop the property, but I'm familiar with it because I know who developed the property and I was I was there when it was being developed. We
clear a lot and then all the screening is provided by the adjacent lots. >> And of course, the adjacent lots are going to come down and they're going to want to do the same thing and you're going to be left with a whole bunch of stuff with separated by any greenery. The hedge on the right on the west side,
I think it is, seems to be well established and and that's already there. it's firmed up, provides them the advantage of of some protection with the water. Um there there's nothing on the other side. I would think that it would be reasonable to the board to condition
any approval on making sure that investigate that side to create some screening. >> It also help with mitigating further storm waters, right? More plants getting better. >> This is the east side, correct? Left >> unwinded. Correct.
>> Yeah. And that would really need to be installed with some elevation so that we don't change that grade because right now it's pitching to the house which is unusual but the homeowner is going to have to deal with this water and the worst thing that could happen is those homeowners come to us a year from now
and tell us that they have flooding in their basement because of these problems. We don't want that. >> Is this your detriment? >> Uh yes, we introduced that as A10. Sure. You have more questions. >> That's the east side.
>> Yeah, I do have I do have one storm question comment kind of want to include you too, Drew. Is the way the ordinance written, it's you need to provide two gallons per square foot increase in pvious. What I'm not totally clear on is um how
do you confirm that we're directing enough water to it first and then that this the system itself is actually big enough to hold it or is it in a situation where it's intended to fill up and probably going to start spilling out
that outlet? >> So, uh so I can address the second part which might make it easier to address the first part. uh the two gallons per square foot of additional impervious coverage is not enough to hold the 100red-year storm. So there is an anticipation I think >> and we don't typically design it for
correct >> a drywall for the 100redyear storm. Um but we're also not really looking at total drainage area to either like the neighbor to the south their whole property pitches this way you might be collecting a lot of water. Correct. >> That's not really in the design. It's
just sized specifically for the increase in impervious. So we might have a situation where it is overflowing that outlet and as long as >> and when the ordinance when the ordinance was designed there's there's no black and white solution with this stuff like it's it's impossible to have
>> and I guess it's not specific to this one but you might have a system that you design and you send a couple roof leaders to it but I don't know how that that number is quantified other than that there's there's void space to hold it. Yeah, it's fair. But that's why you got to look at the whole picture, right?
Like what's the landscaping look like? What's the topography look like, right? Are there any con current water issues that exist? He had one eight years ago, give or take, right? So, it's how it all comes together. And then, I mean, the fact that he added the outlet control, >> like
>> I think that's important. That's phenomenal cuz if he gets an inundation of water from the top left and up north and south like top left, >> you know, if that thing gets overwhelmed, so to speak, it will then go out and go down the driveway. >> Correct. >> Which I think is a nice mitigation
tactic to what you're talking about. >> Yeah. These drains don't really work that way. I understand. And I don't mean to impugn your entire profession, but they don't they don't work like that. When this rain comes down, it's going to sheet flow and it's going to go right over that. And what's really critically important here is that all the pitch is
right. That's that's the issue 100% because if it's going to flood, it's going to be flooding in your backyard and it's got to be your problem and not your neighbors. I know you're designing it and spending a lot of money to avoid and I get it, but it's the neighbors that we have to be most concerned about. You can't have that problem going that way.
>> And Todd, what they do now is it's part of the inspection, right? So when they when they put the system in, they got to leave it fully open and then Rich or whoever the burough engineer is needs to go out and inspect it. Make sure the pitch is okay. Make sure all the different components are. So, it's not just like bless it and go. It's fully
open. It all has to be reviewed and then blessed and then you can cover it. >> But the difference between a roof leader is that you're piping it and it's going and it's going to go. When you try and capture it, I I have a pool with a very large patio and I've seen it rain and it's shocking and the amount of water it
just it overwhelms all the systems. Doesn't matter what you do. And so, you need a place for it to go. Okay, >> do you have other still more questions? I just had another question, Mr. Kuba. Go ahead. >> So, obviously it's a pretty substantial
infiltration basin that you're you're building in the back and I think Drew, you hit this already a little bit. You're going to need like a mini excavator or something to get back into the yard. I would imagine it looks like you got pretty narrow access on both sides and there's gating there. I mean,
have you looked at that? How you're going to get a machine back there? >> Uh, I haven't personally looked at it, but in my uh estimation as an engineer, um, we would typically take the fence down to the right of the garage and come around the back the side of the garage,
>> which would probably trash that little patio that the homeowner put in anyway. >> Correct. Which we're ripping most of it out. So, that makes it, you know, >> and then on page seven of Mr. Rizzo's letter, I don't have a copy of that. I think >> I think someone said Mr. properties are live trees they have taken down. It
looks like there's some really nice specimens that are maybe not specimens as part of the thorough but nice trees that are back there and I I guess the one that's immediately behind the garage is the one that unfortunately is going to have to go >> I believe so. Yes.
>> Okay. Um can you talk about what can be done to protect the other couple of trees that from >> uh Certainly. So there is another large tree further back than that that I don't believe will be impacted by the uh construction.
>> Well, you start digging for this basin though, too. I don't know where the roots go. You know, I'm just concerned that the those nice trees in the back, they're going to be damaged. Keep that one. >> Yeah. So, the the applicant's intent is certainly to keep that tree. uh the extension of the garage back does not
come into uh the tree and barely touches in my opinion the uh um the canopy uh the the edge of the canopy. So it should not impact the root system substantially where it would have any impact on the tree. We could certainly put tree safe fencing around it to ensure that it's
maintained throughout construction. >> See that? I don't talk about different things in other projects where you have to go out to the drip line and start moving. It's got to be a drip line it doesn't work. The ordinance, the new tree ordinance addresses that. There's some threeletter acronym that talks about the roots coming out from that. Okay. And it spells out specifically how
you're supposed to protect trees when construction's happening. >> Okay. >> So, highly re I mean, it's spelled out the ordinance. It's pretty straightforward. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. If I may, we've actually had an arborist look at this one, the one we're talking about here. Uh it does have a low V. Um, and he's already starting to
think about how to put in mitigation to tie it together to make sure it it stays healthy, >> the cabling or something like that between the >> Not not exactly sure what it is, but he mentioned there's some way to do it. >> Can you review where you're going to extend the patio and where you're going to put the chairs?
>> Yeah. Do we have a new measurement for that? Because obviously the measurement is going to change on coverage because I think it should be slightly smaller. Just eyeballing it. Well, just >> if you're going to put them in the bathroom, that is fine.
>> So, that the uh the current um extension of the p of the pool patio is about 22 feet by 5 ft. Do I assume you're going towards the east and not towards the
>> No, we're going to go towards the south. I believe we go toward the south towards the south. >> Actually, as it turns out, um, it actually is going to be about the same size because we're it's it's this dimension. >> Yeah. Trunk. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it's just you're just we're just taking this and moving it to the back,
>> right? So, it's just but it's the same dimension in size. >> Same. Yeah. There's no there's no decrease in coverage by doing that. >> But 110 square ft is getting shifted from the east side to the south side. >> Okay. >> So, previously you had mentioned the strip drains along the perimeter of the patio that they're going to be at the low point. >> Correct.
>> How many inchels do you think that is below the grade of the patio? >> Uh the we would typically the the strip train is level with the patio, right? >> But the patio pitches away from the pool usually an inch or two across the patio.
Uh, and then gradewise that's going to be below the neighbor. And if we are putting screening in there, we will burn that screening up. Uh, so it'll be, you know, substantially below the neighboring crops. >> I was just trying to understand if there was a low like Todd was talking about if it was going to be caught by some
>> it's going to be so the the the strip drain will be in a trench in this particular case. I agree. There are certain situations where if your grade grades away from the pool, >> the water will overtake that and continue down into the lawn. Correct. In this particular case, we're kind of putting it in a swale.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Can you just help me level set with where we're at with the changes? I want to make sure I'm keeping up with everything we talked about. So the only change that we have two changes to be made is the removal of the existing patio and permanent patio on the side of the garage and the
resighting of the chair portion of the pool patio to the to the south. >> Is it a full scale removal of the thing on the right? I thought >> well they'll leave >> I think we said about 180 ft. >> He wants to leave something for if if it were me >> the whole thing isn't 180. I would take
the whole thing out and put two uh concrete or blue stone pavers down just to put your sight set sit your garbage cans on. Um I've done that in previous houses and it works fine. >> I mean are you amenable to that given it's going to get destroyed anyway >> given that you're going to get
destroyed. So we're we're putting something back whether you know I'd love to be able to easily roll them around that corner. Um but if it's the recommendation that it's you know a couple of favorites I think we'll make that work. >> To Mr. point. We're trying to reduce wherever we can. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, right side patio's gone. >> Right side patio's gone. And the >> chairs are in the back. >> Chairs are in the back. But that's a net zero. >> We talked about one tree going. >> The tree is going. Oh, yeah. Wait a second. Uh maintain gradient to keep the water draining towards the front. Burned
landscape screening on the eastern boundary. uh reciting >> and what Marty discussed which is the supporting point of properly protecting the tree during >> the tree protection. Yes.
>> Um green buff the buffer on uh east side. >> Hey Todd, question for you. With sheet flow, do you increase the size of the gutters? Go six inch instead of five. Like how do you mitigate the sheet flow
and the volume of water so that more of it gets captured instead of just >> Nobody should install the small gutters anymore. >> But getting that extra width on the gutter allows to capture and it won't shoot off as as easily but it'll shoot straight off the roof. But where are we
putting gutters on? Yeah. Just if it were the house that was >> the only additional gutters on the garage expansion >> extended garage >> and that that's a rather short roof. >> Yeah. I would let them match what they would. >> But with regard to that, Mr. Gondor, you you've been a little uncertain or
unclear with regard to the height. I believe what you were testifying is that the additional garage will maintain the existing ridge height of the existing garage. >> That is correct. >> And that's 14. Did you say >> the uh asbuilt survey confirmed it at 13.7 ft? >> 137. So we're Well, I It's a shallow
pitch garage. It's not It's >> It's a rather Yeah. shallow. I mean, you may actually >> and you can get a car with and a and a and a lift and put two one over the top and that in that height >> and that's why we rotated the back pitch to make that work. >> You can see on the diagram I have that I
have down towards the garage from that end. So, you're going to end up with probably an even lower >> I think I think you're right. I think you're right. >> What we have not discussed the car and
lift situation and the stop where >> this should be discussed right it's your hook for everything you've asked for it. If they weren't doing it they wouldn't even be here. >> Yeah. So all the stuff we're talking about is tied to the fact that they want to add the garage. >> Correct. >> And what are our feelings on that? I
mean I I you know I know we the the ordinance says you can only park this many cars. Um people have more cars these days. You know, I mean, there's this >> I I I think it's ridiculous that the burrow would care if somebody wanted to put in a lift, but she's another far off. I don't understand why.
>> I always thought it was a bay thing like for you know, the size of the garage like that that >> the idea of the lift was probably not contemplated when they did the organ. >> Well, you know, higher than 12. >> Exactly. >> And if I might add, the two-car limitation stops at the R10A and B
zones. the R15 for a 15,000 foot lot, you're allowed three vehicles. Uh this is a 16,000 foot lot. So although it's in the other zone, we've certainly recognized that the ordinance does recognize a little bit bigger lot allows a couple more or one more. >> It's also really not four, right? It's really the it's the spacing of three.
>> Correct. >> In my opinion at least, >> I'd rather have the uh the car in an extended extended garage than in the driveway. >> Absolutely. Yes, >> you'll both undoubtedly. Um I think that in the end we're talking about the the
rest of the property, but the garage is the reason that they're here. And so if you want to see the improvements with regard to the drainage, I think it ties to granting the variance with regard to the garage. I think you have to look at it on a case by case, but I think that's pretty much what we've done in total. I
think with regard to designing it immediately in the rear doesn't look like too much garage for the house because you can't really tell. It could also be a banner for the pool, which would also make aesthetic sense if you were looking at it. >> Um, none of that bothers you. >> Okay.
>> You're not going to see the extra garage space from the highest maintain to Al's point. Actually, function is a little bit lower with the grade, right? >> Um, any more? >> I mean, >> I think we've covered everything. I had more of an outline, but I think we kind
of have it all together. Yeah, I think the board has hit on most of the logic of the variance. I mean, we are offering some pretty >> I should state I do believe the variances can be granted under both the C1 and C2 criteria and I don't believe there's a substantial detriment to the zone plan, zoning ordinance or the
general welfare uh or or uh general public. Um there's plenty of screening here and as indicated the it where the garage is proposed it's appropriate. It's not tall. It doesn't have a substantial impact and there's no substantial impact to air. I think it's a lot of improvement with
the storm water which has become a huge you know Drew came off council has been a huge flash point of of everything. >> So >> this is not the only municipality that has been looking at that. So the fact that a lot of this is being addressed as a >> correlated to this I think I think it's
pretty >> of the other side of the eastern side the one >> the one that's not that >> the point that I was going to make is with regard to the screening because I think the screening should run not just the length of the pool and the patio but should extend back to cover the the
floor. >> It doesn't show enough unfortunately. >> You're saying essentially similar to the screening on the other side should just run the lights. Yeah. Is that correct? It it should be from at a minimum it should be from where the open porch starts and it should stand it should extend out to at least where the patio
stops. They can do anything more that they want to but if you look at this photo there's an aridy effect starting is to provide some screening between all the stops and >> yeah I'm looking at the homeowner he's fine with it. It's mutually beneficial. It's privacy
>> probably down all the way. One thing, one thing I would just want to make sure if you're cool with it is for them to work with Jordan just on the volume and how much water, you know, absolutely things can handle that. >> That's a comment on my letter. We definitely have to work through that. I would just like to add as a potential
conditional approval that the uh this specific exhibit be referenced that we looked at tonight um a 89. so that the drainage design is pretty close to what's shown here >> with the addition of the roof leader
from the back of the garage is not currently shut out. >> You recognize you haven't seen any of this and I think we're all relying on you to spend some time with it and make sure that you agree that it's going to work. >> Um and I think that's critical while we're in the field.
>> Yeah. And and plus that the pool patio would drain back towards the uh zip drain. >> Yes. Yes. We as a conditional approval, we'll provide a grading and drainage plan that demonstrates all of that. >> The other thing to look at when you get that far is what sort of inlets you
have. So that perimeter drain is valuable, but you know the larger drains to the extent that you have low points that you can add to bring water away. Not as much about mitigating it as you see it, but rather just just getting that water out of there. I would just
encourage you to consider those other things. >> Yes. Are are you aware of this design for this uh Coltech that it's called? >> Correct. Coltech 280s. >> Is there any operations and maintenance that you have to do on it periodically or is it pretty much installed and
forget it? >> Uh so there is uh some general maintenance, but it's not necessarily with the unit itself. It's more with maintaining clear drains, uh keeping all the the leaves and debris out of the strip drains and that so that it does not get into the system.
>> Got it. There's an inspection port. >> There is an inspection port. Yes. >> I'm assuming those strips that they come off and you can clean out. >> You usually they're screwed down stainless steel screws. You can take the top off, clean them out. >> And this would be deed restricted to correct. >> Uh we could certainly deed restrict it
if required. Yeah. >> Believe the bill was a storm water notice kind of thing. >> Yes. >> Usually the biggest issue is settlement. >> Yeah. So, the only other thing I would suggest is since we're talking about permitting the installation of another
garage and we're not yet at lot coverage and we won't quite be there if they remove the patio on the right, I think we should in a resolution of approval, I think we should limit this right where it is. I I I don't think that if there were additional improvements that were being gone through that they wouldn't be
factored into this. And I feel like even if you could pour a permit for a new 100 by 150 fire pit for that it it you know >> just because the space is there >> it's just too much. Yeah. >> How
the only thing so so the truth is that if they want to pull a permit and building department resolution they may not know about it. But nevertheless, I would still feel more comfortable voting in favor of this if we landed it to the improvements that plus the stuff that's
going >> whatever that not less number still that's >> and it's it's pretty close to the cab. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Are we just learning for me? Are we allowed to go against table C like you know where
like it it lists all like the square footages and stuff? Well, so so I'm going to justify it because Mr. Anderson's going to critically consider whether or not what we just said is correct or not. My view of whether or not you could build another garage here is basically tied to this overall plan.
And I think that conditioning the development of a structure on the limitation on further impervious is to me justifiable. I'd certainly be willing to defend it if Mr. Anderson was going to sue me. I don't know who would win, but um I want to put on the record that I'm tying it directly together.
>> Um and and that's where where a yes vote will kind of come. >> I mean, I think given the the the garage, as you say, is key and we're going to make an allowance on that. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for us to ask that the lot coverage be held at this number.
>> No, I don't. Okay. >> Mr. Anderson, what do you think? >> Don't love it. Spoke to the homeowner just now. He's okay with it. I mean, you know, I don't know. I' I'd love to go with table C, but I understand where you're coming from. >> And fair enough. You can go and as Mr.
Lee suggesting the mobile department, if if the building department doesn't vote for the resolution and read that, they'll grant it and and nobody will be none of the wiser. >> We do want your vote. >> Okay.
Any more? No, I mean in just 30 seconds closing, I think the board uh really dug in here. I want to thank you for that. Um this is a new ordinance, but you're all demonstrating an extreme amount of concern for the homeowners in Fair Haven and trying to make this a a good place
and a better place and I think the plan checks all the boxes now uh with your help. Um definitely is going to secure from, you know, any future flooding. Uh I think it's going to create a desirable visual environment. It's going to keep all these cars contained in the garage and not have them out in the driveway
with a tarp over them or something like that. Nobody wants that. Um the garage itself, I think, is a nice screen or buffer to the neighbor to the one side. The trees that you've added is nice screen and buffer to the neighbor to the other. You know, certainly I think the benefits outweigh the detriments. And I
don't see any um any negative on it because it's in the rear of the yard and doesn't change the look from the street. >> So, I'm going to ask a question. I know you just closed so forgive me for breaking protocol. We talked about the seller being used for storage and not being finished, right? >> It's >> I assume the seller is going to have
electric, but I assume the seller doesn't need plumbing. >> The only reason it would have plumbing is to get plumbing to the out outdoor area. >> You don't know yet if the pool equipment is going to go there. >> We hope it can. Don't know.
>> I mean, if if the request was no bathroom, would that be acceptable to >> 100%. >> Yeah. you know about the no sinks and I think everybody would appreciate if the pool equipment be down there. So I wouldn't want to discourage them from doing that. >> Um I'm just imagining something that is functional but is not additional living
space and creates more. >> The the only thing that I could see rationale why we'd want to do that. I'd rather have a hose coming from the garage to wash a car and rinse things down out back. But >> yeah, I I I you and I are on the same page. That that seems reasonable to me.
now wouldn't want to restrict your ability to put in a hospital, >> but no sink. No batter. No, we have several, right? >> Good. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Deliberation already. >> Any uh members of the public have questions of the applicant professionals? >> Reflect. >> Will the call? We don't have the ball. >> That's the other board.
>> This isn't the planning moment. We avoid >> Does anybody have anything that hasn't been said already? >> The only thing I would say uh Mr. shared. Um, what I what I loved about this conversation was it was a discussion back and forth and I really think it's
demonstrable of this board wanting to work with the applicants but also be reasonable. So, I just want to set it as an example. I think it was fantastic on both sides and just appreciate it. >> Well, like say it's a big learning moment for for myself actually. This is all kind of new to me. Drew, I know
you've worked on this stuff extensively. thought there's a lot of experience with it, but just seeing some of the different things and and it wasn't a knowledge. >> Yeah, it's awesome. >> Anybody else? >> You see the work around for drainage for
infiltration as opposed to >> Well, absolutely. Nobody wants water on their property. No. Okay. If the board has nothing else, then I'm going to make a motion because there's a huge list of conditions. I'll make a motion to approve.
Okay. Uh let's see. Removal of the existing removal of the existing unmitted patio, the sighting of the eastern portion of the pool patio to eliminate the sideyard variance. Um we're going to need the final number on that though. I know that you said it was exact, but I'd like to see that number.
We locked into a we locked into an even swap >> 110 ft bathroom >> for the for the first one. You're saying the entire patio. So no pavers on the side. Correct. >> The problem is we don't know what that number is. So I like enough to put a a
garbage can. >> Reasonable. >> Yeah, I think you said the full amount. So is that what it was or we keeping some? >> I think we're just I'd like to remove the whole amount as much as possible. First, I'd remove the whole thing and just put a put a paper down. >> Yeah, but you're but you're you're
inviting new and the question is how much new is consistent with what you're thinking, right? Especially if you're about to cap it. Good point. >> Do we know the the exact number that just embedded and what would be reason? >> No, it's not a perfect rectangle. I can't >> Yeah, I think that's the question for
the applicator is what how many square feet do you need to put the cans in the way? >> How many do you need? Oh well, I need to measure. I don't go for it. Go for it. >> It's You got professionals all over the place. >> Do that by
>> what they do on that making sure that they don't go backwards with the storm order that he solved on that side of the house. >> Right. So the whole reason >> Yeah. I think Mr. I I think Mr. Kuba testified that that would be captured by the
new system. I agree. probably what's your scale here? >> Oh, yeah. You're right. We need to know the number. >> Yes. >> You need one engineer. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. >> Honestly, this didn't even hardly work
on this earlier. There's one cat one like that. 1950. >> I'll do you one better. In our basement at the law firm, we have like a literally something you put a document under like an old deed.
>> No, not it blows it up like super large. >> We would like to keep a 3x 10 strip along the side of the garage for the cans and obviously any cardboard or anything. Um that's 30 square ft. And then to maintain that the the turn
around the front of the garage we talked about uh is about another 14 square ft. So about 44 square ft total. >> No problem. >> Can I provide something just based on personal experience? >> Yeah, sure. >> So I did a slab on my side with the
garbage cans. >> I did three feet >> and like I barely had enough of the wheels. >> So like I give that to you. >> So 60 square feet. Give yourself >> one foot by 15. That's true. Sorry.
>> We got a 44. >> Yeah, >> my hands are on dirt. >> Okay, so let's go back to this then. Uh removal of the existing unpermitted patio except for 60 square feet. >> Correct. >> We're going to need that number. We
We're going to need So 60 plus whatever. >> No, no, just say 60 square feet. >> All right. 60 square feet. Yeah. >> Um resetting of the eastern portion of patio to eliminate the sighted variance. Condition on maintaining grading to keep the water drainage toward the SSIB from the rear of the property. Um burn
landscape screening on the eastern boundary. Protection of the tree that will be we know that one's going to probably be removed. Protection of the existing tree behind that one. Uh no bathroom or sink in their basement seller in the uh garage seller.
and uh submission. There'll be a grading and draining plan. Grading and drainage plan to be coordinated with Mr. Visil. Did I miss anything? >> You said no sink and bathroom, right? >> So, I said no secret bathroom. I said
landscape plan, grading and drainage. >> You wanted storm water deed notice and um freehold soil district certification or exemption >> and the cap protection of the tree with >> Yeah, I had that. But it's no sinker bathroom in the garage, including the
sellers. It's temple space. Um, and it's all subject to Jordan reviewing and agreeing on the final um drainage plan and the final um water mitigation system >> and limiting the top of that. We're
going to limit the impervious coverage. Yes. >> To the number that's agreed tonight, which is we don't know because we're only going 60 plus. What's the uh What's the number? >> We were reducing about 180 square feet.
Dig that off. >> So, it's basically that number net of 120. Is that correct? Yeah. >> Well, we had 240 total. We're keeping 60. So, about 180 reduction. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just to be >> Oh, the whole thing wasn't 180 though. That was the post >> 180 was the reduction. Yeah. 240 was the whole thing.
>> 60. Just to be clear about the about holding it where it is. It's it's within a fraction of the cap. So you're not giving out very much. >> Um but it's it'll hold exactly where it comes after these plans. >> Okay.
>> So I'm calculating at 38.2%. >> 38.2 >> correct? Or 48%. >> Is that number going in 38.2? That's the number. That's the block coverage. Without long motion, I'll second. >> Uh, yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Dr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. Thank you all. >> Thank you very much. >> Nice job. Yeah. No worries. I'll be >> Thank you, Mr. break
unprecedented territory >> yes >> still here >> yes >> presa here. >> Miss >> here. >> Um, we have a couple of board members
who were not present at the last meeting who will be certifying gentlemen. May ask for your attention. You may ask. >> Gentlemen, you slely swear and confirmed that you are that you're familiar with
all the best of the entire hearing and familiar with all documents that they were viewed. I almost you were actually physical before we had an opportunity to do those. Yes. I do not have a paper to that effect. But should they they need to satisfy that they can file on this
application? >> If they're certifying that they listen. Yes. You feel certified? Yes, sir. >> Yes. Okay. Um, anybody new, Mr. >> Anybody new this testified this evening?
>> Um, there is uh our planner was here last time but didn't testify. Robert Hudach. Uh, so he >> Were they Were they previously sworn? >> No, it wasn't. >> Sworn not certified. >> Yeah, he Mr. Hudac was here. >> Yeah, he didn't. >> I'm sorry. Sorry.
>> No, no problem. We didn't we didn't present and we didn't get to >> I understand everybody's here that they can testify in the previous form >> correct >> you continue to be under oath same direction that I provided you last time again you start testifying station
record I'd like to cherish commission exhibit >> yes absolutely >> I have for marking a 29 uh May 21 letter insight over the
signature of Douglas addressing the May 6 concerns by Jordano in CB2. I have A30 engineer soil report in March 11, 2026
from Marlin Simpson Associates LLC. I have A31. This is the revised adhering for the insight seven sheets. Uh 52126 existing conditions proposed conditions creating drainage construction details
soil control plan and notes additional details. I had A32 revised architectural plan in A21 to 136 five sheets project information first floor second floor exterior elevation
front south and east elevation river and northwest elevation at A33. Um these are again advised architecturals. This is however as of
May 21 showing uh finished for I'm sorry sell. Um then I have A34 revised engineering insight 521 showing the uh driveway modifications. I also have ZV3. This is
the uh third engineering letter with Mr. Rizo dated June 3rd, 2026. Believe that's all of the exhibits that I have since the last time we was here. There are any additional exhibits that
you have started. We're up to 8:35. >> Uh, I don't have anything to mark at the moment. >> Very good. >> I know where we left off. >> It just just allows me to interrupt your testimony whenever I can. Go ahead.
Um yes and I appreciate the late hour and try to be brief which sometimes I have problem but I'll do my best. Um so as the board knows we were last here May 7th. Um we made through testimony of our
engineer and our architect. Um the board there was a lot of discussion about all the plans and I think some of the comments um you know the chairman had a question about the orientation and facing the the house more uh centered or not centered to
>> square to the river >> square to the river. Thank you. Um there was questions about the set back house to house with the adjacent properties to the north. Um, we talked about that. We had agreed that uh the board had talked and commented about the impervious
coverage. It looked like there was too much. Um, we agreed to go back and look at that. So, we have revised the plans, resubmitted them and um to address these comments which resulted in elimination of some variances, reduction in others.
Um, so I my intention is to basically call our architect first, engineer second, uh, to go over the revisions to the plans and and discuss the changes to the variances and, um, hopefully get to our planner, Mr. Hudac. Um my first
witness would be Jay Anderson previously explored and and experts Davis again you >> I previously accepted you mentioned this topic anything >> thank you uh James Anderson uh J an
Esser A N D E R S O N thank you all for for staying as late as you are after these older applications. It's it's really appreciated. Means a lot to the clients. I know um the the
majority of the modifications really came into in the site plan and and the amphibious redundant, but there were several with the house as well. Uh that was really we reduced the width of the house by 18 in. uh a foot came out
of the width of the garage and six inches came out of the the mudroom and that was to um try to respond to reduce the uh proximity to the northern neighbor there which was uh discussed at
the last meeting. Uh as well as um and and then in doing so would slightly you know decrease the uh the floor area the building coverage. Uh not not great uh but you know it did a little bit. Um and
um and then eliminating those steps on that one side on the northern side um which would uh uh again decrease that proximity uh or increase the distance to the adjacent neighbor. But it would also allow for for planting and screening to
happen there or which the the steps would have um uh had some uh would have been no difficult. >> Mr. Anderson, what was an improvement on that? You said obviously you shrunk down a small portion but that moving the steps that I think Dr. L suggested last
time. Yeah. >> How much did we I have the numbers right here. Yeah. the the floor area which doesn't include the steps it went down by 21 square feet. >> Okay. Just to the proximity to the name. >> And did you move the stairs?
>> Eliminated all together although if the board would like we could move them to the water side. Um it it was really um whatever you know we we thought that the the bigger issue was there on the north side. So we took those out, handrailed
the steps. >> If you need them, just move them to a water. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. And um that that would give them some more flexibility. >> So So I can just interject and adjust, Mr. Chairman, your question. It's it's a 5 foot improvement. So we went from 26
to I think 31. >> 26 to 31. >> Right. And and the requirement is 33. So it's a much closer although still requiring the variance. >> 4.8 ft. >> Perfect. >> Nice number. and and and that was uh from from uh both reducing the the width
and the steps uh but also uh rotating uh the house three degrees counterclockwise. Uh we looked at a couple different ones. You know, I thought five was a magic number, but believe it or not, there was it got enough of a hinge point on the subly
side with the driveways that it became an issue. So, the three degrees seemed to uh both improve where it sat and and was still workable with getting those driveways in and and that was that was kind of the the the uh
all the changes that were made architecturally. >> There was a lot of board concern last time I recall with that existing shed garage, the the existing garage and the the um heartscape around there. Was anything done to mitigate that?
>> Yeah, I believe so. And I I I will I'll defer that to the um the engineers that were involved in that. >> The engineer could talk about the numbers, but we we removed the uh driveway leading up to it and there was a proposed pad.
>> We we had agreed we were going to uh remove that that's come off over there as well. Um, so that I I know there's so so the impervious is now they're all interrelated, right? So we took care of the the question about the
accessibility. Is it going to be used as a garage? We removed it in that respect. But also we had a reduction in impervious coverage. Now we're below 30%. Which was a discussed number. Um and then also what that does is we now have less or related issue on impervious
the driveway percentage in the front yard is now compliant no longer a variant. >> Um >> how many square feet did you did you decrease the inferious coverage? Well, it's I the engineer has all these like
detailed numbers contested by that and unless you have more >> and I can get it right happened with him but there was a little bit we just re decreased the width of the house to have something to help with that northern and encro and then rotated it the house some
but that other than that we hadn't well I'm end of steps >> steps those those two things happened uh and other than that there weren't any additional modifications to the plan. >> Could you describe what it would do to your design impacted if you took the
additional 2 ft off to comply to get to 31 ft on that side? >> Well, it's a good really good question. Um I I know the um uh we the garage and the muding felt that we could take it
without really impacting the utility of the main part of the house. um the the main part then it start to have more functional uh problems with that. So we we cut that as far as we could over there and um then it's going
to it's going to be a more of a redesign and not the same kind of utility. But thank you for that's why we you know had gotten through that and sort of figured out how big that garage could be the mud room and then >> still functional. There was you obviously went through those iterations
to see. >> We did. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Chair, can I start a dialogue on the uh covered porch? >> Sure. >> Um so originally it had a staircase down we just talked about a moment. >> The rear one you talking sorry the side
covered porch. >> Uh side screen porch. Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um the staircase was eliminated. The railing was eliminated to help improve the setback. Now, there is on the latest plan no exterior doors to it. So, the only way to get in and out is from the
house. >> Or could we consider >> that? That's how I consider it. Um, it certainly looks feels a lot like a >> like a like a floor area. >> Didn't we just articulate to put the stairs and the door facing the water? >> I I think that's why we brought it up.
>> But I think I think Mr. brings up a good point that without the stairs at all, it becomes finished space or it looks a hell of a lot like finished space. I think maintaining the stairs on the water side would get around would not get around is not the
correct word, but you know what I'm saying? >> Sure. No, it would it would make it more uh more streams than rule. >> Agreed. Agreed. and I they're more than happy to do that and we kind of came to that epiphany earlier today as we've been chatting about it and um so I
you've assumed that that footprint from before would be about the same footprint of the stairs coming down if they were moved uh to the water side. >> So that would would that change the that wouldn't impact your house to house setback? >> No, it wouldn't but it would slightly
increase the reduction in building coverage. Well, number building coverage number, >> but it's very >> tiny, >> right? It's nearly half the size of >> I mean, I think you get more more utility out of it as well. So, >> yeah. Okay. >> You just have to be careful that you're
not affecting the setback by doing probably make it work >> that the house to house setback, >> right? If you're scaling, say back flip it, if depending on I almost think you can maybe keep it where it was originally. Um I I
>> the applicants the same size and >> correct the old stairs that I was just every now and then I get like oh shoot >> I mean I' I'd be happy to stipulate that they're going to be well certainly no
larger and they won't be beyond the width of that projection >> I think after you stipulate the exact size >> well so it's not a variance so I didn't know it but >> you're asking for size of what >> stairs >> the old
reloc so we know that increase in lot building They were eight 8 ft wide by 3 and 1/2 right at 3 and 1/2 ft >> deeper.
>> And the same the same. >> How wide is that? >> You know what? They can only be seven feet wide. >> Right. Right. if that so it would be slightly less because >> doesn't have to be >> yes >> so but if you put them on the side it might actually impact your setback I
really don't take exception to front side or back um so long as that 31.0 zero feet set back I think ain't wherever you end up putting them >> well with if you left them where they were we were at >> but the house shifted too
>> yeah not as much though the house only shifted very serious >> no no I think the house actually shifted closer to the street >> well in addition to it did move a little bit closer to the street I think they'll bring bring that up that >> and the house on the property is set back a little further okay
>> but I I think that would give a lot more utility that space. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Might be fine. >> And it's not going to affect that uh planting buffer between there and the adjacent neighbor.
>> Whereas where it was on that side, you had the steps plus >> plus the Yes, exactly. >> So be easier when you're putting the push through. >> Okay. Um Mr. I guess forward for the engineer to discuss the the block coverage.
They'll try to wear themselves. >> Does anybody have any more questions for Mr. >> Not going to let him go home yet? No, I'll just stand here. >> Any members of the public have questions for Mr. Glad I Okay, thank you, Mr. >> Thank you so much.
>> So, next is at Jennifer Barnett, Inside Engineering, also previously sworn credentials and I guess have your credentials changed? >> No, they've not. >> Thank you. That save you some.
Uh, B A R N E T. >> Thank you. Um, do you want to I guess just highlight what some of the impacts of um the revisions were as setbacks and the variances? >> Sure. Um, so we've reduced uh driveway
front yard coverage um eliminating a variance. We went from 30.09% to 20.61% 61%. Um, so we are now compliant. Uh, overall lot coverage was reduced from 33.24% to 28.91%.
Um, so we are now compliant with lot coverage in the Arthur Vana authority district which our planner will go into. Um, from the previous application, total lot coverage was reduced by 3,5
square ft. Um and from existing lot coverage has reduced by well no from existing lot coverage has increased by 2,710 square ft. Um the uh floor area has uh increased
from uh 5,969 to uh 6,100. So the the number you're about to read includes Jordan's comment where we were adding that um porched area without the steps. >> That's correct. >> You were factoring that in.
>> Yes. >> So let's reel that back and go with the >> 5,948. >> Okay. >> Agreed. >> So it's 5,948 that we've decreased. Um the distance between adjacent dwellings on the north
side has increased from 26.22 22 to 31.03 feet. Um, front yard setback has been reduced from 230 ft to 20 uh 28.8 ft. Um, so that's still compliant. Rear yard setback has increased from 80.66 ft
to 84.36 ft. Um sideyard setback on the north side to the to the house um has just house to property line not adjacent has increased from 17.75 ft to
23.2 ft. Um sideyard setback on the south side has decreased from uh 19.49 ft to 17.59 ft. Um the rear yard setback through the pool has decreased from 59.4 ft to 57.8 ft. All the mechanical
equipment is remaining in compliant locations. Um driveway width has been reduced. Uh it's now 14 ft wide. The driveway to the neighboring property um is 12t wide. Um and uh building coverage
has uh changed from 8.3% to 8.6%. Um and we are compliant with building coverage. But that I Jordan and I discussed this earlier. We need to uh coordinate our numbers. So
>> no matter what we're going to comply. >> How did the building coverage go up >> on on my plans? It decrease. Jordan came up with a different number. So, we just have to coordinate those numbers. >> Okay. Still go still well below. >> It's still below. Yeah. >> You guys just got to tight it up
together. >> You said the one set back reduced. Is it from the pool to the sideyard? Is that >> Sorry, >> um that is the house to the sideyard and that's on the south side. So, it's the side that's farther from the neighbor. >> The factor of the rotation. The
rotation. >> The rotation. Yeah. And the front margin of this two is two feet on the front. Is that right? It's 228 now. >> Yes, that is compliant. We're required to have um 151.3 ft.
>> Can you go over what was removed as far as >> Yes. >> Um driveways, courtyards, anything related to that. What are you going to do? >> This is the uh the site rendering
exhibit. So, it's a colorized site exhibit. >> This is is this revised or this is the original? >> This is revised. >> Well, we're going to Okay. Do you want to show it was removed based off the old plan? >> Um
>> I have the old plan with me. That one >> was not plotted. I can go over it generally. Okay. Go ahead. >> This is the new exhibit. >> Yes. >> That will be marked on 35.
Describe it. Please. So that the exhibit is cor residents site rendering exhibit uh since it's prepared today. Jennifer >> uh it was dated 601. >> Gated 601 and can you just describe what
it shows? >> Yes. So this is a colorized version of our site. Um the previous application had a parking area here that we've eliminated. It had um a parking area in front of the attached garage that has been eliminated. There was paper strips
that went from this driveway to the garage. We've eliminated those. There's a patio outside this garage that has been eliminated. Um the patio outside the screen porch has been eliminated. Those stairs have
been eliminated. There was a walkway that went to this porch kind of like this one but a little bit bigger that has been reduced. Um and then there were just various favorite areas
in this general area that have been reduced. Um, >> so >> what's the purpose of the garage on the on the eastern side of Broadway? It's existing. >> It's existing for
that. You're not going to park any vehicles in there. >> Uh, no. It's you'll be used for storage, >> right? And and I think, you know, I think your review letter, the comment was, can you just talk about a little bit? But I think uh you know we all know storage space at a premium but they have
children bikes um lawn equipment, pool equipment. Uh think about pool and patio furniture in the middle of the winter. You don't if you leave it outside it turns green and you have to power wash it or sand it for next year. So there's a whole host of things that definitely would be useful to um to keep and use
that space uh for that those type of um they also have the dot the boat lifts. There's a I can I can go on and on about things that it could be used for other than cars. And I think that the removal of the driveway and pavement to it um you know evidences the intent.
>> Yeah. >> I am ps it'll be used for storage. No cars. >> Could you just come forward so we >> Yeah, um yes. So, we were, you know, hearing you guys last last month. We're going to remove the the driveway in front of it. So, Neil's car will be
parked there. It'll be all storage as John said. It's lawn furniture, pool stuff, etc. >> Yeah, >> I appreciate the elimination. There's a lot of miscellaneous there. >> Totally. >> Yeah. And that's all exist. >> So, with with that, I previously flagged
a variance requirement for um exceeding the two cars in the garage. I think you could certainly make a case that with the removal of the driveway to it, there will not be vehicles parking >> essentially eliminating the variance,
but then I'd recommend that we just condition any approval on not um replace >> not replacing that driveway at a later date >> even though >> what >> I was just going to say it could be a garage. What what constitutes
>> Yes. I just think we should have some type of condition about not bad >> or a sports court existence shamp Maybe a shed. Shed's 100 square ft. >> 10 by 10. It's a garage. Can't be a
garage. It's a garage. >> Oh, a remote garage. Um, okay. Was there any reduction to the courtyard? >> Uh, was the parking space eliminated on
the the eastern side or >> seem to recall it was like a >> a bump out? Yeah, there was a bump out with >> Yeah, that was removed. Yes, but this area um will be used for park >> that maintains. >> Yes.
>> And there is a variance required for that because it's fifth to 7 ft wide. >> And can I ask you with regard to the the drawing that's of the site rendering exhibit, can you tell me what the width of the lot is straight across the house?
Just go center to the house. Go right to the plot line on either side. with those records. I'm getting 162 about 162. Okay. Um any more?
>> Uh we need to discuss storm water. >> Yes. So um after the last hearing, uh we heard your comments about investigating um some type of basin that's not a dry well. Um and we did look into it.
Typically with basins, they're open structures. they're open to air light. Um, and we've looked into that, putting one in the isolated part of the yard, and it is possible, but what it comes
down to is really maintenance and, uh, keeping that basin functional. Um, what those basins rely on is someone maintaining them, the vegetation being there. Uh, we would make this a bio retention basin, which has plants. Uh
they're nice to look at. Um instead of just uh your typical infiltration basin that's just a grass hole in the ground. Um and what it comes down to is rain gardens. They rely on the health of the vegetation to function. They require
someone to go in clean out the sediment, clean out any trash that might accumulate. Um whereas drywalls, they're more passive systems. They require uh fewer maintenance. um and there's less opportunity to degrade over time whereas basins if you don't maintain them they
will stop functioning. Um so we are still proposing a dry well in uh the area in the this area of the yard. It'll be underground. Um the roof leaders will be
piped to it. Um and it's been sized to accommodate two gallons over the increase in impervious cover from existing. So uh >> so we had a lot of test in the last application about this. So I'm a little more educated. >> Yeah. >> Um
>> do we is this sufficient? Is it our call to say is it if it's sufficient? >> Why is it just why is it just the amount over what's existing versus addressing all >> it's the whole roof? Um so we can upsize it to accommodate two gallons over the
roof. Um, it'll still be smaller than what uh the previous drywall was. >> Previous it's new construction. We forget about the previous drywall. >> What's the or what does the ordinance require? Does the ordinance require that all of the drainage from the new development be put into some storage?
>> Um, it's two gallons over the increase in impervious. So, um, it doesn't say where that comes from. It just says it has to be sized to be two gallons over the increase in. You don't have to deal with any of the
pre-existing impervious that wasn't put anywhere >> unless it's replaced >> unless so the existing driveways don't count now is that >> if it's an existing driveway and not replaced per the definition it doesn't count >> I don't have to catch that
>> it's the net I mean we were talking before it's the net amount >> I don't I don't think there's just straight black and white answer to the question >> should be the net amount that's what makes the most logical sense in my opinion about being undersized. >> It makes no sense to me if they were
leaving the existing driveway, but I don't I Are you? >> Um, it's in the general location, but it's not a onetoone replacement. >> Yeah. I I I'm not I don't know what the ordinance says, but Drew, it makes no sense to me if the ordinance says that you can basically have a pass on
everything that was already there. >> No, if you replace it, it doesn't count. You have to count it if you replace it. >> But what if you were replacing the driveway in the exact same location? just said it still can't we had this >> but it is so we don't have to worry about that because you just said it wasn't going to be in the test that we did
>> okay so then there calculations what I'm concerned is are there calculations including the driveway including the existing watercapes I guess I know they were moving some too so >> but it also I mean it also says you need to provide storage for it basically doesn't really talk about capturing
every bit of that and sizing it for any certain you know year event >> unfortunately ambiguous. That's why. >> So I think as a board we need to feel comfortable with what they're actually sending to the system. >> Isn't the amount more for the B engineer
to decide how big the system has to be or or yourself rather than >> No, it would be done by it would be done before resolution compliance, >> right? But I mean we as a board can't determine what that number is. >> No to my knowledge. >> Maybe maybe the thought process isn't >> Yeah, the thought process is there
anymore. General, >> as I understand the the ordinance states that there's a number of mitigation things that can be done, obviously rain guard such who makes that determination. What is the best
>> there's a there's an acronym that that Wow. What's the >> best water management pack? BMP. >> So, it's all per BMP. I'm just saying could the could the burough engineer say no a drywall is not good enough you you should do this or
>> I mean that I mean we're getting into the gray area where it's a discussion to figure out what makes the most sense. >> It said the use of drywalls is allowed only where the other listed methods cannot feasibly meet the requirements of this section. So I guess
testimony the engineers direction and the board makes determination unless because we're in a sense that's a design that's not a zoning. >> I think I think the real question is do we want it to work or do we want to ram something down that is not going to be
properly maintained? That is the question because it sounds like it's an awful lot to maintain and if it's not maintained properly it doesn't do the job. if we wanted to do the job. >> But take a look take a look at the picture. >> Are we really going to argue that this isn't going to be maintained?
>> No. Exactly. >> But that's the said last meeting. If you're not I I don't even like you. But it doesn't matter. I It's not my ordinance. But if you're not going to require some sort of a basin here, at least for part of this, you're not going to require it anywhere
in an R5 zone. No room for a basin. That's not feasible. >> But listen, it's just my perspective. I'm I'm just saying I'm not saying they're going to intentionally allow trash to accumulate in it, but if you want it to work, the highest probability of it working for a long period of time
uninterrupted is probably the driver. >> Which way's the topography go towards the river or away from >> and that is just that's simply my perspective. I'm not an engineer. It's just >> this way. >> I'm just looking at all that >> area in the front there and why are we
using that? If we put a basic especially since you've eliminated all this from a pool would be >> if not full you need to provide storage for it
>> seem like the only quantifiable thing is the whatever thing is has the capacity >> like But what is the purpose of those dry >> that's up to the engineers and not let a
qualified engineer again dictate what >> but you guys did the rights why would that be the lowest that's not a fair question as I suggest before you don't accept my suggestion that >> it is a burden of the applicant to
demonstrate as to whether or not something else would work consultation with our engineer and that recommendation. If for some reason they are at odds, then it's your determination as to whether or not they've carried the burden as to the design wave.
>> No, I I no I get what what requires to be from the decision tree to get down to what I'm saying is what why is it less priority among those other options. You got to look up. It's it's all based on research and set by the state. That's I don't comes down from the state is what you're saying. >> Yeah, I don't want to articulate that.
>> Yeah. The state is not saying you can't. They're saying that's the last resort. You should take that to my way of thinking. >> I understand. I was just trying to quiet in the pecking. >> That's your leader's point. If there's a lot that could sustain something else, this is a lot that can sustain something else.
>> I actually think one of the reasons why masons are favored is because they don't take a lot of maintenance. >> The truth is that that underground system that you looked at at the last application is going to be very expensive and it's very technical. And if it doesn't continue to be maintained and operate, then it's just going to
flow into the into the storm sewer system. So that's my understanding of where this >> someone at the state level has said that's good for now, but in 20 years, if you haven't maintained it, it's not as opposed to the basin, which is going to be long gone.
So on the storm water, what what I would like to see is if the I'm going to say the the middle of the house towards the river, the water flows that way, catch the water before it hits the river to prevent fertilizer or other things on the river. Then the front half could go towards the street just like you were
saying. >> Okay. Um >> because there's there there's a known issue with like fertilizers of the grass and everything going to the nav sink and it causes issues. >> Um so somehow on the back of the house you could catch it and put it through a
natural filtration system. Do do you expect there >> are you saying catch it in the data center >> and >> catch it in some type of system to prevent a water from going as an >> but but does the water the
the water it rains on the grass the grass is fertilized the grass drinks the water >> right it the the roof is where you know the the impervious surfaces are where the the water would sheet flow off of I I Uh, Jennifer, would do you expect that
there be water dumping out of the yard and the and the landscape there into the river and and I guess could you speak is when you understand that that fertilizer gets in the river. Is is that how it gets there? >> Um, it I mean the fertilizer could get
to the river from runoff in the front yard going into the municipal system and then going into the river. It's all I assume all the municipal drains drain directly to the river. >> Yeah. That's how we know the fertilizer, right?
>> If if we send more to the front yard, >> it's the exacerbation. >> Yeah. And you're also then you're taking runoff from the backyard and throwing it into the front yard >> where it's currently going to the backyard. So, you're kind of like changing
>> to the point. Um, this also has to be reviewed by D because it's we need to get a capper permit. Um, >> so if if they want us to do something, um,
>> we're non- major development, so we're not required to meet with >> But the D will normally override anything that will solve them. So we can say whatever we want. If D comes over us, doesn't matter. >> Yes. >> Right. Yeah.
>> But I I don't anticipate them having any um any big comments. >> Okay. >> Oh, but if you sign something that impacts what you'll get approved, you have to go back and amend it. But >> and then they may have >> then Yeah, then they may have comments,
but um just based on experience, I don't anticipate them having comments because we're out of a flood zone. It's just a cap requirement. >> Point being that we can't mandate as what mitigation we do. No. >> So, if the the the pure fact that there is a
plan drainage plan in place for be approved to be discussed. >> I I was going to suggest yes that the board has the power to defer these kind of administrative technical items to their professional and if this would be one of those and we would stick that we
will satisfy Mr. I'd be glad to have a conversation. I did already, but another one with a burrow engineer just to see how he's reviewing on zoning board applications like if this was a compliant property and what type of storm water he would expect.
>> I mean, I think the way I see it as a board is that it's overview to say yes, you need something not exactly what that's me. >> Okay. Any more miss? >> Uh, enough. How do you avoid contamination of the neighbor sank
during uh construction? >> Um we provide a silk fence around property um that's in place prior to construction and remains in place until construction's over. So it just catches
the um not the runoff the sediment that would run off that's reviewed by COVID district. >> Yep. And it's a requirement of the DBP. >> Excuse me, Troy. >> Yes, >> we require them to go through. Correct.
>> This one will definitely need three old schools. Yes. And then did you mention is there any any update on SCD or D? This one >> um D we haven't had any updates yet. Um SED um we're going to apply as a condition of approval if they're
approved. >> Okay. Um, we discussed last meeting about the fence that runs along each property line to the river and you need a variance for that. Um, there's potential in the future to extend them
across. Is that the variance that you're going to be seeking to that fence across? >> Uh, we spoke with the construction official and he said that we can use the bulkhead as >> so as per plans would you like to >> Yes. Um,
this is more architectural. Maybe Mr. S, can you take this? Uh, none of the changes would require me to go back to the uh historic mission. >> Uh, no. I I think really the the design, the the materials, those elements are all consistent, not changing. So, I
think what was in their purview unchanged. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else any questions for Mr. Thank you, Miss No, we had done it. So, >> not but I'll try to be brief. And
>> can you uh just put your credentials on the record? >> Absolutely. Robert Hudac R O B E R T. Last name Hudac Hu D is in David AK. Licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've appeared before this board before previously. My credentials are all in order and nothing
has changed. Lost a few pounds, but that's about it. >> Credentials. Yes. Thank you, Mr. But before we get started, you're familiar with the site. You've reviewed the ordinance. You'll know the master plan. >> Yes.
>> And and that influenced the testimony you're about to give. >> It did. It did. >> I'm going to jump right into this and um I'm going to try to summarize some of these points because of the late hour. There was question I think Mr. you had a question about the R40 known in a
comparison between our lot and lots in the R40. The only area where we're non-compliant, we're compliant in every way except for this the sideyard setback and the combined sideyard setback. In the R40 zone, you're required to have a 25- ft sideyard setback for each
sideyard and a total of 50 ft. And as you as you are aware, we're at 17.59 on the south side and 23.3 feet on the north side for a total of 40.8 89 ft. But otherwise, we're in compliance with the R40 zone. Now, the R40 zone are it's
a little different from what we have here. They're not riverfront lots. Obviously, we want to take advantage of the views, want to take advantage of the breezes from the river. Uh it's a different aesthetic. Those lots which are in the souththeast portion of the of of Fair Haven are a
lot different than the riverfront lots where you have the homes pressed up against the river versus the homes there which are more centered into the lot and do require a little bit more of a setback. There is no separation requirement between buildings in the R40 zone. There is obviously in the R10 and
Barance relief from those items. So, so I'm going to jump right into the positive criteria here. the C1 variance relief. We have the adjacent principal structure separation. As you've heard, there is some practical difficulty creating uh created by the existing
location, the principal dwelling on the adjacent lot to the north. It's approximately 5 ft from the property line. Um again, we don't control this offside condition and the proposed dwelling more than complies with the R10 sideyard requirement on that side. The principal height, the height condition
is related to the riverfront topography grading flood resiliency conditions and the way height is measured as noted last time by the uh by our engineer. Our proposal reduces the existing non-conforming height from 41.01 to 34
uh 52 feet. We have the existing detached accessory building. I know we talked about what it's called. I'm just calling an accessory building old garage for the purposes of my testimony. Again, this already exists. We're not seeking to enlarge it. In fact, we're making it more compliant because it will no longer
be a garage. And because of that, we've eliminated a variance. Also, because we're moving the house slightly forward, as Mr. Rizzo pointed out in his report, we eliminated the variance for it being in a front yard as well because it's no longer now in the front yard as defined under the ordinance, but it is an
existing condition. We want to keep it because of storage purposes. The accessory building timing variance we're seeking really this is a technical construction sequencing condition. Again, this existing accessory building is there. We're not looking to change it
and we're not looking to create only having that accessory building as the principal structure on the lot. Replacing the principal building with another principal building. Now, with respect to the D the C2 variances, the benefits versus the detriments, I offer all total that a proposal is a better
zoning alternative rather than the strict compliance with the zone because it modernizes a large riverfront residential property with a home that is more in line with the historic district. The proposed maximum floor is reduced as we've talked about. The floor itself is
compliant and slightly improved from what is existing. Um, a smaller house in the lot would really look out of place and out of character in the zone. The proposed height is reduced as I mentioned before while maintaining a flood resilient and functional
residential design. The northern interface with the adjacent dwelling is improved because the proposed residence presents a narrower, less direct building face towards the neighbor than the existing condition while more than exceeding the R10 sideyard standard. The driveway design improved circulation,
parking and turnaround movements, reducing the need to go back onto Gillesp back onto Gillespie Avenue. There's no parking really allowed or or could be provided on the shared driveway portion of the driveway. Therefore, we must accommodate that parking on the driveway closest to the home, and that's
really the only area we're seeking variance relief related to the driveway. The fence is limited to the 40-inch pool compliant fence near the river, which is a safety consideration and also a requirement under the New Jersey State Building Cove. And the Koopa, I think, as Mr. Anderson noted earlier in his
testimony, functions as an aesthetic architectural feature and is integral to the overall design of the proposed dwelling. A smaller Koopa could appear disproportionate or awkward and would not fit as well as the architectural with the architectural character of home. The historic preservation
commission approval supports the conclusion that the proposed colonial federal revival design is more compatible with the historic district and the riate context than the existing non-contributing home. Overall, the purposes of zoning that are advanced
include the appropriate use of land, safety from flooding and natural conditions, adequate light, air, and open space, appropriate population density, free flow traffic, desirable visual environment, the preservation of the historic character of the area by creating a home that's in line with the
historic nature of the neighborhood, which is an element as mentioned in the master plan, and overall the general welfare. With respect to the negative criteria, in my opinion, there's no substantial detriment to the public good. The use remains a single family residential use. There's no additional
density and we're not providing additional units on the site. Um the proposal complies with the principal R10 front yard, rear yard, one sideyard, combined sideyard stories, building coverage and pvious coverage and F requirement. Uh the principal building
floor and height variances improve existing non-conforming conditions. The exa adjacent dwelling separation released is sight specific and tied to the existing off-site condition and doesn't create a broader zoning problem for ordinary R10 lots. The accessory
building uh the old garage relief is tied to the existing structure will not be expanded. In fact, as you've noted, it will no longer be a garage. Driveway and fence relief for residential accessory conditions associated with large riverfront lots. Um there's no substantial detriment to zone plan and
zone ordinance. The request of relief uh is dimensional as the permitted residential usage improved as noted in the HBC memo. Uh we improved several non-conforming conditions and the R4D comparison confirms that the overall scale of the project uh is reasonable
for the size of the lot. And with that I conclude my testimony. I hope I've given Mr. Kovat enough information to draft a good resolution. What did you base your determination in for the vehicle's size? >> Well, I Mr. Anderson's testimony was
talking about the actual if if you make a much smaller coupula in line with >> I'm talking about I'm just talking about >> Oh, he has. >> Yeah. >> Let's just talk about it. >> Let's talk about the last meeting is
when we talked about this, right? And we talked about the the flare of the cat. Maybe you recall. And I'm unnecessarily repeating it. It >> backs. >> You don't have a dimension. >> Dimensions here. Can I create a a name?
Surely. Exhibit. What are we up to? >> Big 36. >> Yeah. >> I was trying to get us away with no extra. So uh just quickly the the Koopa itself the shaft of the Koopa is 4 feet which I
believe is in compliance with the uh regulations. I think there was some question from from uh from Jordan about the uh the roof over it and this has the dimensions of the roof. So the the rake or not rake the eve comes over like 10
in but here it's >> additional 10 inches >> 10 inches around the perimeter from that board ft >> five inches each side. Five inches. >> No, 10 inches around >> around 10 inches and 10 inches. >> Pardon me. >> 10 inches twice. >> Yes. Okay.
>> And and it's it's graphically shown here. We can certainly reduce that. Um you know, Mr. Anderson's testimony in teres size, dimensions. The only thing I was looking for was the dimension >> quantified. I understand. And it's it's
right here. >> So, did you talk about the weather vein? >> Well, in the I believe uh that the other vein I'm not sure how that base is looked at. >> It's it's considered part of the puba. Um
>> so I think >> do we know that height? I don't see it. Do >> you know how tall the weather will be >> or this is just representative? >> I say five 5'8 and 58 to the top of the Koopa and then you have the weather man dimension. I don't know what that is. >> That's not listed here. >> I could certainly put it on there. >> Sure.
>> But then we're talking about really the Koopa size is inclusive of that roof. So, it's uh I don't know 5T about 4T. Is that >> we're allowed six feet, but I'm including the >> No, no, no. Four feet >> di uh diameter.
>> The the dimensions of the >> the width the diameter 4T. >> Well, we're at six feet. We're at 5t. >> But yeah, that's >> Well, it's only just the small flare, right? >> 10 inches isn't exactly small. >> No, no, but it's not the entirety of the structure. It's just a little >> It's the flare. Yeah,
>> it's love the word. I can't stop saying >> I think the question is what that number is and do we think sign does anybody have a positive? >> Sure. >> And you know what we're looking at here. I would probably look at it in the context of the whole
>> if we could make sure Miss Olson has all I ask her to scan and send it to you. Yeah. Can you keep this now? >> Sure. Yeah. It's a and you take a look at 826 that it shows the coupula there that um
I think it looks proportionate and to make it too much smaller would might look uh tire >> it would look appropriate. >> Thank you Mr. Okay. Thank you Mr. Hud. Does anybody have questions of Mr.
Oh, >> I certainly don't. >> Thank you. >> Any more, Mr. S? >> Um, I do not have any further witnesses or testimony. Um, public, if you're okay. Any members of
the public have comments, concerns, questions, please come forward. to reflect on. Mr. Rizzo, do you have anything further? >> I have asked all the questions that I'd like to ask. >> Wonderful. >> U I'll be very brief here. I you know I
think the last meeting we heard the comments and concerns and the areas where we needed to provide more testimony or where there certain boards wanted to see changes. I think we did our best to the applicant to to make those changes and get that done um in a
reasonable way in the best we can and um I think we've agreed to several conditions. I'm sure there's a running list of that. But um in light of the concerns and and things uh that the board will want to see ongoing to make this a successful project, then we're
asking the board to grant the uh the approvals tonight. >> Thank you, Mr. deliberation. I didn't have a problem with the uh exceeding the square foot requirement for the height. Uh I did have a problem
with the the impervious coverage. I did have a problem with the uh setback adjacent to the adjacent house. Uh and uh I did have a problem with the stair orientation.
I think most of those have been migrated and I I think it's a beautiful design >> and I appreciate the um turning of the house on the property important change and the driveway
reduction was also very important. Yeah, clearly this house um feels much more like an R40 than it does an academy when that last meeting testimony is that it def completely authority conception of the side of setbacks if I understood
correctly. I think balance that's probably a fair trade house that's going to be rule along Madison River and appreciate the changes that design team made and I'm in favor of the application any comments?
>> No. >> Sure. >> Very appreciative of the changes, >> Mr. Leader. Uh I'm not in support of the obligation, but I don't need to go through the reasons. Well, >> okay. Fair enough. >> Um I don't really have anything further
to add. >> No, I mean listen, it's nice to see someone take the feedback and make the vast majority of these changes. So I think that's always a positive thing. Thank you. And it is beautiful. We'll ship for the opinion.
got to smile at him, Mr. Sorry, he's getting nervous over there. >> We'll make a motion to approve the application um with the changes discussed stipulated on uh the discussion on storm water management
left to the uh professionals. >> Oh, the stairs. >> Existing garage storage only. Mr. >> No, no difficulty having deep restrictions that we need to park vehicles in the future.
>> No problem. >> No problem. >> Second movement of stairs force the appropriate location. >> Uh Mr. Forte. >> Uh yes. >> Mr. Later. >> No. >> Mr. Dangelo. >> Yes. >> Mr.
>> Yes. >> Dr. Ger. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Newman. Yes. And Mr. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for insisting on coming in today. We were getting there. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you all for >> I appreciate that as well. I know the applicant really does. >> All right. >> All right. I'm just going to do couple of motion. >> Okay. >> Yes.
I'll open the public comment but I don't think is motion comments. decades later. >> Nice job. Yeah. >> Is that a record? >> I don't know.
>> Something like that. And I'm sure in many cases >> five won't You can put these back Yeah.