say 17th. My dad's 82nd today. Would have been still here. All right. Welcome to the uh July 17th, 2025 meeting of the Haten Heights Planning Board. This ma meeting is being held in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey chapter
145 by mayor and council and the planning board for official notices. Notice of this meeting was posted on the burough bolton board and on the burough's website for that purpose. Uh can we have a roll call? Suzanne. Sure. Miss Bonorsy here. Mr. Madden here.
Mr. Dauus here. Chairman Hansen here. Councilwoman her here. Mr. Familar here, Mr. Schmidt here, and Miss Borcher. Okay, appears we have a quorum. Everybody uh
rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed before, if I could just be sworn in once for all that matters this evening. Yes, sir. You ready? Um, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Do we want to have Miss Borch to deis
since uh we only have eight? Okay. I You're I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Okay. [Music] Yeah. Well, that that we'll get to that. Um, we have one item of administrative
business this evening and that's the approval of the minutes from the June 19th, 2025 meeting. Uh, I trust everybody had a chance to review the minutes. Are there any questions or comments, revisions? Seeing none, entertain a motion to approve. So moved.
We have a second. I'll second. This will be a voice vote. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I'll abstain. I will abstain. Jennifer will abstain. Is everybody else here? Okay. Um resolutions. We don't have any this
evening. Um we'll open the meeting up to the public for uh comment on anything not related to a specific case this evening. So if you have you're hearing from the public and you want to speak on anything that's not on our published agenda for this evening, come forward and we'll uh swear you in and you can talk about whatever it is.
Seeing no one, close that portion. Uh on the new business case number 25-6-2P that's Michael Fina 317th A block 30 lot 18s for a detached garage and a use variance for an office. Councilwoman
Haron will have to uh recuse herself as it is a use variance matter and governing body members therefore cannot participate. Um looks like m Mr. Rizo we have six uh participating members. You know the drill as far as whether you want to proceed without a full complement for
the use variance. We'll proceed, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Proceed, please. Mr. Chair, members of the board, Miss Hy. Good evening. My name is Eric Reo. I'm at the law firm of Zelichko. I have the pleasure of representing Michael
Fina who's the owner of property located at 317th Avenue in Haden Heights, otherwise known as block 30, lot 18. the properties located in the R2 residential district. Um, as pointed out, Mr. Box review letter, this is an application
for a bulk variance and use variance to construct to to demolish an existing garage and construct a new 740 foot 744t two-story garage with an office uh at at the property which uh has lot frontage
on both Fourth Avenue and High Street. Um, we're seeking a use variance because the office is not a permitted use in the R2 zone. We're also seeking two bulk variances. One is for the square footage. Um, we're proposing that the
new garage be 744 square ft where the maximum permitted is 450 and the height be 21t 7.5 in where the maximum is 16 ft. Um, Mr. Bach has put in his review letter the positive and negative
criteria. We will present testimony and evidence to demonstrate that one, the office will be for personal use only. There will be no and there will be testimony to this effect. There will be no water. There will not be used as a living quarter. The garage will be more aesthetically pleasing than the existing garage and it's comparable and compatible with the residents
surrounding neighborhood. There will be no substantial detriment to the public or zone plan and that the site is particularly suited in that this is the world we live in now. There are many home offices and in Heights in particular it's my understanding as well that that many people are putting offices just home offices that is uh in
their garage. I have two witnesses uh this evening uh my client Michaela and also our architect Nicholas Pierro from Three Dimensions Architectural Group. Let's have them sworn at this time.
Stand up. Raise your right hand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do you want to have your architect qualified to run through his qualifications real quick? Sure. Do you need him to speak in the mic? Can you hear him? Is this picking up or you
want me to give him the mic? Whatever. I have a big mouth. Nobody ever accused me of being soft up as long as you speak clearly in the general area. Okay. Thanks, Steve. P as in Paul. IRO. Mr. Piro, where do you work? For whom you employed?
Uh, three dimensions architectural group. And what do you do there? I'm an architect. You're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey? I am. And is your license in good standing? It is. Have you testified before land use boards in the state of New Jersey? I have. And have you been qualified to testify as an architect? Yes. And you prepared the plans of the
subject of this application? Correct. I would offer Shapiro as an expert. Accepted. Thank you. Since he's here, we can I would was going to put my client on first, but if unless the board has a preference, I might as well take Mr. Shapiro through the through the application if that's okay, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Um, can you describe the proposed structure in terms of what we're doing at the property at the site? And if you need to, you bought an exhibit. It's in the it's in the board's packet. It's it's A1. It's marked as A1. And for the record and this high, we can we can mark the
rendering as A1 in the site plan. If you want to bring that over, Mr. Po, I'll bring the mic over here. I also have extra copies. I have extra 11. I I don't need one, but does anybody
else anybody else want one? I have I have the electronic copy. That's sufficient. Thank you, though. You prepared the plan, Mr. Sheriff? Yes. Can you explain? There's an existing garage, correct? Yeah, there's an existing frame garage. Okay. And can you tell the board what we
proposed to do? It's proposed to um demolish the existing carriage house and replace it with a new framed carriage house um with the intent to move it further off of um the street to allow off all street
parking and to allow um enough room to park two cars inside the structure and um lawn equipment and such and so forth. So, the first floor is going to be to for your personal vehicles and uh
storage of lawnmowers and typical things people would store in a residential garage, I would imagine. Yeah, that's correct. And you're going there's an existing shed on the side, correct? And that's going to be demolished, correct? Correct. And new concrete driveway is going to be installed.
Yes. Aside from the obvious office, aside from the square footage and the height of the new structure, it otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements in the R2 zone. Yes, we don't need any setback variances.
No, it's just for height and size of the structure. Can you explain to the board a little why we need I think you did already. We need a bigger garage for the larger vehicle. for the larger vehicles and we're also it also in includes a set of
steps to the second floor for the personal office. So, how big is the office roughly uh square footage wise? I guess I could pull the plan up, but I apologize. I have it on there. Maybe we can rephrase that question a
little bit. It's probably hard to get that uh but the the office area is set inside essence inside the roof. Correct. Second story and then the roof structure. Correct.
The second office is considered an attic type of space or attic type of space. So the thing that says attic there is actually that's that's the office space. Okay. Good. That's good enough. Um and what what this going to be used as a home office? Uh, do you work from home,
I guess, or That's correct. Okay. You're not going to have any customers coming and visiting you there that would have to park there or you're not you're not you're not running a home business or what kind of what kind of work? What kind of work are you going to be doing there?
It's office work. I mean, it's just me. No employees, right? No employees. No, no customers. Okay. Setting up appointments or anything come to your office. You're not gonna have WB Mason delivering uh supplies in a truck in a big truck every week or anything like that?
No. Amazon will come to my porch. That's They come to I think they come down everybody. They come to my house about three times a day thanks to that line of questioning. You raising additional Mr. You will not use the office as living quarters. Correct.
Correct. There will be no bathroom up there. Correct. No water, just electricity for the office. But it's going to be used simply as a home office. Correct. That's correct. No employees are working in there with you. It's just you, right? Just me. Well, it be I guess you'll have gas for heat too then or No, you're electric heat.
Yeah. Okay. So, electric will be the only utility then. M will the location of the garage have any adverse effect on drainage like air, space, etc.? No. When you helped Mr. Raina apply
initially for the zoning, correct? Yes. And when that when that application was first made to the zoning officer, actually the garage was even bigger. Correct. Yes. And after it was denied, you spoke with our client and he agreed to downsize the garage to the extent possible, but yet to accomplish his needs. Correct.
Correct. Mr. question. What is the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the garage? Uh 20 ft. So 20 ft from the back of the sidewalk. Yes. What is it currently?
Uh yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm curious. So that was that was going to be my question is how far back we moving 11 ft. So 20 division on the back of your sidewalk garage
right now. You look on if you look on street view at the property there's a car park there that is hanging over the sidewalk. So that's a good question. Um does anybody else have a question for the applicants professional?
As far as heating using electric baseboard or something like mini slip. So that be both Yeah. Any other questions? I was just gonna say for the record existing performances
garage area height and then we have as presented in the The only other item is that request I never recommend waivers. I I wouldn't recommend it with a
structure that size that close to the property line. We we want to be comfortable with uh that we're not going to have any adverse impact to the neighbor. We will make sure it's position of approval will Does the board want to hear from my client with respect to why he wants to put it off the office in the garage?
If you want to put the testimony on, that's fine. Can you tell the board why you like to have the office in your garage? Sure. Yeah. I for anybody that lives in Heights, right? Like the houses are pretty tight. I have three young kids. I
have a nine, eight, and a six-year-old. It's really hard to distance yourself in our homes. So, uh, I'd like to separate and be able to, especially in the summertime, work in peace and not have to excuse myself on calls all day.
Understood. And again, that works, but this would be a home office only. No customers, no employees. Correct. Correct. Yeah. I have no further questions. Anything further from the board at this
point? Meresa, do you have any objection in terms of one of the conditions as part of the resolution just putting it as inh home office it's not going to be used for customers so that that's just kind of that's one
of the concerns I've found is that so that down the road [Music] that's consistent with my testimony so I have no Mr. I might intend to use it that way, but who knows what somebody else might do
down the road when we're all gone. Um, anything else from the board? What about future plumbing? Like you said, if he sells the property, they'd have to go. That's why the resolution was so
plumbing in the future period the office for the use of the use of the primary president so that way it can be sublet
and because these are all considerations part of the parents approval if they're successful in front of the land. So that way you should refer back to I'm sure the be for a long time
but that way we we've always done the resolutions in the similar cases. We've had a couple similar cases like that recently and I think the resolutions all reflect all those conditions. Look at those conditions. [Music] The resolution would be enforcement.
Anything further from the board? Seeing nothing, we'll uh open it up to comments from the public on this application. Anybody would like to make a comment, come forward. I'll be sworn in. You have to squirt me in. Uh, can you give us your name and address, sir?
Joseph Lero, 406 Third Avenue. Lady, you can raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Thank you. So, uh, my concern about the garage as it is, uh, was addressed with
the the cars hanging over onto the sidewalk. Uh, so my brother lives on 412 4th A, which means I go right around the corner past Mike's house and uh, get to his house. I bring my 5-year-old son. He's on his bike now. There's three
garages between my house and his house on third a. All three have cars that go into the sidewalk, which means although I'm impressed with his skills on a bike, he's always in the street outside of a crosswalk. And especially now it's not
so bad because the sun is out and we're not there too late. But come fall winter, it's not unheard of for us to be coming back six 7 o'clock. At that point it's dark. I don't like having him in the street at that point. Um I could
speak to the appearance. It looks unsafe uh the structure of of the garage itself, but I'm not the architect. Um, so I don't know if it is unound, but it looks like it's leaning a bit. The existing garage, you mean? The existing garage.
Yeah. No, this looks very safe. The existing garage looks So, you're in favor of the application generally? Okay, that's all. Thank you for coming out. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Anyone else like to come forward? Seeing none, we'll close public and uh
bring it back to the board for a potential uh motion. you want to uh sum up the potential motion, Alita? Yes. So, the potential motion would be um the including the conditions of appro
approval which will be submitting a grading plan. Um the applicant won't live um or have anyone live in the garage and it won't be used as any sort of a dwelling. Um there won't be have any plumbing that will speak to that um condition only be used by the homeowner
as an in um home office only. So it won't be used as like a commercial business. Um the applicant was required to uh provide the standard of proof for a devariance. Um the applicant spoke to the special
reasons for the board um to grant this application and provided um testimony about advancing the purposes of municipal land use law and the township and it won't impair the township's master plan and the zoning ordinance. Um so the motion would have to include
those conditions of approval. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the use variance and the two bulk variances sought with the uh conditions that Elena outlined? I'll make a motion to approve the application for both variances
and the use subject to the conditions that just outline and that are set forth that Mr. Fox. Anybody like to second the motion? I'll second the motion. Any questions or uh discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, roll call. Suzanne. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion's approved. So, I'll give this the spiel once tonight. I hope everybody else is listening for those that might be approved. Um, next month at next
month's meeting, we'll do a resolution memorializing the decision that was made here this evening. And then uh after that happens uh that the notice of that decision will be posted in the newspaper and from from 45 days from the posting of that of that decision in the
newspaper. Somebody could that's called the appeal period. Somebody could technically appeal the decision that was made here this evening. If you want to move forward with your project before the appeal period expires, you'd be doing so at your own risk. Just have to go see Suzanne and get your uh permits, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Good to see you. Thank you. Take care. Miss Borcher is gonna join us. Um, next case this evening is Councilwoman Haron is uh going to rejoin us to let the record reflect. Uh, second
case this evening is case number 25-7-1P. That's Sarah and Richard Thomas. And this is for uh 1108 West High Street, lot 78, lot 2.01, and it's for a front porch. If the applicants want to come
want to come forward, we'll have the solicitor swear you in, and you can tell us about your project. Please swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Um might be easiest if we have our uh engineer just run through his review letter. he could give us an overview of
the project and ask any pertinent questions and then we'll turn it to the board for any questions we might have. Sure. I'll refer the board to our June 14, 2025 review of the application is where all parents appro construed uh front porch covered uh to the
existing dwelling located on the southern side of West High Street. Uh the properties in the burrows are two zone. um it's surrounded by all sides from residential properties. Uh it is permitted use and we provided the uh bulk standards and insurance. So the
variances that are going to be required are maximum lot coverage it's an existing 49% lot coverage 51.87% is being proposed uh to accommodate the front porch. U the existing requirement
for front yard setback is 30 ft. It's existing at 29.2. It'd be reduced to 22.2 then we'll ask the applicant whether there's existing porches of a similar nature in the neighborhood. In the neighborhood yes many and that's our understanding also from
our review of the site. Uh the sideyard which also need relief was the existing sideyard um the smallest sideyard from the existing home is 5.5 ft. The applicant is proposing just to extend with the new addition uh and follow that
existing sideyard but that would require a variance and then also the same is true for the side aggregate uh 25 foot is required currently a side aggregate two sideyards added together is 18.4t and they're going to extend equally on
both sides of the existing porch and will result in an 18.4 for uh site aggregate. Uh we also have provided review comments. Uh and you have a copy of our letter. I do.
You agree to have any doubts about direct away from the adjacent properties? Yes. Uh and one of the things that we're asking testimony confirming when the additional uh building shed tool and concrete uh was added um since your approval from
your pool. Um we didn't put the pool in. The pool was there when we bought the house. Okay. And the concrete. Thank you. You didn't do it. I didn't do it. Somebody else did it. Um and then the uh we note that the proposed improvements do not result in
more than 500 square ft of land disturbance. Therefore, creating plan would not be required. In our opinion, the 215 square foot of additional uh impervious is negligible uh to the over the existing condition and would not require not recommend any onsite
infiltration system. However, as a uh mitigating factor for the increase in Pergus, uh would you consider using a rain barrel on one of your downspouts? Sure. And then I think that's a good mitigating factor and goes with our intents of what we're trying to do within the burrow of trying to
that's that's pretty typical of similar cases. I would say and it's one of my stock recommendations. So, uh, and I would also like to say that, uh, I'm not providing testimony, but the, uh, uh,
front porch is something that is, uh, desirable for all our planning documents within the burrow enhances the residential character and residential character of Hatton Heights. uh specifically is noted in several of our
planning reports and planning re-examination of having front porches. So you say that would be a a a good bolster in favor of the C variance relief. So yes so I believe that is a positive a positive definitely
outweighing any detriment. Steve, it's also interesting to note note that if this was a 12,000 foot lot, which is what this zone is supposed to have, that 51.87% would be 32%. Correct. Existing undersized lots. So, it has,
you know, and at the time when the pool was in uh was installed, there was an approval for that in 2013. Um, so I assume the additional the pool was there. We bought the house in What were you here for? N
what were you what were you here for in front of the board in 2013 petition put on the back of the house thank you so that was noted the pool the shed all those others were noted even though they didn't specifically go into the purpose coverage there so I I have no objection
plus the 215 is there anything else anything you'd like to add miss Thomas no just that I think that it would um upgrade the our house. Uh it would upgrade the neighborhood to kind of conform with the houses around us that have porches as you mentioned. It's that
great iconic small town feel that we love. Um just would help our use. It would help the value of our property and I think it would also help the value of the properties around us. You don't see any I I'm lead reading the the uh resolution from 2013. You don't
ant especially with the rain barrels. You don't anticipate any impact to the neighbors with respect to drainage? No. We'll be careful to make sure that we're not discharging water onto their property. Okay. Um, anybody else have any questions for to the neighbors that you were coming here?
No, not personally. We sent out all certified letters. Okay. But nobody like stopped you in the driveway. No. And said, "Oh, we don't want you to have that porch." No, nobody said it yet. Yeah. In regard to the sideyard setbacks, the the porch itself is going to have open sides, correct? So the you're only
talking about the roof structure itself and the floor structure. So it's going to So we're not we're not talking about for our definition it's the a coverage structure whether it has walls or not doesn't matter. It's the actual footprint that is understood but it is open
and getting back to Mr.'s comment. Yes. And uh it is another supporting factor is only purpose coverage than it is an existing recognized underin further from the board from Miss Thomas
or uh our engineer. [Music] See nothing we'll uh open the hearing to the public. Anybody wish to come forward and speak on this application, come forward now and we'll have solicitor swear again. Seeing none, we'll have uh we'll close
that portion of the meeting and uh bring it back for a possible motion. So the motion would be um for the two variances that were discussed, the maximum law coverage um and the front yard setback, the side and aggregate um
sideyard setback as well. the conditions of approval would be um complying with um Steve's letter. The conditions in Steve's letter um sounded to me like there were quite a few um conditions that would go towards the
uh criteria for um a hardship uh variance. and it sounded like it would enhance the quality of the neighborhood and um would be a benefit to the master plan and the multiple reorganization plans as well.
Anybody like to make a motion to approve or disapprove the application at this point? I think I move to approve the application for bulk variances for maximum lot coverage at 51.87% front yard set back at 22.22 two two
feet side yard at 5.5 ft side aggregate at 18.4 based on both C1 and C2 criteria for um hardships of the property and benefits of the community for Would anybody like to second the motion?
Any uh discussion on the motion? Suzanne, roll call, please. Sure. Miss Bonorsy? Yes. Mr. Madden? Yes. Mr. Dulkus? Yes. Chairman Hansen. Yes. Councilwoman Hurin. Yes. Mr. Famul. Yes. And Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
Congratulations. Projects approved. Um, you heard the spiel I gave about the appeal period. Oh, I forgot. I understand. And you understand if you want to proceed during that period till that lapses you're doing. Somebody comes charging. Probably unlikely since nobody came here to uh let their feelings be known this
evening. I forgot Kate. Have two more votes. Oh, and and I think I forgot Mr. Oh, he got me. Okay, I forgot. I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. A cliffhanger. Thanks again, everybody. Thank you.
Thank you. Sorry, Kate. I missed somebody. You weren't here for the last application. I got excited. Okay. Uh, next case this evening is uh case number 25-7-2P. Matthew Warner, 1640 Sycamore Street,
block 95, lot one. And this is for a fence on a corner property. Good evening, Mr. Warner. We'll have our solicitor swear again. Raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. You're gonna you're going to be the only
one given testimony. Yeah. I don't think my wife is. Okay. Once the state have a seat, uh Steve probably be unless unless the applicant objects, we'll have Steve go through his letter and uh walk through the application here. Okay.
Thank you. July 14th, 2025. Uh the application is uh for a 4ft high picket fence and a six foot high foot stockate fence uh in the front yard of reference property uh
along the rightway line view. uh our orders uh in case no fence hedge uh no fence is allowed in the front of the building. That's the relief that's being asked for. Um the applicant has provided a graphic and we're going to uh just
provide some clarifications on the graphic. Um it's going to be set back from your property line. U the proposed fence. Uh we do have the standard recommendation especially uh along uh
roadways that have driveways and that is the setback. Any fence in the front yard at 14.5 ft from the face of the curb, you were already going to be setting it back to a grade. Is that an acceptable condition?
Uh for how far back? 14 14.5 ft from the face of the curve. Face of the curve. Okay. So I believe uh I don't know how many feet that is from like the inside the graphic base of the curve
here it' be 14.5 ft back to here. Okay. You are already set back. I don't believe it's going to significantly move the fence back. But that would be the that would be the greatest extent and also have clear visual distance for traveling uh um motorists and backing
and people backing out of driveways. The only thing I would just mention is there is like a dogwood tree like right probably right around 14 and a half feet in the front. Right. I'm gonna I'm gonna I don't have any information on the dogwood tree. So
it'll be at a minimum of 14.5 feet how you put your fence and that would be the minimum I if you wanted to jog or offset or anything else to accommodate any landscaping. But in essence that is what the application is here for. And then I suggest that maybe the applicant provide
uh also it is noted that this is a corner lot. So it's a corner lot of sycamore and glass water to view avenue. The uh existing dwelling is set on a caddy corner on the corner lot. Uh and uh maybe the applicant can indicate why
uh you're looking to have a a fence in this location. uh because it would give us a greater kind of expansion of our backyard. Um and we have a dog and a little boy in the way. Um so we hoping
to get like a big backyard just so you know family can run around or a backyard. Yeah. Or or a yard. Uh so uh and it is a very unique property on the corner and especially in terms of how the existing uh dwelling is set on the caddy corner.
So, is your is your house facing like diagonal out to the south? Correct. Yeah. It's like facing the There's like a church. Yeah. Like across the street like diagonal, right? Diagonal across the street. And then where So, you don't right. I mean, so where would
you are you going to fence in the entire property? No, it would just be so like the where the house sits like the front right corner. Yeah. It would go perpendicular to Glen View Avenue. Okay. And then it would just go straight up towards High Street
and then it would kind of connect to like where the back of our lot. It is a little confusing just and it's going to be close. I'm going off of a dogwood's going to be outside of the fence.
measuring it off of I mean unless I'm missing something Google Earth but don't have scale let me see well I don't have it's not showing I'm just looking at the picture
I'm looking at the Google's usually pretty good am I at the right house yeah this is Glen school yeah that's the house that's I got the curb from the curb right back out of the driveway.
There's a there's a fence on a neighbor's property right here. It's going to be close. Steve, do you think the fact the proximity of the school across the street is is equally important for that 14oot rule as far as kids walking? I I
believe the 14.5 rule is important on anytime you have especially in today's day and age people driving down the roads and we have driveways where people are backing in and backing out which very piece of property I'm glad view has that plus they're right on the corner
also so we want to make sure we have the greatest visibility so when you're going down the traveling way you can anticipate and see anything that's occurring. Yeah, I I have a hard I have a hard time justifying anything less than that 14.5 if our if our engineer is
dictating that based on safet and it's a standard that can be applied and it's most applicable standard to do these type of applications. Um it's what we've always required in the past. We've not we haven't been flexible on that ever in my in my tenure on the
board. Um, it is also important to note again back to the configuration of the property. If the applicant went right from the corner, the front corner of this house and installed the fence, that would be that would be approvable by our
ordinance. What in essence we're trying to do is get a few extra feet of usable yard. And I I really have no objection to that. I'm just trying to figure out where if I'm looking at the survey does this 4
foot picket fence go to this to the So if you if you look off of the front corner of the house even though that dimension I'm looking at the front right corner of the house the uh the yes the front right corner front right corner of the house.
So there's a dimension there to the property line of 17.5 ft on the underlying survey. So you're turn you're turning that that is going to be 4 foot picket and you're going to correct me if I'm wrong. Correct. And then go to the little hash mark of the hash mark of the circle. Where is that hash mark in relation to
the tree? It's beyond that. It's beyond that. Yeah. So that's where the 4ft picket would stop which actually kind of lines up at the back of the house. Yeah. if you look, you know, with the back the side of the house and then from there it would transition up four to six foot
transition and go through the the the stock gate fence. Right. So, so aesthetically, you're going to have a pick a fence right around where the house is and what is really going to be considered the yards is where it's going to increase up to a six foot high stock.
Right. I guess my question is like with respect to I'm trying to figure out what so where the 14.5 begins like I'm just trying thinking about that trick that's all we don't
start right on the curb line and go in. It looks like it was right about where the tree is when I tried to scale it off at Google Earth but look like it was right in the middle of that tree. You couldn't really tell if it's a tree. You see the canopy of the tree,
but it's somewhere in there. And that that that is just why I'm thinking out loud in the middle of that tree. I know you've got this hard and fast 14.5, but it's 14 and you're talking about a 4 foot white picket fence. Big fence.
All all I can do is reference the standard that was provided by a reputable source which is ASHTO in terms of what an appropriate clearance is. I would not be inclined and I could not I could not provide any testimony or any justification to uh diminish from the
stand from that standard. So could we ask the applicant if he would deviate the line of his fence such that the dogwood ended up in his front yard? I I would say that we in my opinion we stay silent as as do the dogwood. The applicant has the ability
if the dogwood is in the line of the fence he can run the fence right to the dogwood and continuing right after he could jog it in. He just can't jog it out close to the curve line if the board is uh accepts my recommendation of the 14.5 bas. Well, I think to get that
fence in and get past that dog wood, you're going to have the way those limbs are coming over, you're going to have to go a good bit past it to not hit it with the fence. That makes sense. So, I I would I would prefer to stay at the 14.5 hard and fast. And if it means it has to be a
little more than 14.5, I you know, or just jog around, you know, around the dog in the back. Yeah. I again, the existing vegetation is not represented on the application materials. I would recommend that we maintain to a standard
that is recognized. Is okay with that? Are you fine with um I think so. I don't I don't know the exact measurement um from like where he's saying like all the way to the dogwood. It's probably like right around pretty close. Yeah, I was trying to scale it off of, like I
said, off of Google Earth. It's going to be within a foot probably either way. But that's what I want I think we need to be clear on we go on this application. That's living
comfortable with that. Yeah, I I think we're comfortable with that. Can I go on record saying my dog wants to just trying to save a tree? We'll have we'll have public participation. No one's saying anybody has to take
anything down. Yeah. There's no treatibility. This is only as the location of fence and as a minimum and you can work you can work it out as you or any other questions for the applicant
or for Steve. You have anything else to add? Uh no, that was it. I just, you know, we're hoping it, you know, I we think it's going to be very aesthetically pleasing to like the area, so hopefully. Um, anything else from
Guess we'll open it to the public at this point. Do you want to come forward and talk about the dogwood, sir? I've already appreciate. All right, we'll close public and uh bring it back to the board for a potential motion. Yeah. So, the applicant is um going to
require a variance from um the burough ordinance 450-96A. Uh the condition of approval would be to comply with um the recommendation in Steve's letter for the 14.5 feet um from the
face of the curve applicant is required to provide um testimony for either C1 or C2 variance. It sounds like because of the corner property most likely um would apply for a C hardship variance um
because of the the corner property and because of the way the the existing dwelling is positioned. Would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion because of the hardship of the property being a corner lot. I own a corner lot and have a fence and I had to be appear before this board
as well many years ago. I will uh make a motion to approve the application with the specifica or with the specifications of the 14 and 1/2 foot setback off the face of the curb. How and however you can make it work. Yep.
Um not give it any more specific nothing else more than that. Okay. Anybody like to second the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Uh, can we have a roll call, Suzanne,
please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Everybody voted this time, right? All right. You're approved. Um, you heard my Gettysburg address about the appeal period and proceeding at your own risk during that time. Yep.
Go see Suzanne for your permits. Thanks for coming. Good luck with your project. Just so you know, indicated that in our letter 14.5 is just 6.5. Yeah, I'll I'll measure again. I think I think we're right about
Thank you. Okay, we've got uh one last case this evening. It's a case number 25-7-3P. Brian Adreo uh 127 8th Avenue, block 41, lot 32 for a rear edition board. We'll have the two of you sworn
in and uh tell us about your project. [Music] Both going to be providing testimony. Please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. either of you have any objection to having our engineer go through his letter and uh walk him
through the project and then if you want to add anything, you can do that. Yes. All right, Mr. Bach, you're on the spot. Refresh our real quick. Sorry. Can we get your name again? Tiffany and Brian Andrea. Thank you. Refer the board and the applicant for
July 14, 2025. uh review the applications for a ball bearings construct twotory addition to the existing dwelling at the subject property located on a northeasterly side of avenue uh property currently has a
twotory dwelling at Pepper Porch twotory detached garage asphalt driveway and other associated improvements. Uh the variance we saw uh this evening is for a maximum block coverage of 44.5
uh% where 30% is required. It is noting noted that there's an existing improve of 45.8 but I believe we had spoken. Yes. Yes. So really here there is other improvements that were made that could not be uh
verified through the zoning and construction office. So they are not and that they're not increasing their purpose from the existing condition but do have they would need a variance for the 44.5%.
Uh there is existing non performances noted in our letter that are already existing uh for the front yard garage height and garage side uh size. Uh it looks like a lot of the area where
the addition is going to go is already impervious just judging by the pictures it's concrete or pavement of some sort. I had the opportunity to speak with the u it is an impervious coverage variance but I would like to note that
the existing lot configuration which is 50 by I'm reading this right 500 200 200 50 by 200 and I would like the board to note the location of the garage and the
length of the existing driveway which drives the majority uh drives a significant impact to uh the improper coverage. The applicant and correct me if I say anything that's incorrect here. The applicant was actually considering
um removing a good portion of their existing drive and putting ribbon drives. Is this am I correct? Correct. I'm remember. All right. To put what Steve uh uh ribbon drives which are ribbon drives uh are two uh small uh two narrow
bands of concrete. Uh, so if you ever seen the oldfashioned driveways back in the 50s, 11 houses, they were just two little narrow little sidewalk that act as driveway. U, but I would I would suggest a uh
mitigating factor on the improper coverage is that the garage it's all the way to the rear of the structure. This provides parking uh all the way past the front facade of the house which is one of the aesthetics that uh our planning
documents has reinforced uh and noted uh in many of our master plan documents. So the uh the addition uh so it is a 44 said it's got
it's 44.5% existing is 45.8% 8% it is a oversized lot uh within the uh within the zone 8700 square feet 10,000 square feet provided and I think a mitigating factor is the existing
drive all the way to the rear garage. Steve, I have a stupid question, but um they say that square footage of that addition footprint wise is 653 square feet, but the dimensions on the plan are 24 by 36, which is 864 square ft. So,
can the applicant explain that? When we did our impervious calculation, we actually scaled the plan. So, but the plan physically says 24 by that that's 864 feet, not 653 square
feet. So, which is correct. No. So if you see the shaded area underneath, so this is Oh, what you're saying is because it overlaps the old house. You have a small You have a small There's existing structure. There was a a small onetory I will say an elderly kitchen that was
put on. It was added in the 60s. That's one floor. And the new addition would supplant that. It's a net. So that what's neuted on the plan is a net 65. If you look at the plan, you'll see that little shaded area. Barely. Barely. Yes.
But that is what is going to be removed. And the net is within 653 square feet. All right. The biggest I could get was 24 by 36, I think. I know it's tough to say. Okay. Thank you. And you had a question about the twotory
garage in the back in your letter. Oh. Um, and do you have any information on when the twotory garage was built? So, the twotory garage is is a carriage house that was poured concrete that has to date pre 1940s
because they don't pour concrete by hand anymore. So, I mean, we bought the house 16 years ago. It's been there probably 60 years before that. So, you you can't even drive it nail or We did not build it. You didn't you didn't build it in your your
experiences. It it probably predates 1978. Yes. Yes. Without any question. 778 or 79. 78. 72. I'm sorry. 72. The reason we bring that up 1972 is that is when Sony ordinance was first created
and the bar had nice. So based on your testimony, you believe this probably predates 1972 based on the condition and the appearance. Yes, 100%. I'm just curious though, what do you do with the upstairs portion of my garage? It's storage. There's no bathroom. There's just electric throughout the
garage. So, that's You don't rent it. You don't sublet. Not unless we were having them come in our house to use the bathroom. Thank you. Yeah, we're we're sensitive about uh what people call um accessory
dwelling units. It's it's allowed in a lot of places. You watch TV. California to do it all over the place. Canada do all over the place, but not in heads. We are too. When we bought the house, both mother-in-laws looked and was like, "Oh, we're going to live there in the future." We were like, "There's no plumbing." Yeah. Thank you.
Americans proposed for the existing garage. No, I just was curious about it currently. Uh this this these photos were submitted as part of your application materials. Yes, Mr. Dak. So, if you look at the photo, you can see the shed edition on the back. Okay. It's in the It's in here.
Yeah. It's a little Yeah. So, so the existing is basically a little kitchen bumpout that they put onto the original 1901 structure and the addition is going to reside where that footprint currently is. Right.
Like a shed. They did a shed shed a little shed like all all the other four squares. 1901 you said 1901. Wow. Sears Sears kit that they picked up from the train station and then built there. Okay,
I have nothing further unless the board has any questions unless uh the applicant is yes, this will exceed over 500 square ft obviously. So, we're going to have that disturbance. So, we would have one one point of
clarification plan will be required. Uh the uh clarification are you going to reassphalt the existing driveway there survey? No. No, just leaving it as is. Leaving it as. Yeah, we're not touching. I'm not going to ask for any revision to it when we do the grading plan. Just it
should new on top of that. I think it's just whoever does the grading plan. It's probably the same people. Isn't this isn't this labeled grading plan? Grading and plot plan, right? But there's no application for it. Okay. So, we still have to go through the application and do the this was reviewed
only for the sole purpose of the variances being requested this evening. When you when you take this and submit it with your grading if I don't know if you did a grading we have a topo. Yeah. So when you submit for your grading plan application just have them unshade that.
Unshade the new. Yeah. Because it looks like it's you're redoing it all new. Okay. Okay. Thank you. But just the nature of it, the 634 square foot net would put you over the 500 square foot required for
any anything add to your testimony? I don't think so. Anything from the board? See, this is pretty flat. Not much going on. Okay. But they do have topographics. So we'll be able to really provide any
comments and a better analysis of flows when when we have the grading plan submission. Y I had a friend that grew up in the house next door and I never remember there being any drainage problem. I'm going to listen from the uh from the
applicant testimony. Um, do you have any existing drainage problems uh on your lot or you know of your lot or the adjacent property surrounding you? No, I think there's hardly any slope on it at all. Do you believe that this addition uh would uh uh cause any negative impact to
any of your uh adjacent uh neighbors? No. No. You guys sort of sit up on a hill a little bit above 8th Avenue too, right? Yeah. The front there's a step down in the front yard so we're already elevated. Okay. And the only thing that I would add to
this uh as a condition which is not in my letter most likely I was we were considering never to do it during writing is you would agree to direct any down spouts away from your adjacent uh your your neighbors. Okay.
Or the interior of the yard. Okay. Or just just away from your neighbor. Just away because that way we'll figure it out. We don't want specific. You're right. N lot. We don't want to direct it right to the side. That's that's what we're trying to
That's why um I guess there's no public here, but we'll open and close the meeting to the public. And uh anything further to add from the board or from the applicants or Steve? We're good. Elena, you want to sum up a potential motion?
Yep. So the applicant is requesting a variance for their maximum lot coverage. Um it is already um pre-existing non-conforming and the proposed is 44.5. Um the avenue is required to provide testimony for either a C1 or C2
variance. Um there has been testimony that the driveway and the placement of the garage um makes a pretty significant impact to the impervious coverage. And um that is a desirable trait um to have that length
of the garage with parking in the rear. Um so the to um adhere to the recommendations of Steve's letter um with an addition to direct any downspouts um away from neighbors.
Anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the application for the both variance. subject to the grading plan as Mr. Any questions or comments on the motion?
Seeing none, roll call, Suzanne, please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Great. Congratulations. Thank you very much. No dogwood be affected by this. No. No.
Don't forget your jacket. Oh yeah. You guys heard the uh thing about get about starting work before the appeal period is uh expired as well. Yeah, we heard the rest. We Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good night. Um, we have we've got one last item on the agenda for this evening, and that is uh case number 25-8-1P, Haden Height Senior Citizens Housing Corporation, 501 Green Street, Block 24,
lots four and five, uh, Steve's letter of completeness. It looks like the application is still incomplete. The application is incomplete. And if I may, board refer go on to our July 14, 2025. The applications for a minor subdivision
lot line adjusting uh and site plan for the construction of a four fourstory multi-ale dwelling residential uh apartment uh building and essence in the rear of uh the existing Episcopal church on the white horse bike. Uh we review
viewed the application for completeness. Um there are several items that I would like the board you know we make a recommendation for waiver for or no objection for waiver being uh uh uh granted. It is up to the board determine what their opinion is as to waiver being
granted. So if we go uh through on the uh page 305 um we go through our waivers for recommendations uh or no objections and waivers recommended for completeness. However, I would like to point out uh on
page four or five um that it is the property is in the burrows historic district. No historic district uh uh preservation commission review or approval is provided as part of the application materials for that reason
and that reason. And Suzanne, are you aware of any historic district approvals for this? No, they're coming in two weeks, right? They're coming in two weeks, but uh unfortunately we do not have that. Um I believe uh especially as this is part
of a redevelopment plan. clear for your recruiter. You're reading the burrow's redevelopment planner has provided a consistent determination in terms of the redevelopment plan, but in reading the redevelopment plan and the underlying determination need on this property. It
is noted that this is an historic structure. I would not I would not be comfortable recommending completeness until such time as the board has that has that uh again once once we deem it
complete and come before the board. I would recommend right now and uh that the board deem it incomplete but um we don't have to act on these waiverss right now when they come back. We they I would not act on the waivers. I would just deem the board the application
incomplete. Um but uh I think we'll just make a motion to deem the application in deem application incomplete through the tolling of time. We got to make some sort and why it's so important that the toing time is the uh the chair indicated uh we
have 45 days to deem the application complete or incomplete or it's automatically complete and then they come in. We want to make sure that this is incomplete until such time even though sounds like they have every intention to go to historic commission. We don't have it yet. So with my
recommendation we would ask that the application be they they're once you uh once they have those items once they have the historic commission item uh and then one second Once they have that item, then we can
revisit completeness at another completeness hearing. Does there have to be deemed complete before we bring them in for a hearing? So, they're incomplete until they provide what whatever the historic thing it would Yes.
And then then when it's completed very well could be. Yes. If it seemed complete in August, then it would be heard in September. Does anybody want to make a motion to uh deem the application complete or incomplete at this point?
Do we have to do that? We should. Well, if we want to deem it in if we don't want the tolling of time to expire, then you have you have we need to make a motion. My recommendation is a motion for deeming the application incomplete. Yeah, I I would make the motion to deem
it incomplete until we've heard. Yeah, I don't commission. That's your motion. If we don't deem it incomplete, then they could come. Incomplete. It was just a question. Okay. No action. No. No. Dean has just made a motion. Okay.
I'll second the motion. Any any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Call Suzanne. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. The applications deemed incomplete till such a time that they satisfy Mr. the conditions of Mr. Box's letter. Um being silent and not taking an action
uh would allow the 45 days to occur before we meet again and then it would be automatically deemed to complete no matter what we say. So that's why we take the action. We have 45 days within municipal land use law to either deem it complete or incomplete and that's and this is a significant application.
Yeah. Yeah. And they would then if it was complete they could completely sidestep historic right and that is not what we that's not what that's not what it's intended by our Does anybody have anything else for good to order?
I do August Okay, we're getting rid of that noise. Yes, that wonderful noise. So, if you see these are the new cassette units. Yes, there's already new uh new uh very large
condenser already sitting on top there. So, these will be almost silent and this will finally be gone. Yes. But is we're going to be ripping apart a lot for historical purposes. Will we be still piping in the sound through speakers or something like that? Just so
we have the Suzanne, we remember this background noise. Suzanne, the community center is the one across the street from the cabin, not the cabin itself, right? Okay. Why wasn't there last?
Maybe we should move there permanently. planning board headquarters. We're just going to make sure that we both remember that the notices have to be changed. I know I did tell for completeness they may well
Maybe I don't think we've ever not had a meeting. I'm not going to be here in August. I don't I'm pretty sure. Steve, can we can we not just issue an administrative letter saying they're not complete? I mean, I just I never have hearings for completeness in my other boards. It's just not our practice.
I only have one that does it. This one. This is your practice. My practice when they're incomplete is absolutely Yeah. for this type of application, it would be appropriate to have a resolution, which you just voted on,
deeming it incomplete, and we'll see what happens at this start. So, yeah, we we don't know. We don't know if they're going to receive their their approval in two weeks or not. Well, I rushed them to
the way. Nope. They are not slated for an at this time. You're wonderful. I had one thing real quick. Uh Michael and I have been on the uh liquor license subcommittee
uh with Councilman Deore and Councilman Pagan and we got a copy of that. We had two meetings. We got a copy of the sample ordinance that Howard prepared. Um we made some comments. Uh had some questions that they were going to go back to council with. Uh there's going
to be a public informationoutcry or whatever you want to call it, a comment session. We're going to have a public meeting to get the public's input. Uh I believe that's going to be like August 12th. It's not finalized. Sometime in August. And then once we get th those comments or whatever transpires
from that meeting, we'll take into consideration have one more meeting. I think and then we'll have the uh first reading of the ordinance. The the intent is for the first reading of whatever ordinance is is uh crafted from all this to be on for the September council
meeting. Then it'll come here for master plan consistency review. So that's in in process right now. Just so everybody knows it's coming. We've been looking at uh Ottabon's ordinance, Barington's ordinance, and who's the other one? I can't remember. There's three other towns. We were
looking at their ordinance and found some interesting. It was Haden Township. Yeah. Found some interesting things in all those ordinances and tried to craft the best one we could. So that's coming soon. Nothing
another another year. Jeff, do they know any indications so far as that waiting for the public? Do they know how many licenses they're going to let? I think it's two two plenary retail consumption licenses and I think the intent right now is for to put one out at a time and it'll go to
the highest bidder is what it looks like. That's the preliminary. Yeah. So other than that, that's all I have. Does anybody else have anything else? Seeing nothing. Okay. You were supposed to be retired already.
So much. All right. Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? Anybody want? All in favor? I. We'rejourn. Thanks everybody.
Yeah, I'm impressed. Nice job. Thank you sir.