##VIDEO ID:z8RviLS7UCI## all right good evening this is a special meeting of Livingston's planning board a notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the open public meetings act thank you Jack you take the rooll Please Mr reer here miss F yes Mr dufford yeah Mr batani here miss fishnu here miss kanana here Vice chair CA here chairman Fernandez here uh we have a quorum Mr Ratner Mr Diner Mr Lewis are not present this evening and we do have our board attorney thank you and if you can please call the first matter the first matter that's scheduled for this evening is a minor subdivision variances for 76 Hillside Avenue block 3901 lot 79 application number 2024 68- msuv ala Asset Management LLC located in the R3 Zone thank you and I just want to review the general procedure for tonight's hearing um the applicant attorney will call one or more witnesses to give sworn testimony and support of the application members of the board may ask questions uh of the witness and when the attorney for the the applicant has no more questions for a witness interested parties in favor of or in opposition to the application May question the witness about the witness's testimony when all the applicants Witnesses have testified and there is an entity or group formally appearing as a part in support of an opposition to the application they may call Witnesses on all the witnesses of all the parties have been heard members of the public may give sworn statements for or against the application um think that's it counselor Diana McGovern on behalf of the applicant ala Asset Management thank you if you like to call your first witness yes thank you um just a just briefly my client Alta asset management is the contract purchaser of 76 Hillside Avenue 76 Hillside is located in the R3 zone property is trapezoidal shaped lot that is 41,9 73 ft in area with 16233 ft of Frontage on Hillside Avenue on that lot it'ss a house that was built in 1947 my client plans to if approved to raise the house and subdivide the lot into two Parcels the first lot 79.0193 Square ft in area and have 81.1 7 ft of Frontage on Hillside and lot 79.0 2 would have 21,8 87.8 square ft and have 81.7 ft of Frontage on Hillside while the lot is very deep almost 250 ft the lot width creates the need for the variance um which in your Livingston ordinance the minimum lot area required is 15,000 square F feet with 150 ft of the Front Street right of way thus our proposed lots are short of the required footage uh the first lot 01 would be calculated at 12,679 77.9 Square ft or short 2323 s ft and lot 702 would have 12,667 point3 squ ft or short 2332 square feet I have two witnesses tonight um Mr wasowski who is the managing member of Alta Asset Management Charles B banza who is a licensed engineer architect and planner he's going to wear all three hats tonight so um we get three for the price of one so if I could call my first witness that would be great please thank you um Mr wiskowski hello how are you great thank you swear you in raise your right hand I'll swear you in you swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and please give us your full name and spell your last name for the record Camille wizowski spelled Wy r z y k wsk k i okay Camille um could you could you please just tell the board um about the house that you're you under contract to purchase the property with the house what is that house like right now currently sure so it's a um late 1940s split level um built on block Foundation um the foundation is in below standard condition um in the basement the the house was constructed with a low I would say about 6 foot 6 and 1/2 foot ceiling height in the basement uh the basement is under half of the house the rest is on slab on grade um the first floor uh as you walk up which is also the ground floor um has uh pretty small rooms um uh inclusive of a living room kitchen a small Den without any closets um the kitchen is pretty outdated it looks like it's an original kitchen um the the flooring which was actually very interesting they were was built with a peg installation which you know isn't used anymore um the floor was squeaking pretty much throughout the house um and then you walk up to the up the small set of stairs to the I'm sorry that floor that floor has a uh one and a half bathrooms on that main floor and then there's another bathroom on the second floor with additional bedrooms which all share that bathroom okay and so now you're proposing to knock this house down and are you going to be the developer of um the homes that you're proposing on the site yes that is my intention all right and what do you what we have the building envelope on the plans that we're submitt and Mr baldanza will go into to that but what what is the plan generally in your mind as to the type of home that you're going to build there yeah so the type of home would be would be if permitted it would be two uh Center hole Colonial type homes um the typical style that I've done in Livingston was either more of a modern farmhouse style or modern traditional here I I like the modern traditional style similar to what I did on 7 2 felwood and what I'm currently doing on 35 Crescent um as you walk in the the house would be 53 ft wide and 38 ft deep uh double car garage would be about 20 by 22 so as you walk up the Center Hall which would be then um 33 ft wide 8 ft for a foyer and then split the sides into an office and a and a formal dining room I like to have a first floor office for the stay at home home or working work from home families that in today's day and age really like that um I also like a formal dining room in in a home of this size because you know for family gatherings and special occasions additionally I'd like to I'd like to have a um first floor bedroom with a bathroom for elderly family members that I know a lot of Livingston buyers are looking for in these homes today um with an open floor concept throughout the rest of the house with a family room kitchen modern kitchen modern appliances everything like that on the second floor we would have uh four bedrooms with three bathrooms that would include a master suite with a his and hers master closet um a princess suite for you know any other special guests and then I also like to have two additional bedrooms typically for kids that are tied together with a Jack and Jill bathroom um in a basement um I would like to have an open recck space for kids that want to play and have friends over and for you know any sort of fun activities um I also like to have a a gym and like a wellness center for family members that like to you know kind of relax and take a breather um and then I also do like to have a uh another extra bedroom down there with an eess for any special guests that might you know stay over whatnot that need additional space that they would have a additional bedroom in the basement I don't know if bedrooms are allowed in the basement if that if they're not by the town you have no problem with with following the ordinance yeah I haven't had that issue in Livingston all the builds I've ever done always had an egress we have a um a window well that's 66 in wide by 72 in deep uh there's a drain that ties into the foundation drain we have a ladder with a uh with with a uh either a fence or a cover on top since you are familiar with the Livingston ordinances do you see any difficulty in meeting all of the sidey yard backyard front yard setback requirements in the town no and what about habitable floor area ratio do you see any difficulty in meeting that requirement no we're going to be proposing under 21% on this lot of 21 thou of over 20,000 I think we're going to be in the high teens and we have no intention of exceeding that because I think the houses for R3 at 3520 I think are square footage is way is 3 500 which I think is more than sufficient okay thank you for these Lots I think the board may have some questions people have gotten subdivisions and then they go to the zoning board for mcmansion Relief so councelor I can't remember whether we retain jurisdiction or we just get notice so that that doesn't happen you're yeah the the applicant has agreed to comply with all of the you B standards right but if he changes his mind we won't know I think the the the uh planner said that we were retain retain jurisic that's that's correct and we're we are absolutely fine with abiding by all of the recommendations of your planner yep and I have no intention of doing that What's the total square footage of the completed house uh 3500 that's Hab sorry that's habitable floor building square footage which includes the basement is going to be larger than that but that's not included in habitable floor that's C that's in the building square footage which I think 3500 plus another 1,200 you're looking at about 4700 inclusive of a finished basement are there plans for an attic no okay no Attic So your but your calculation of the pable floor ratio so the math seems off somewhere that bless you using the calculation for the habitable floor area ratio you're getting you said in the teens what Charlie where are we this may be a question yeah Charlie can prob okay thank you provide more of a description on that I was just doing quick math in my head I understand and the way it's calculated for the the square footage and the ratio are different so it gets complicated any other questions by the board any questions from the public for this witness as to his testimony the the plans actually show your square footage to 3472 Right Said 3500 is are the plans correct yes they're correct you were just rounding off yes I [Music] was okay next witness oh you have a question for the witness come on you can come on up if you have if you have General comments you can wait till the end if you have questions for the witness then you can ask them now but if you just have some general comments then you would do that at the end no I do have a question okay so according to your your name microphone and then name and address please I'm sorry my name is Alisa Chang and I'm right next door at 72 Hillside the long brown ranch right across from the school so my question is so your address again was 72 Hillside yes so my question is why do both homes have to be 50 feet from the front of the street because uh my neighbor Camila she's on one side and her house is set back and then these two want to be right in the front and then I'm also set back on 72 so basically there's two houses that are set back and then you want your first two your two homes to be in the front why does it have to be 50 ft from the street does it have to be can it be set back farther well according to the R3 zoning ordinance the minimum is 50 ft and the maximum is 60 ft and we're having Happ to either be at 50 or 60 and we're flexible within that range that's allowed okay the current home is sitting how far back I would have to ask Charlie Charlie I'm sorry he's our engineer architect he'll be testifying next okay so I was just wondering why it had to be so um the the the ordinance allows it to be built there got it so there's no way to move it back because for me my concern is that it kind of blocks my view you know I've already been living there for a while now I won't be able to see you know the one side of Belmont that I can see that corner right now so that's my you mean the the ordinance allows it to be put there so we can't force them to move it okay but I mean you're open to another 10t back is that what you said yes we are open to that okay if the board prefers we can move back 60 ft from the front from the street so for for proximity Miss way you are on the left side if you're looking at the house or the right um I am if we're looking at the two homes uh I'm on the right side she's here I'm on the right side if we're looking towards the houses you have the ranch corre yeah the long brown Ranch yeah right right directly across from Hillside uh Elementary yes okay that was one of M yeah thank you thank you actually giv you what's the application for what um any other questions yeah you can move on to your next onek I understand math I can swear you in when you're ready yes raise your right hand you swear the testimony given this matter will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please give us your full name and spell your last name please okay name is Charles L middle initial balanza b a l d a n Za thank you okay Charlie we're um introducing you as an expert in several different fields so if you could give the board the benefit of your educational background highlighting engineering architecture and planning of course yeah I have um my education is I have a master's degree in architecture from NJIT I've had my uh my own design firm since 2014 um I am licensed as a uh I'm a registered architect professional engineer and professional planner uh my licenses are in good standing and I have been accepted as an expert in um architecture engineering and planning by land use boards um throughout New Jersey um and these is your licensers are in New Jersey correct they're all yes in New Jersey and I know that you appeared in front of the Livingston zoning board several times yes all three of those capacities correct correct um I offer Mr baldanza as an expert if the board wants any more qualifications in the areas of engineering planning and architecture any questions from the board uh any objections so the board accepts you as an expert in engineering architecture and planning okay thank you Charlie if you could show the board uh you prepared the subdivision plan correct yeah yes uh what I have up right now is the Lakeland uh prepared by Lakeland uh survey and um um proposed filing subdivision plan um which on which my conceptual site plan is based so I'm showing now the uh on the screen the conceptual uh site plan uh of the proposed development uh which was um my understanding was uh submitted to the board um I I know we know that there's some questions about the if you could take them through the numbers in terms of the configuration of the lots and then the proposed um configuration of the home and you know that the board is interested in floor area ratio and and those numbers so if you could just explain that to the board um in terms of describing the subdivision correct um I I will address first the just showing again now sorry to jump back and forth the uh the existing house which is shown on the survey um did we get that as part of our packet I don't remember seeing that I think it was in the I don't think it was in the hard copy packet but it was in the drive I didn't see it in the drive either but okay I just want know if we need to uh to uh add it as an exhibit but if it's submitted great goad okay um sure so um to answer a couple of the questions that I that that uh were brought up uh during Camille's uh testimony the uh the existing house has a setback I'm going to try to zoom in here I'm not used to the system here but let me see what I can do so does have a non-conforming setback The Zone has a minimum and maximum uh setback so the current house is setback 94.8 ft which is non-conforming in the zone um and I know that there was an issue brought up about the proposed uh habitable floor area ratios the perhaps the um the element of confusion is that my understanding is that the habitable floor area ratio is calculated based on the actual square footage of the lot not the um the uh area within the 150 ft of the RightWay so what we're getting is we're getting a number um based on that approximately 3500 and then divided by the proposed lot areas of 20,000 and change and 21,000 in change and that's how we uh yielded the number of 016 and 0.17 for the two proposed Lots you also describe I guess the dimensions of the proposed lots and the shape of those lots yeah let me let me start out that the um so the so the subject property as we all know is at 76 Hillside um the the property in question is 41,9 73.6 um area which is greater than the 15,000 required in the zone um just as a overview the property's located near the corner of Hillside Avenue and Belmont Drive um the existing house uh is located as you saw in the middle of a lot of the oversized lot um it's conforming in other ways the existing habital floor area is less than the allowed uh 3520 um if you look at the aial of the neighborhood I'm going to zoom in a little bit and I think that will get everybody acquainted with the site um uh the neighborhood is a mix of predominantly one and one and a half and two family single story uh uh single family homes there's a mix of newer and remodeled homes along with older unmodified houses there's Township property to the West that's I think there's like a water tank over here board members probably from more familiar with that but yeah the there's a Township property and then the um the um Hillside Elementary School is right across Hillside to the east from the S property the surrounding lots have a variety of sizes and shapes and do not appear to have been a uniform development I'm going to zoom in on the tax map which is the tax and zoning map which we we put the what we did was we put the zoning districts on so you can see that we're in the R3 Zone we have both 500 foot and 200 foot radiuses just for point of reference um you can see from the tax map here that there is as I mentioned the the variety of the lot sizes and shapes uh that are in the neighborhood um the property is slightly trapezoidal in that the um the side lines are not are not at right angles to the rear and to the front um so as you heard we're prop proposing to demolish the existing home we're going to build two new single family dwellings if if a approved which of course is permitted use in the R3 Zone um the new homes will comply with the minimum front rear and side setback requirements the maximum Building height of 35 ft the maximum habitable floor area of 3520 Square F feet and the maximum habitable uh uh excuse me floor area ratio of TW of 21% and building coverage uh so with all the uh bulk standards of the zone Zone except for of course the two variances that we uh are requesting um so I'm going to State the I'm going to um go through the two variances which are one variance for each lot Charlie before you get to that the board's planner made mention of the fact that he wanted um additional testimony regarding the character of the neighborhood with respect to lot sizes and dimensions yes so if you could go through in more Det tell the comparison of the proposed subdivision and how that will fit in terms of the other Lots in the immediate vicinity okay I think the best bet is let me Zoom back in on the tax map which is in the upper corner of the conceptual site plan um so obviously the s's in the middle so we have delineated um the the site and the zone so let's focus in on the r re Zone um which is obviously this where the site is and I think we should draw a comparison to that because obviously the R4 Zone which borders a little bit farther up Hillside and then a a little bit further down Belmont do have all smaller Lots um so if we start if we start on the North End and we come down we've identified um at least seven Lots within 500 ft of the property property that um are single family dwellings in the R3 District um that are non-conforming in regards to um to the uh 15,000 square square feet within uh 150 ft of the um of the of the right of way so we can look at uh lot 76 on the tax map here as I'm pointing out that is um basically if you don't have 100 fet width you're not going to be able to have uh um uh 15,000 square fet within 150 ft of the uh of the RightWay so we have an undersized we have a um non-conforming lot in number 76 number 77 um on Belmont we have uh number one uh maybe I should read the addresses because I think that would be easier so we have uh 64 Hillside uh just to the north of us we have 64 Hillside to the north of us uh we have um on Belmont we have 105 and 103 these are the two lots that are in the R3 Zone on Belmont as you can see where my where my mouse is these two lots are not not uh conforming in the same regard as the proposed Lots we have lot 82 which is 92 Hillside this is this very irregular shape but there's not 150 uh feet uh within 150 ft we did not have the 15,000 uh Lot 83.0 2 um which is 104 Hillside and also we have a little piece of this lot uh number for lot number 43 which is 103 Hillside right at the edge of our limit here of uh self-imposed limit 500 ft just for the purposes of analysis um is uh has a narrower than 100 uh foot width so it is likewise non-conforming in a similar sense to the proposed Lots thank you so now you wanted to go through the variances that which just it's one variance for each each lot correct yeah it's one variance for each lot so as we've mentioned now um one bulk variants requested for each proposed lot per uh section 17098 C5 the required minimum lot area 15,000 s ft must be measured within 150 ft of the Front Street RightWay line okay so that's just to just to put it in a very simple manner the reg the standard lot size in the zone is 150 by 100 um 100 foot uh uh width and then um U at least 150 fet going back um so we're coming up with areas of 12,677 point9 on lot 79.0193 on proposed lot um 79.0 2 all right so in terms of um the analysis we're going under a C2 variance analysis yes okay um and if you could describe for the board um your opinion as to why we meet that C2 analysis yes okay um it's necessary in order to justify C2 variants we need to show the board that they can grant an allow a departure from the regulations when for a specific piece of property the purposes of the ACT would be Advanced by um of the ml would be uh uh Advanced by a deviation from zoning ordinance requirements uh and the benefits have to outweigh the detriments so just to go through the five criteria for a C2 variance has to relate to a specific piece of property well this proposal relates specifically to the characteristics of the subject property the granting of the requested variances would not affect other properties in zone we're talking about just this specific piece of property number two the purpose of the ml need to be Advanced by this deviation uh from the zoning order ordinance uh and requirements um so let's go through that the purposes of the ml that are Advanced by this proposal this proposal represents a better zoning alternative in that the following purposes of the ml are promoted um purpose e and that is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment okay the R3 zoning District calls for a loss of 15,000 each which means the intention was that a property of the uh of this size 41,9 73 square feet overall should have at least two single family dwellings okay um they're proposed two single family homes are therefore more closely conforming to the Zone plan than the existing single lot the two resulting Lots will conform in overall area so the overall size conforms and will only be marginally insufficient in regards to lot shape in that not all of that area is within the required 150 ft of the right away so to put that plainly is we have the area we're just not within the uh District interpretation of that 150 fet and um again having one Big Lot was not the intention of of of of this zone so so we are providing a better zoning alternative um another way that we're advancing the purposes of the ml is uh purpose number I letter I so that's to promote the desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement so we are proposing two modern homes that meet the needs of today's population on two lots that more closely match those of the existing much of the existing neighborhood in size and a more Co and these lots more closely comply with the attent of the master plan um okay so justification that we need to do number three is the public public good we need to show that the public good um um how it is affected by this the public good in this case can be described as the immediate residential neighborhood these variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good the New Lots will more closely resemble the majority of lots in the immediate neighborhood houses that are otherwise conforming in the zone can be built on the proposed Lots uh despite not having the required full 15,000 Square F feet within 150 ft of the RightWay so moving ahead to four let's talk about the benefits and detriment the benefit to the public good from this proposed development uh as I said is that we will we are creating these two modern homes on two lots more in conformance with the Zone rather than the existing oversized lot um the neighborhood will benefit from the attractive architectural design the modern new home will be placed on a SL will be built to the latest building codes including new Energy Efficiency standards uh we're not proposing to re remove any mature trees at this time and therefore there's no detriments to the public good by the approval of this proposal um so number five um the intent and purposes of the zoning regulations and master plan granting the variances will advance the intent and purposes of the R3 residential regulations um the 2018 master plan uh of Livingston the reexamination specifically discussed the R3 districts and recommends that wherever the predominance of lots in a neighborhood is below the minimum lot size for the R3 District consideration should be given to rezoning to R4 or to a new District okay the proposed Improvement that that we're talking about will will advance the goals and recomend recomendations at a master plan and therefore these V bulk variants can be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of the master plan so just to Circle back on that we have lots what we're proposing here would um be conforming the R4 zone so the master plan specifically talks about the situation where a neighborhood has lots such as this um that that uh the predom the predominant as we've shown here many many many of the of at least seven that we've identified are this uh um non-conforming and more closely resemble the R4 we would be compliant on the lot size um if we were you know we are compliant with the R4 standard which is um which is the uh is 9375 wait hold you actually exceed the r R4 zone I'm sorry we would actually exceed the requirements yeah we would exceed the yes yes that's a good way to State it um so um just one final thing about the uh goals of the master plan there's three goals to the master plan uh to preserve enhance the primary primarily residential character of the community to maintain a balance of residential business and public uses and to preserve and improve the quality of life the replacement of this 1947 dwelling with two new modern single family homes for development benefit enjoyment of its current and future residents is consistent with all three of the goals of the master plan and um uh and includ the goals and recommendations of the master plan and the bulk variants can be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the master plan um um just one more thing I I in discussion with you you indicated to me and you pointed me to a case Kaufman versus the planning board of Warren 110 NJ 551 it was 1988 case that it was similar to that case um where there was a very large extra large area and they had a similar requirement there where they created lots that um exceeded the area required in the zone but the frontage was off and in that Supreme Court decision they supported uh creation of those because they felt that it was the benefit of zoning to have more harmonious lot sizes would you say that that case and that sentiment applies to what we're trying to do here yes thank you the board has questions for you any questions from the board so I like the way you put it need need you need 100 on the front edge right I have no idea why Livingston doesn't have a front ordinance they have this 150 ft so you need basically doing the math you're basically 85 ft on Frontage on Hillside as opposed to the 100 that would otherwise be required yes I I believe the actual number is 81 we have 81 and 81 on each lot I'm got to be a little bigger than that to get to 12,677 well we're really deep right the lot is like almost 250 ft right but this is only the first 150 ft so it's 150 * x equals 12,677 um yes right my algebra is horrific but I she got yeah I think it I think it was I think it was the the application and the planning memos all everything else had the 20,000 and the 21,000 square footage but the chart sort of I think threw a lot of us off okay sorry for that confusion that's okay no I appreciate you clarifying it yeah and I think I mean and I think as you've articulated they're slightly undersized for the habitable floor the minimum lot area pursuant to the 150 foot FR requireed you know looking only at the first 150 ft but when you look at the entire lot size they're over they're significantly oversized correct the um the the ordinance uh says you know to see whether it's consistent with the neighborhood that uh you do a review of a lots of 400 ft around the property and that the lot size should be know six you know large you know large than 60% of the Lots in the area have you have you had a chance to to do that is that uh are you saying um it says that in in the ordinance yeah part for for at least for at least what the the board of adjustment usually you know use that also here for uh consistency with the neighborhood so can you just kind of talk about um you know the the frontages on yeah yeah I'd be happy to um I will say that what what I did I did I not familiar with the exact ordinance you're talking about however we did happen to have the 500t radius um on the tax map which you know is similar idea um the 500 foot radius gets us almost out of the um the r the R3 Zone um which obviously I didn't use any any of the comparison if you if you're looking if you're not um Counting the zones uh meaning like if you're comparing the neighborhood kind of just for for the sake of argument not considering R3 versus R4 we're we're very close to the border of the R4 and the R4 obviously has a 75 essentially 75 foot requirement um so so then that would increase the uh um the overall you know Conformity with the overall neighborhood um the other thing I'll say is we didn't try to um you know count the houses further back on on the uh on the roads to the rear because we just thought that wasn't part of the neighborhood we wanted to just focus on directly on Hillside and um to a certain extent Belmont uh if you would like to from the tax map I could tell you that we're dealing with um some Lots um we're dealing with uh for example the lot 76 is 76 feet wide um so I'm going to read off of my notes Here If You bear with me one second we have um so lot [Music] 82 that's 92 Hillside yeah that's the um that unusual shape lot is um is uh as far as the frontage goes let me see here the land description on the tax R map is uh 60 by 99 and I think that must be the narrowest point so it's 60 by 99 and 66 by 520 so I think this narrowest point could be as little as 60 here we have um 83.0 2 has a 77 so less than 80 so smaller than our proposed Lots we have lot two on Belmont uh is 75. 74 and lot one on on this side is 74 uh and a fraction too 105 Belmont yeah 105 Belmont so um there's quite a number of um lots that are that are narrower than our proposed Lots I think if you go north you get the same result too yes I I'm trying to see unfortunately that red line and it's a little hard 63 Camille's telling me uh on lot 77 so you're talking about and and a tax the tax records I have here uh that I'm reading from uh corroborate that 63 by 190 is a lot so the lot is smaller than ours and significantly is narrower than ours quite a bit any other questions from the board any questions chairman sorry one quick question so by splitting the uh the land you are getting into variances on both sides by 3,223 square ft right minimum lot area on both Lots that's the two variances we're talking about I yeah it's it's basically it's 15,000 minus the 12,000 that's 23 change and yeah yeah that's 2323 2323 roughly about that okay yes uh how does that minimum lot size or area negatively impacting Your Design decisions in creating where the houses will be back forth reducing any variances or anything else negatively impacting Your Design decisions oh um there's uh no no negative impact and I'll tell you why uh we were able to design a house that otherwise can form with the Zone meaning the setbacks the side setbacks the front setbacks rear setbacks um height um really there's there's uh there's uh no other impacts to the um to the designs that we had or to the Lots um and the and the and the future houses that will be on them by the fact that um we're not conforming with the uh um lot area within 150 ft requirement okay that helps thank you and uh going back to the first point that was raised earlier um that's uh sometimes what happens we see this that from here this Varian is become hardships for when it goes to zoning um I think our Council mentioned that can have probably a clause in there but how do you see that that pursuing are these design decisions you know sort of as you mentioned there's no negative impact on your design decisions based on the minimum L area um you mentioned about height so that's that's different uh about the uh the setback from the from the uh from the street so like you heard from the neighbor um there is a there's a concern of the neighbor saying hey my view will be blocked that's the existing household versus what you're going to build any of those considerations that come in play plus any of these uh um hardships will be carrying over into Zone but I think what's important to remember the only the only application that's before us is a subdivision okay we're not here to you know the the houses you know you know what may be built there is not before us really what we're here is to either to Grant or not Grant a variance for the subdivision um so that that's that's the so can we can we do that Clause that we discussed earlier that well they they've agreed to comply with uh okay with with all of the that was my concern the the bulk variances thanks any other questions from the board any questions from the public for this witness as to his testimony to find that where do we end up on the 10 feet are you g to go to 60 feet for the CHS if the board prefers we good in in fact I would prefer that because I think it set it back a little further closer to the neighbors where the non-conforming setbacks are of 90 plus plus feet uh if you have a qu if you have a question for the witness now um if not then there will be a chance at the end to you know give your give give testimony in favor of or an applic in opposition to the application so you have a question for the witness it's similar to okay yeah come on up then if there's enough space um in the backyard there's no way for you to move the homes further back I I know that's my main concern it may not seem you know but it's it it it's it's obstructing my view so that's why I'm bringing it up well they're also they're constrained by the ordinance number one number two yeah that's that's what I was trying to figure out like I I don't know if they have enough enough space in the backyard to push it further back I don't know that we can go back than and I don't think that's up for this board to determine um I mean we're here to determine whether to Grant a variance for the subdivision if you then build a house that's compliant then you can do that if you're know you're hearing you know from the residents that they'd like you to move it back but you still have to be compliant with the ordinance um so they still have to comply with the ordinance it sounds like they're willing to move it back correct uh but they're still constra by what the town ordinance requires place the house yeah I understand that so that's why 60 is the best we can do I think okay so what what it sounds like to me is that that that that you know they're they're willing to you know that they hear your concern and they're willing to well know when they when they build a home to you a alleviate that concern as best they can based upon what the rules are so there's not enough space in the backyard no it's what the the the ordinance requires it has to be set back a certain distance and that's you know that's what they're you know certainly willing to do that they're willing to go farther back uh than what they're currently proposing thank you there any other questions for this from the public for this Witness thank you okay thank you we have no other Witnesses um uh is there anybody just anybody from the public that wishes to make a sworn statement for or against the application um other than the questions that you've had so far is there any any questions thank you okay thank you of we've demonstrated the proposed subdivision would create two lots that will allow for two modern single family homes that will fit with the Zone plan the lots are within keeping of the Lots in the area and the justification for the C2 variance is established by the testimonies clear the subdivision will benefit the community by creating more harmonious lot sizes to new attractive homes to be built within the bulk requirements of the ordinance and provide no no negative impact as single family homes of this nature belong in this St thank you if if if the board was to approve this application um would you also comply with the requirements of the of the engineering memo uh January 13th yes I think uh we already indicated this Su but yes officially we are happy to and I think one of the questions they had was whether this would be filed by deed or subdivision PL um whatever the board prefers we can do it either way leave it up to you is easier the parties having had opportunity to make closing statements it appears to the chair that the applicant all interested persons and the board members have had reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the evidentiary record of this hearing ought to be closed absent objection and in the absence of any motion for continuance the evidentiary record is closed and no further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received so the board members shall now have the opportunity to state or discuss their views on the application anybody feel free to chime on in so with that I'll go first if no one else want so um this is an interesting part I got back it's been doing this for how many years this is an interesting part of town because it's this one stretch of Hillside Avenue that's in the R3 the rest of Hillside side has homes that are much narrower Lots set a little further back including the Romeo family and the um this one little piece has these sort of further back bigger Lots um and I can certainly see where some of those homes are getting older I think you meet all the criteria of the R3 um you can build a house that's the right size for the R3 the width I think what I always look for is if you're driving down the street Street the rhythm of the Lots needs to be similar right so that you don't all of a sudden have these little skinny almost town homes in you you're not doing that the Lots I think to the North and the South you've established through the testimony are all in the 85 to 75 foot range which is right where you're going to be so I I think you meet the the um the criteria I don't see any any negatives I appreciate the fact you slid the home back um to try and accommodate your neighbors a little bit um and I would make a motion to approve subject to the condition of the 60 foot setback and the the letters that were in the uh the engineer's letter that was in the application thank you um anybody else with that if I can have a motion I made a mo a second second I wasn't listening saving a stack so we have a um Motion in a second to approve the application Jackie thank you Mr chairman uh so board member alternate one will vote in place of absent member Ratner yes and board member alternate number two will vote in place of absent member Diner correct so the motion um Mr santola yes Mr rer yes Miss fos yes Mr delord yes Mr bani yes Miss fishnu yes Miss cono yes chairman Fernandez yes thank you motion carries okay okay thank you very much for a very well presented application we appreciate it thank you for uh all your testimony uh thank you for being accommodating to the U you know as best you can based upon the current ordinances uh with uh with your neighbors it's always uh it's always good to be good neighbors so thank you thank you thank you Mr chairman that concludes the sure4 Hillside Avenue so the neighbor as well so I mean the back uh the back of the lot of 76 and all the way to the north 7260 something I mean the small area I mean not small a big area belong to nwn I'm just curious whether the town has any plan to do with that area about that area so so you know one of the good things about the planning board is we have elected official Representatives here and I guess he can certainly discuss it but I know that there's um you know uh yeah CU I can see a lot of coyote uh foxes deers coming from the OOTS yeah sometime they are cute but it might hurt my little kid and my dog too so I mean cuz I can't fence my lot that's too huge and and what would you propose for the uh I don't know cuz it has been appended for years and years right I I don't know I think that's green area yes yes yeah we're done okay birthday yes okay so can I call you