Good evening everybody. Sorry we're starting a little bit late. Um, welcome to the public hearing for Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is May 28th. If you are an applicant for a D or use variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons
reasons for the grant of the variance exists and that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require an affirmative vote of five members of the seven member board of adjustment. Other
variances require a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have a right to appeal to the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision, and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're an
objector to any type of variance that has been granted, you too may appeal to the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of your complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public
Meetings Act, also known as the Sunshine Law, adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the Star Ledger and West Essex Tribune, and a copy was also posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. In addition to having notice posted, notice of this meeting was placed on the township website.
Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you would like to address the board, please come to the front and use the microphone so we could make sure your comments or questions are part of the record. To the members of the
public, I would like to remind everyone that this board exists for the sole purpose of making adjustments to the township zoning rules. The rules are developed and affir and affirmed by the town council. As a board, we listen to the testimony presented for each application and make our decision based
on the township rules, state guidelines, as well as rulings issued by the New Jersey courts. We are very happy when the public comes forward and asks questions and or makes statements. In fact, this board always encourages it. However, as a board, we are not going to
discuss how we reach our conclusions and how or why we voted for or against an application further than what is required by law. I would also like to remind the public that communication with board members is limited to the time when we are in session. Please do not email or call us. We are all
volunteers and it is important to to contact us. Um we are volunteers and it is improper to contact us outside of these chambers. Thank you for your understanding and we will now call the role. Before wait, hang on. No, before we do that, um, uh, two applications, 86
Martin Road has been adjourned and we'll be hearing it on June 23rd and 33 Hickory Place has been adjourned and we'll be hearing that on July 30th. So, if anybody is here for either one of those applications, um, please come back on those dates. And now, what >> and neither of them need notice because
we've already um, given notice of the two um, for those two applications. And Mr. Mr. Horn, can you please call the role? >> Sure. Mr. Kenya, not here. Mr. Horn, yes. Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Muan, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Embati, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Beer, not here. We have a quorum. M. Uh, Mr. Walle, our board attorney, >> here. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Horn. Andon, can you please call the first application? >> Sure. First applications, block 601, lot
10, 14 Blackstone Drive. Application number 2025-117-V Sajimin Anton applicant seeks to approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following sections 170-87 CCC2 capital Florida ratio 18%
allowed 20.84% proposed a 2.84% variance is requested. >> Thank you. Good evening. Nice to see you. Hi. >> Hi. So, will both of you be testifying tonight? >> Oh, wait, wait, hang on one second.
>> Sir, why don't why don't you Yeah, perfect. Just hit the button. So, uh, Mr. Anthony, correct? >> Yes. Okay. Uh, you're the owner of the property and you're the applicant, correct? >> Applicant. Yes. >> Okay. And will you be testifying or you will be having your architect testify? >> Architect will be testifying. >> Okay. So, why don't we do this? Why
don't we swear in your architect and we can proceed from there. Okay. >> Sure. >> Okay. Why don't you swing the uh microphone over? >> I'm also >> Oh, and also the engineer. Well, we're going to we're going to start with uh we'll start with the architect and then we'll swear you in afterwards if we're
going to take testimony. Okay. Do you swear and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Yuval Yu V A L Wellish. W L L I S C H. >> Okay. You can put your hand down. Uh and
uh I believe we've qualified you in the field of architecture in the past, not too long ago. >> Many times. >> Many times. Uh and uh your license to practice uh ar in the field of architecture in the state of New Jersey is still uh current and valid. Correct.
>> Yes, it is. >> All right. Uh acting chairwoman, >> I'm not sure how we do this, but uh acting chair uh this um >> does anybody on the board Okay. Thank you. Does anybody on the board have any questions or objections regarding this
witness? >> Okay. All right. Thank you then. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Are you going to be sworn now or >> Oh, I'm the first one. >> I think you should do. >> Are we? >> Wait, wait. Are you going to make a statement?
>> Yeah. >> All right, Dylan. We're going to swear you in a statement and the engineers. Okay, we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna try to move this along. You're gonna have your engineer now provide testimony. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Why don't we get him sworn in? Okay. Do you swear for him tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Got to get a little close to the mic or raise it up. I'm not sure. Okay. Uh uh can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> William Scott. S O T T. >> Okay. And Mr. Mr. Scott, you've been before the zoning board recently, correct? >> Yes. >> And um you were qualified in the field of engineering, correct? >> Yes, that's right. >> And your license to practice uh engineering in the state of New Jersey
is current and valid up to date. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank >> Chair. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> Okay. There being no objections, this witness is accepted as an expert in planning. Um >> architecture. >> Architecture. >> No, engineering.
>> Engineering. engineering. Thank you, sir. Please go ahead. >> All right. Go ahead, Mr. Scott. >> I'm sorry. I think we're >> We don't know who's going to be first. >> Well, I we had said the architect was going first, right? >> I can be first.
>> Sorry. >> Somebody's got to start. We got get We're going to be on a roll in a second. >> Oh, can you hear me? >> Yeah, perfect. Go ahead. >> Okay, good. What we did is actually what
the board asked us to do last time is reduce the uh amount of square feet of the house. We did that by lowering the garage roughly by about four feet and that elimmited completely the square footage by about three not about 318
sorry 316 square ft which brought us down to lower than uh 4,850 which what we wanted and now it is let me just fix my eyes we bur down to 4,000
813 square ft. I'll try to show it here. >> What was that again? Can you repeat that? >> I'm sorry. >> Total square footage. Can you repeat that? >> It's 48. Sorry. 4813
4813. If you look at A1, there's a table. On the right side, it says data and on the very bottom it says 4813. What it also did, it really minimize the uh impact of the garage in the front. I
know nobody said anything about it, but we feel more comfortable with that. It makes it a little bit more comfortable when you look from the front. So, that's pretty much what we did. So this is now um you're below the
habitable floor area. Yes. For the zone, correct? >> Yes sir. >> And as a result the uh floor area ratio is now the variance uh amount is now 2.84%. As a result, >> correct? >> Right. And at the last board meeting,
one of the discussion points, and you brought it up, was about uh making the change to that uh garage second level piece that's now gone. >> We We didn't want to deal with this anymore. We just took it off. >> Just took it off. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. In line with the board's comments. >> It's an empty attic, >> right, >> for all purposes. >> So, that was in line with the board's comments from the last meeting. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Yes, I do. So, looking at A5. >> So, I just want to understand on that unfinished space, right? I see there's still a door to the unfinished space. >> Yeah, we have to have a door by >> understand what is the height of that attic space. >> The height at the maximum is six feet.
>> Got to get closer to the mic. Sorry. The highest point of the attic is 6 feet. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anyone? >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> There's So, so that means that the this door to the attic that's going to be
because I see the roof slopes down. So, is the door going to be like much shorter than six feet? >> Yeah. Now, we don't know exactly what will be the height at the door, but it's not going to be more than like seven, maybe seven and a half at that point because it's still the height of the second floor. But once you open the
door, you will have to duck down to go to to the attic. >> Oh, okay. So, it might be like as soon as there's a doorway right there, there could be a wall going. So, you sort of still have to duck. Okay. >> True. So, you can't really make it habitable no matter what. >> And then I assume there's collar ties in
that >> that roof. Okay. >> They're going to be collar ties. >> Yeah. like what's the height of those collar ties? >> I would say roughly about 5t from the floor. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Does anyone in the public have a question for this witness? I have a question.
>> Quick question. Uh c can you uh clarify like once uh the person enters the attic space from the door? >> They have to duck down. What is the height at that? >> It will be probably around 5t because the car is going to be about 5t. >> Okay. And the maximum height at the
ridge side the bottom of the ridge. >> Okay. >> It's actually on A1. If you look at it, >> A1 front elevation. Look at the >> Yeah. >> Look at the right side of the where the garage is. It says 6 ft to the bottom of
the ridge beam. So, will the applicant agree as a condition of approval that that space not be converted into habitable space in the future? It'll just be storage. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay.
>> Does anyone in the public have a question for this witness? >> Thank you. >> Call our next. >> So, you Mr. Scott, right? >> Yes. Okay. Mr. >> Scott, do you have anything uh in
addition to this? >> I would just offer myself up to answer any questions you might have. >> Okay. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for witness? >> Anyone in the public? >> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay.
>> Okay. Mr. Scott, you got off easy on that one. Okay. You don't have to smile too hard at that one. Okay. Uh so, uh Mr. Anthony, those are your witnesses, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, so you want to >> Okay. Does anyone in the public want to
make a statement? >> Okay. Does anyone on the board have any final questions regarding this application? >> Yeah, I I just want to add that uh I'm I'm not in favor uh because uh I feel that there is still a substantial space
in the attic level which uh can be used for the purposes of occupancy. I think uh based on my calculation about 200 250 to 260 square ft of space is still within the five to 6 ft height which I
feel is uh you know definitely usable uh or habitable uh and I also see that there is some window in the plants uh so >> right >> agreed agreed so uh with that uh in uh
perspective I don't feel very comfortable uh to uh grant this v variance from my end. >> Thank you. >> So can I take can I just and you I just want to ask a question of the the engineer and you probably sort of the
first time and I did watch it again but I don't remember. So it is your testimony that because this looks like a >> massive house but you're under the square footage. So are it's your testimony that that this house as built that this property can accommodate this use this size house is that your
testimony? >> Yeah, I I had mentioned at the last meeting that all of the bulk setbacks are exceeded u and provided. >> Okay. Um motion
>> can I hear? Does anyone on the board want to make a motion? I I would make a motion to approve this. Okay. >> Can I hear with the condition >> with the condition that that uh attic over the garage space none of the attic space actually uh becomes prohabitable >> does not become >> does not become habitable
>> does not become habitable at any time. >> I will second. Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. Mr. Weissman approved. >> Miss Yuan. Yes,
>> Mr. Horn. Yes, Mr. Sha. >> Yes, >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Embati. >> Yeah, I don't approve. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> The motion is approved. >> Okay. Congratulations. >> Thank you. And thank you very much for
um coming go coming back to the board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, for the next two applications, I'm going to be recusing myself and I'm going to be turning the chair over to Mr. Horn. And um after those two applications are heard, I will come back.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna We'll step on your feet. Okay, next application block 3101 lot 5 11 Bunyong Drive application number 2026-4-B Ali and Dave Brunwaser applicant seeks
approval for first floor and second floor addition in violation of the following sections 170-87B3 habitable floor area 3520 ft allowed 4526 square ft proposed 1006 foot
variance required uh 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 25.7% proposed 4.7% variance requested >> okay so uh I recognize Mr. Dhy I
recognize Miss Bruner um I just want to identify uh and I know I know that Mr. majority can count, but I'm going to tell them anyway. Um, obviously, uh, one of the requests you're making is for fluoria ratio,
which is devariance. Uh, you need five affirmative votes. There are six members due to the recusal and other board members being out. So, I wanted to let you know that before we proceed forward. Obviously, we can
proceed forward, but I want you and the applicant to be aware of that. Um because you need to get five out of six. I knew you could do math, but I'm just telling you it's dirty. >> Council and members of the board during the proceeding this evening, if if we
may, you know, read the temperature and and maybe uh come back for a full complimentary. >> Well, that would be that transcript. >> That's certainly the applicant's call. I just want you to be aware that we're, you know, we don't for this tonight for
this part of the application, there's six members. Okay. So, Miss Brunwer, uh, are I know you're the applicant. I know you're the owner. Are you going to be testifying tonight? >> Yes, I will. >> Okay. All right. Why don't we get you sworn in? Do you swear for tell the truth for this zoning board tonight? >> I do.
>> All right. You can bring the mic closer to Don't let Mr. Doy hog the mic. All right. Uh, all right. Miss Bruner, um, do you want to start with a statement and then turn it over to your professionals or you want the professionals to start? >> Alex was going to say something and then I would I'll say something after.
>> Okay. So, why don't we get you this morning, Mr. Dherty? You just swear in form tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Can you please state and spell your name? >> Alexander Derty. D O U G H E R T Y. >> All right. Mr. Darity, you've been uh here many times. Uh have been qualified
in the field of planning. Uh and your license to practice in the field of planning in the state of New Jersey is valid and up to date. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um Mr. Horn, you want to >> Sure. Um, does anyone in the board have any objections or questions regarding
this witness? There being no objections, the witness witness is accepted as an expert in his field. >> Thank you. >> So, just to kind of open to uh to kind of, you know, bring the board and um members of the public where where we were and where we're at. Um last month
we initially came in seeking three variances. Um it brings me great pleasure as a planner to uh to note that we have eliminated the sideyard um variance and um as council indicated and and the board chair we are here seeking two variances which have been substantially reduced. Um we've heard
the comments um from the public comments from the board and um you know u we went back to the drawing board and we believe we have something that's substantially more palatable for the board's consideration. Um, again, this the undertone of this application is is really unique in nature as this this
property does not have a basement. Um, but with that being said, I'll kind of turn over um to the applicant herself to kind of, you know, walk the board um what has transpired um locally um you know, with since our last time we were here and we'll bring it over to the
architect and he'll kind of bring you to the delta of of what we've uh you know, landed on. Um, if the board recalls, um, we had a, uh, a request, if you will, of 672 square ft and we substantially reduced that before the board is
essentially at its core an addition of 390 square ft. Um, so with that, how we landed on the addition, I'll kind of uh, hand it over and you can kind of walk the board on what transpired locally. >> Okay, Miss Brunwis, sorry I didn't get you to state and spell your name for the record before you start. So, why don't you guys state and spell your name?
>> Not a problem. Ally or Allison Brunwaser. B as in boy. R U N W A SS er. >> Okay. Go ahead, Miss Brunwiser. >> Perfect. Thank you for taking the time to uh hear us again. I know we were just here a couple of weeks ago. Um so what
me and my husband did after uh we spoke with you is we went to our neighbors. We spoke with them to hear their their thoughts and concerns and hopefully come to a resolution. Um so we uh also
scanned the neighborhood. Um and um based on a lot of the new houses that are coming up in the area, we noticed that the square footage on these homes um they also do include basements, but they're anywhere between 4500 and 5500.
So, we wanted to stay in that 4500 range. Um, so with the addition of the the garage, the in incremental space in the garage and offices for my husband and I, um, which is just important for us to
continue with the growth of our um, our family and our extended family who's stays with us frequently um, and the ability to keep working from home. Um, we thought that, uh, shrinking the size of what we were asking for, um, what,
uh, Tim will will talk about it a little bit more, but we cut back uh, in the back yard as well, um, and brought down the ceiling a little bit in the on the second floor um, as a way to um, hear what our neighbors were saying as
well as accommodate our needs for uh, the longevity that we are here with our family. All right. So, you're gonna have your architect now testify. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. All right. Why don't we get you by the mic? >> You know, I was sworn in last time.
>> I'd like to swear to people. Uh, do you swear from Tell Truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Uh, Timothy Kle SSE. >> All right. You've been qualified in the field of architecture in the past. your uh license to practice in the field of
architecture in state New Jersey is valid and up to date. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> does anyone on the board have any objections or questions regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness accept as expert in the field of architecture. Um you may proceed.
>> I'm going to um well, I guess I should first say that we pulled the building in on this side. We pulled the building in on the side so that we would conform to the 10-foot sideyard setback. And we shifted the garage doors so that we
ended up with a twocar garage, but had a little more room so we could store some things into the garage and still be able to get the cars into it. And then we cut the back of the addition off and we removed um
aboutund we removed exactly 149 square feet on the first floor by making it smaller and narrower and then on the second floor we removed 133 square feet by pushing the roof down and also just making it smaller. And now I just want
to walk you through how I did that. I want to get to the boards and I guess I can just carry the mic. Is that >> Yes, you can. >> Okay. So, what we did, I'm going to go with that in mind and Alex will give you the numbers again, but >> pardon me.
>> I'll work the computer. >> Okay. I'm just going to go to my my BOA22 sheet, which is the same as 12 was last time. You know, we just updated our new drawing. And you can see that
we've added on about 8 ft to the garage. And that is our new building coming right across the back going back about 22 feet. Okay. And then I could spread the cars out a little bit and get a little bit of storage space
into here, but still create the look of a twocar garage so it didn't look overbearing from the street. That also allowed us to take the AC units and put them behind here so that they wouldn't be in the sideyard and visible from the road. Then when I come I'll try to go
through this quick. When I got up to the second floor, you know, we kept that 10-ft point and there's our building. Now we really just made the two offices for the two of them. So we cut the offices down. We had
to flip the bed to the other side to be able to pull this off. But we were able to give the two off of his offices cuz both of them are working from home. Remember, this house has this what I'm going to call a hardship that it doesn't have a basement, right? If we had a
basement, it wouldn't be counted in our F. But since this house doesn't have a basement, we really have no basement space to work with in this house. So now I'm up on my front elevation, which is my BOA 24 sheet. And you can
see that I've kept the existing stone that was on the facade and just slid the garage doors over, built my garage, and then built the offices above. We dropped the gutter off of the picture plane of the front of
the building so that we would minimize the impact of our building here. And you can see that the attic space above the garage is about three feet high. And we did that by pushing the plate at the front office down to about
7 foot or maybe about 6'8 high. So that we would make this building look more dimminimous to the balance of the building. You can see it on the side elevation also the primary building and on our secondary building coming in
lower and underneath it with its ridge about three and a half ft behind or lower than the ridge of the existing building. It enabled us to leave that one of the two windows that is up there on that third floor which you can
see on the existing drawings. Okay. If I go to the rear elevation, we've actually dropped the gutter again to lower it. So, we just minimize the impact of the building from the rear and we pushed it in like towards the front I guess about
10 feet. like we made the building 10 feet smaller in depth. That is um everything related to how we redesigned it. I just uh when I was saying I'm going
back to my BOA22 sheet now. And when I say that we pushed it back, that's because remember the previous building was aligned with the back face of the existing building. So that area where those four AC compressors are is space
that we pushed back or made smaller. All of this gave us a reduction of 149 square feet on the first floor and 133 square feet in the second floor. So the
proposal that we're asking for tonight is a total of addition of 282 square feet to enable us to get kind of a reasonable size garage and also get these two offices. And um
it's a it's a total addition of 390 square feet for our total building. And with that, I'm just going to let Alex pick it up from here. I don't know if anyone has any questions. >> Does anyone on the board have any
questions for this witness? >> Yeah, quick question. Uh, can you remind me on second floor, the stairs are leading to the attic? >> The stairs go up to the attic. >> Okay. >> And the attic is in this the attic is 650 square ft.
>> Okay. It's like if the attic wasn't included, we would be fine with, you know, it's um and we're really saying that we kind of need the attic space in this house because there is no basement,
right? And if there was a basement, it wouldn't be counted in F, but our attic is counted in F. >> Does anyone else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any
questions for this witness? >> Yeah. Right there. >> We're going back to Mr. Jordy. Okay. As long as you got the mic on. So to remind the board, we we've eliminated that sideyard setback. A lot of the commentary at the last hearing was about the overall appearance, size,
and consistency with the neighborhood. Um I think when we look at this, we're not violating the sideyard setback. The building is properly located on the property. We can, you know, substantially argue that uh without question that we are, you know, still
providing adequate light air and open space. Uh we've reduced it substantially, put the condensers, you heard, to the rear of the property. It's well screened back there. Um there was commentary about the existing property has a large single bay garage, but it's essentially two-car garage. To add the
third one was out of character. So we've tooken some architectural liberties here and design elements to make it a a you know a twocar garage. Again, the essence here is is storage. That attic is was built this way. This is not a new build. It was acquired. Um it has the stairs
that lead down. So unfortunately we're kind of handicapped with including 650 square feet to this additional uh F variants here. Um but again that is a finished attic u where your family would actually hang out and congregate and play you know shoot pool in the basement
that kind of stuff that's happening up in the attic. You know the kids are running around up there and that notion um there's no storage for for family functions. The garage an oversized garage helps us to provide that storage. We dropped that storage unit in the back as you heard from the architect where
those condenses are. We are not asking for a reard setback. The requirement is 40 ft. Um we're well over 60 ft. So again the house is properly located. This really comes down to the the habitable floor area. Um and again on
paper these numbers seem large but as the house exists today it's already out of conformity. Um but the delta the the difference here of what's there today is 4136 for habitable floor area where the requirement is 300 uh 3520.
Um again that's because of the attic and how it was built. You know we're currently asking the board to look upon to move favor favorably for 4526. So again um very much 390 foot addition at the end of the day is what we're asking the board to consider. Uh so this
family can remain here and and grow their roots and provide that functional uh uh component. The uh the attic if we were to not include the attic into this F the uh uh floor area ratio 21% is permitted. My calculations we would be
uh just about that. We're about 22%. So we're we're right on par. Again the size scale the massing of this was well done to offset to not just have a predominant house you know overpowering the street. We have architectural interest, visual interest with the design, the setbacks.
The roof line here is is is low again to help with that massing and scale. And when we look at the placement of these offices, they're right off the primary suite. Adaptive reuse owners down the new owners down the road, you know, 20, 30, 60 years down the road, that could
be additional walk-in closet space and the likes of that. These are we are not creating flex space that could otherwise be additional bedrooms. again that F variance from last time. The essence here is can the site accommodate the additional uh floor air ratio by virtue of not creating bedrooms in and adding
parking. I would argue that we can the site is is more than accommodating for this F and again the reduction of that sideyard setback and there is no rear yard setback and we are we do not have a height uh variance either. I would argue that this is um a pretty lean uh request
for the addition based on the common factors of of you know postcoid um arrangements. Um the applicants need a home office and again the attic is being used what essentially a basement would be and we can't have offices in the
basement because the property does not have a basement. So, um it's a unique request as Tim indicated kind of in line with a what with a um a hardship variance which one could argue that the habitable floor area um request is
essentially a hardship. Um my from planning wise I would argue the C2 the benefits of this application as a whole would substantially outweigh any detriments. That additional uptick in habitable floor area there is no substantial detriment. our building massing scale is right in line with
what's what's in Livingston, what newer projects are coming on in Livingston. And again, we're we're in that bulk uh um buildable envelope from a step back standpoint and that habitable uh and that floor ratio again is can the site accommodate this. I would argue it can
this is a very unique oneoff. It's sight specific and reviewing of the um uh the township's master plan. One of the big goals of the master plan is to preserve and enhance the primary residential character of the community. I think this is a modest enhancement. Um it's not
certainly going to take away from the character of the residential um aspect and and certainly we're preserving that um with the modest addition. With that, I'd like to remind the board we've heard the concerns. We believe we landed on something that can be looked upon favorably and and is palatable. This is
an interactive process. Collectively, I think we've we've developed a a product that um respects the concerns of the neighbors and and is right in line with the community at large. So, with that, I'll conclude. Um criteria would otherwise be met and approval would be
warranted if looked upon favorably. This is a 390 foot addition request. >> Thank you, sir. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah. So, what would without the attic, just so I get a sense, what's the square
footage, what would be the square footage without the attic, >> the finished attic space that's added on? Yeah, >> without the attic, I would be looking at a an addition, and I apologize to get my calculator out here. Um
the the total request today before the board is 4526 or minus 650 it would be 3,876 ft without the attic. >> Any other questions for this witness from the board?
Any questions from the public for this witness? >> Yeah, I have a comment though. you know uh in my opinion allowing the attic area in lie of the basement will kind of set a precedent for the future applications that we will have to you know face
will come forward that you know I don't have a basement can we do the etiquary instead >> well let me just let me just say this part of part of this application has been testified is that the
home was built in this fashion uh and that there's already because of the way it was built uh there was already a variance condition with the uh with the attic. Uh it's my understanding I believe from the testimony that
there's no change to the actual attic space. The attic space is remaining um even though and obviously it needs to be counted in. So, I just want to be clear and I that there's not a this this
request is not about expanding the attic space. The request is an addition to the side, which obviously requires a variance, but you're not being asked to approve
an expansion of the attic itself. just so that we're all on the same page. >> Ask you a question. Isn't it right now it is in violation? So, >> no, I wouldn't say it's in violation, but I'd say it's in variance.
>> So, it's it this this is this was >> granted for that, >> right? At some prior point, an approval was provided for this property. then and this property if if they don't if this application wasn't brought uh
they would be in compliance because they've received a prior variance. Oh, did did you I >> So, I guess I didn't see we didn't receive a prior variance um a few years ago. >> Addict space didn't used to be included.
That was the difference as I believe it was two years ago at the before the launch. >> Exactly. They weren't and they were not the built point is is that they were not the builder. They bought the home >> in that fashion. >> Y >> but
what I just wanted to be clear about with the board is that this is not going to Mr. Shaw's question about the the attic. There is they're they're there is they're not touching that attic. They're not making it any larger which board may
not look as favorably on as opposed to other types of additions. So I you know if you were if there was concern by the board in terms of uh an attic expansion I think there would be a different concern.
So to to kind of piggyback off that, that's the hardship component where where when this was built, the attic details were not before the board as as an issue. That attic detail as far as being calculated was recently added um
with within the the last decade or so. But when this house is built, the attic was permissible. But now that it's not, we have to calculate that in and that's why we're over it. Um, but to council's point, the primary attic is staying that
it's really two offices off of the main suite. >> Well, just to clarify, that's not why you're over. That's why I asked you before about the square footage. You're you're over with the addition. >> Yes. >> Right. Without considering the attic, just so we're clear because I think you just said something different.
>> Okay. So, I misunderstood. I apologize. So the existing property right now is 4136. If I minus the 650, it brings me to 3,4886 where uh 3520 would be permissible. So we would be under if currently we did
not >> but with but with the building if you ignore the attic and you built on you said it would be 3876 requiring a variance. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. It's a it would be a 1% delta andor for the F the 21%'s allowed we
would be at 22 um in that in that capacity and um for the habitable floor area um itself we would be 456 4526 minus the 650 minus the 3520.
Yeah it's about 356 square ft. >> Okay. And this addition is 390 square feet. >> Okay. Unless also because you want to take the temperature. So I'll give you my I'll put it try to put this. >> Is it is a habitable floor area of 40
square feet. We're asking the board. >> Okay. Here's >> Wait, hold on. We're still in questions. >> Sure. >> So are there any other questions from the board? >> Are there any are there any questions from the public for this witness? Do you want to make a closing do our
comments first or do a closing statement >> comments? >> Okay. Are there comments from the board? >> Mr. Sherman. >> Actually, I don't have a comment, but now I got a question because the plan on the plans on BOA23,
it shows windows and the two offices are on the side of the house, but on the on the drawings of the house, it shows the windows on the front and the back. So, what's what's correct? >> We don't need a window in the front.
>> We have a window in the front. We eliminate >> and two windows on the side. I'm looking at BO824. Okay. >> BO820. Sorry. But B8, >> we forgot the window in the front in the floor plan. That's what we did.
>> But there's also a window in the back on BOA25. Oh, let me see. Oh, we have a window in the back, too. We should. It would look better. The windows look better on the facade. We are >> Take the windows off the side. >> Pardon? the windows off the side of the
building. >> We have two windows on the side. >> Three. You got one on the first floor. >> No, no, we're just talking about the second floor, right? >> But I was looking at that. >> So, how many windows are in these rooms?
Because the plans are confusing. Well, in plan view we have um >> in the plan view we have two windows on the side. >> So is that >> but we forgot the windows in the front and back. >> So there are two windows in each room.
One in the side, one in the back office, sorry, facing the back and one in the front office facing the front. >> Yes, the windows should be in the front and the back. That was a good pickup. We should be checking plans in the office. The uh we were in a little rush to get
this done because I was going away and we had to file it and I was pushing my guys pretty hard. But the front facade needs a window, right? We need the window and the back too. And the side elevation needs the windows also, I
think, to look better. The windows look better on the facade. >> Any other comments from the board? >> Yeah. And and Mr. you could respond to it. My concern uh usually you need a very good it's got to sub substantially
outweigh the detriments to the benefit not just to the house and we always try to accommodate. We want the homeowners to get what they want. Here I have it's more of a legal concern. The legal concern is our power to do this. This is not usually if we're granting something that's uh more square footage. There's a
good reason because usually it's a bigger lot. This is a pretty typical lot that it's actually 100 feet wide is actually right at right at the minimum of of for R3. The distance is it's another 13 I believe it's 13 feet is the
distance. So it's a pretty typical lot as opposed to usually when we get a request for more square footage. It's like a double lot. So there's a lot more. So here it's a lot. And believe me, I sympathize with the the applicants on not having a basement. I'm just
concerned legally this is a feature of the house that's not a good feature. I I agree with that. But there's a lot of houses in town that they're built slab on grade. There's no basement. Sometimes it's uh so so I I just don't see this seems more like a legal question. Let me
just finish the point is the statute has a requirement and the statute also does define basement and they define sellers and they're very clear how they define the habitable floor area. So it doesn't seem like an oversight. I think it's a
it might be a good and and this is something maybe we will discuss is should some of these houses should we be including factor should not us but the town should the town be factoring in how much square footage is in the basement as some sort of formula or something
maybe. Uh but my concern is we're going to have a lot of everybody who's without a basement every every house with a slab floor is going to come in here and I feel uncomfortable and that's why I'm putting it back to you to answer. I feel uncomfortable making this app approval.
Uh, and then we're how am I gonna how am I going to differentiate this from a a slab on grade house that's asking for more square footage for that reason? >> So, I would say that I think it's
more uncommon that houses are slab on grade, though they are out there. They're uncommon and they have to present their own applica, their own case. For us, the issue is, and when I say because it's unique, maybe their attic isn't as big. Maybe there, you know, in that regards, there's some
design features in that case, but out the gate, this home was built with an attic that did not count towards the habitable floor area. Um, and now it it is being counted against us. Um, and if truth be told, if we had this attic, I'm sorry, this basement, the offices would most likely be located in the basement
and we would not be here. We're asking for, you know, office space at the end of the day off of primary and the garage to kind of help give us a little bit more storage room uh for for the family dynamics. If we had the basement, I I assure you this is a dire request. This does not come lightly. Um you know, we
would not be here. Life would be content and great, but those families may not have the same urgency or or desire for that additional space as as this one um you know, in particular. And again, their addicts may be different where the delta may not be there to begin with. So u again we're not setting precedent to
your to to your uh um you know um concern and the benefits as a whole have to you know you know outweigh substantially outweigh the detriment. Um I don't see the detriment. The building footprint that bulk that buildable envelope we're in compliance. Our setbacks are in compliance. We are not
the biggest home in the in the neighborhood. Um, and as the applicant testified early on to, there are homes that are starting at that 4,500 square feet and going up to 55. We're at that 45 with this request. So, we're right on par with what Livingston historically is seeing within the R3 zone um, before the
boards and and and as a right buildout. So, for purposes, the 3520, we we are limited because we don't have that basement that would otherwise get us to that 45. Um, but again, the design element here is we're in compliance with our with our sideyard and rear yards.
their front yards. Uh the profile of that roof is lower so it's not overbearing on the streetscape a lot of the concerns. Um I think the benefit here um we keep a family here in in the town. We are adapting to the housing needs and and markets for postcoid
telecommuting working from home having that flexibility and again we're adding a feature where if a new owner is here these are essential walk-in closets. They can never be used as a bedroom which kind of brings that F component. Can that side accommodate the floor area ratio? And unequivocally, we're creating
uh more more parking. We're not creating bedrooms. Water, sewer, utilities are here. We're asking for bulk variance relief. We're not asking for height. The answer would be unequivocally yes. But again, to your point, houses, the few that don't have basements, we don't know what their attic situation is or their living arrangements are. And and again,
we are asking in a dire need uh for that 390 foot addition. >> So, can I ask a follow question to that? Is the house actually built on slab or is there a more of a crawl space kind of basically? >> There there's a there's a minor crawl
space under I don't know like a quarter of the house. >> And how is that accessed? >> Uh outside you have to leave the house, go outside and crawl under the house. >> And do you have an idea about what the >> the height is that?
>> I think it's about three feet. >> Can we testify to that last time? a minimal guardian. >> I watched the entire video twice, but I didn't remember every single thing from it. >> No worries. >> Um, any other comments from the board? >> I'll make a comment. Um, this is probably one of the ones that has
definitely divided us, I think, um, from of usage and I will tell you my brain's gone back and forth as I've sat here. Um, I get the part of the attic, but the fact of the matter is the house was bought knowing that there wasn't a basement and that the attic was there. Y
>> um which leads me in one way. However, I do appreciate um you took our feedback, right? And I think from not going for that sideyard and adding that third car garage on and making those adjustments, if I recall correctly, there was a
walking another walk-in closet, I think, between the two offices that you brought that down. So, I do appreciate um when an applicant comes in, hears our feedback, and takes our feedback seriously. Any other comments from the board?
Any other com any comments from the public? >> Just have to. >> Sure. >> Just wait for Intel truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Can you do us the favor of please stating and spelling your name for the record? >> Sure. It's uh Robert uh Russo, R USSO. I
live at 10 Belmora Drive. I live behind the applicants. Um, you know, I'm going to just make a couple of comments. First of all, I'm going to repeat a couple of the board's comments, which I agree with. I I applaud you for the changes that you made. I think you've listened not only to the board, but to some some
comments from the neighbors about the size and everything else. Um, I think the board's got a very difficult decision to make. Uh, I agree with you, Mr. Weissman. You know, the the bottom line is this is a neighborhood that, you know, now you'll be setting a precedent
and you'll now be making the the uh other properties available to build up to that square footage. And I think, you know, it's going to be difficult for other homeowners that don't hold the homes. What kind of value does that leave for them uh on those homes? So, I
I I I really do uh wish you guys luck on your decision. Uh because I know it's not going to be an easy one. I wouldn't want to make the decision. Uh but I do thank you for making the changes and listening. Uh I think that was well done and uh good luck.
>> Thank you. Appreciate the comments. Any other comments from the public? >> Do you wish to make a closing statement? >> I mean, we'll be doing um Sure. Certainly. And and if you want to make a closing remark, um I just would there is no such thing as setting
precedent. This is a unique situation. Uh the house was built conforming and now it's not because of new ordinance changes. Um it's a um a request that you know from a planning standpoint provides little to no detriment other than a
variance that lives on paper. Um with that, you know, um we have a family who wants to remain in the community, loves the community, at the same time has some unique needs that when we buy homes, we may not foresee how how this is going to
impact as as things change. Currently, the big request is to find a suitable professional space to continue their living. And this is really drives that storage component and the home office component. So with that um you know this
this this is this is more than just a request for family. It's a request for the livelihood again that home office uh with a growing family. There is no privacy. There is no none of that. So that above that storage component that garage is the ability for the new modern
living which is working from home and we don't have the privilege of working at out of a home office that's located in our basement in that capacity. So, um, the request does not come lightly. It's 390 ft. From a planning standpoint, there is no detriment other than a
variance that lives on paper. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Does anybody on the board want to make a motion? >> Let me before motion's taken, let me just I just want to clarify one point. I know this verbiage is is out there about precedent. Um the board decides every
application based upon the applications uh plans upon it's the applicable ordinance to those plans and uh applying the law to the facts. So uh this is not
a situation. I know it may feel like precedent uh but there is every application uh every application tonight every application that comes before this board in the past and every application that will be before this board in the future
is decided on each of its own merits and detriments. So I would just highlight that for the board in terms of making your decision with regard to this application. Thank you, Mr. Wzel. I'll repeat. Does anyone in the board want to make a
motion? I mean, I'm going to be in the negative if I make a motion. So, I'd rather see if the anybody else wants to make a affirmative uh Mr. Dy, >> while there's this hesitation going on and before there's a formal
motion, uh, and knowing there's only six members tonight, do you want to ask the board to continue this or do you want to ask the board to allow the allow uh um I keep getting my
chairs changed. uh ask that allow the chair to ask for another motion. >> You can turn off that mic for a second. Mr. Dy. >> Yeah. >> If if it's not too much, um because I know we are short. Um members, can is it
is it okay to do a straw vote to see if maybe we can pull in the alternates? >> I don't do straw votes. Mhm. >> I would just ask you to um you know you you you you you have uh
been before many many boards uh and you have uh you I trust your uh professional expertise is is enlightening your your client as to the matter. So I would just ask uh one
question. >> Yes. Do you wish to ask for a continuence or do you wish to uh allow not allow but uh let the board proceed to the motion? >> I think we're going to ask for the
>> one moment. Sorry. Oh, chair. I pro I I I I apologize to the chair. I probably jumped the gun with asking for that uh finality. I know that Mr. Weissman had made a comment. Um I
don't know if any other board members would have made a comment uh at the time of the motion. Perhaps now would be a good time for those board members to make that comment. I'll make a comment. Um,
I would say that in, you know, in light of the plans and what you said, the the building, take the attic out of it. Even the attic, the the height of the building is only 32 feet. It doesn't, you know, go anywhere close to the 35 foot height. Roof could have been the
roof the same way anyway. um even if you put a smaller roof and didn't have the attic, you could have built the house out to the width that you're asking to build today without needing, you know, any variance, uh, you know, for that. So, size-wise, it does
fit the lot. Um, and I'll just leave it at that. And I'll reiterate my comment from earlier, right? Well, I was torn. I do appreciate part of our role here is to help the community and um I do appreciate you coming back eliminating
one of those variances and as Mr. Sherman said right bringing the building within there are some definitely unique circumstances um to this property but like I said I appreciate you attempting to uh take our feedback seriously.
Any other comments from the board? Um I just want to briefly say it is a very hard decision. I I don't know right now I I cannot make my decision like we either way. So I
don't know. It's tough. >> But if we call a vote, you're going to have to vote one way or the other. >> Yeah. I probably will have to think. Well, I I think >> I think the the I think the the the point for for the comment may be the
point at which what item is holding you up. >> Um okay. So I I still feel that 4500 is too big of a a square footage
compared with the lot area. I understand that you do not have the basement. Um, and I also, um, know that the new ordinance includes the finished attic, but the number is the number there to me.
>> So, so with those, Mr. Shaw, did you want to say something? I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes >> mentioned that that you know in my opinion uh my opinion it's a little too high you know and then we are setting a precedent even though you said that we
are not but you know compared to I mean you know the basement people going to come forward and say that you know we don't have a basement so >> yeah my my only com I mean thank you very much for you know addressing the you know the sideyard setback variances
and you know resizing the design. It is it is definitely a curveball for me. Um especially with the the ordinance uh which was you know which was there about considering attic space square footage
now it kind of creates that issue uh in my mind and also at the end of the day it is 28% higher than the required square footage which also is because of the attic I guess but uh it is it is
very tough uh decision to make but thank you for uh you know uh addressing the sideyard setback considerations and then redesigning it. >> So with that council, we'll just ask for the continuence. Maybe we'll go back to the drawing board and see if we can you know.
>> Okay. So with that in mind, um Miss Hollis, uh what date so that we can advise the public. >> Uh the date would be July 30th. July 30th house 30th. Yes.
>> Okay. So, this matter is going to be continued to July 30th. The members of the public who are here um this is the notice you would receive that the matter is going to be heard on July 30th. There's no need to renotice the matter.
The uh the matter will be continued on July 30th. >> Thank you very much. Um I will call the next application. Nobody handed you to vote but myself. Next application block 2800 lot 6.01
423 South Livingston Avenue. Application number 2026-18-B George Reinhardt. Applicant seeks approval for a dormer and a storage area over garage in violation of the following sections. 170-87 CC4 capital
floor area ratio 30% allowed 34.1% proposed. a 4.1% variance requested. >> Okay. Well, we have the exchange of the experts here. Okay. Let's get you. Okay. Uh sir, can you hit the uh green
button? Nothing. Okay. Are you Mr. Reinhardt? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Okay. So, you're the applicant and owner, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Are you going to be pro providing any testimony tonight or are you relying on these fine gentlemen to speak on your behalf? >> Testimony reeling relying on the gentleman. >> Okay. And are you starting with Mr.
Lanzafama? >> I am. >> Okay. I figured since he was at the podium, he would start. Okay. All right. Mr. Lanzafama, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Mr. Mr. Lanzafama has been qualified as an expert in the field of
engineering before this board on many occasions. Mr. Lanzafama, your uh license to practice in the field of engineering in state New Jersey is valid and up to date. >> Yes, it is sir as well as planning. I'll be testifying as a professional planner as well. >> Okay. Double duty tonight. Okay. So, and
your u and chair regard to uh Mr. Lonzma, >> does anyone uh where am I? Does anyone in the board have any questions or objections to this witness? There being no objection to this witness, the witness except an expert in his field.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Lama. >> Thank you. Uh the application before you this evening is for uh tax lot 6.01 in block 2800 423 South Livingston Avenue. Uh the property is located on the
southwesterly corner of the intersection of South Livingston Avenue and Plymouth Drive. Uh the property is a rectangular shaped parcel with a 50-ft frontage and about 128 ft in depth and the property
is located in the R4 zone. The existing lot area is 6,389 square ft uh which is substandard for the R4 zone where 9,375 square ft are required. The lot was
created as part of a minor subdivision that we uh presented to the planning board back in 2022. Um what you see up on the uh on the screens currently is the
uh proposed house. Um the building itself is currently under construction. We got a building permit with the understanding that um we would be able to proceed should the uh board
grant favorably uh on our application this evening to construct some space. Uh why is this not moving? Okay, let me give me a second here. There we go. Okay, let me get to the
building elevations. So, what you see on the screen right now on the left hand side clouded in red is the garage area of the proposed home. Um, the house is fully compliant with
regard to uh currently the F requirement. It's compliant as to height and it's compliant as to building coverage. As a matter of fact, um the building is actually uh uh 291 square
feet under what is allowed under the code for a building, a residential building in the R4 zone on a lot of this size. So, what we're proposing to do is uh basically take the area uh above the
garage and extend the roof line up and provide a dormer in that area to basically balance the facade of the house. The facade that you're looking at on the left hand side of the screen is actually the frontage that faces
Plymouth Drive. Um you can see the porch along the front. So, the facade presents uh a great street presence uh along that uh that side of the building, but because of the roof height and because
of the dormer, the space under that area and above the garage falls under F. And what I'd like to point out is that that space is accessed off of the master bedroom. You can see on the left hand
side again um we can blow that up a little bit. You can see it's labeled storage space and it's only accessed through the master bedroom. So there's no way it could be an additional bedroom uh for the house. It is approximately
14t 10 in wide by 14t 6 in deep. Um and that space uh totals about 268 square ft. So that's what brings us over uh on our F. Uh under the ordinance we're allowed.3
uh percentage points uh under the ratio and our ratio that we are proposing is 341 uh which is a variance of 261.9 square ft. And the question that the
board has to uh reconcile is can the property support the additional F associated with the building and and what's important to see here is that the space that we're talking about is
basically a vertical addition to the house. The area uh the footprint is not being expanded. So there's no impact on light, air, and open space. The height is compliant and the footprint is compliant. So based upon those metrics
that the ordinance establishes, you can say that yes, this lot can support uh this building. And as far as um the proofs for the D4 variance, what we what we want to do is we want to look at the
municipal land use law and find out what elements of um the goals and objectives of the MLUL were advancing. And in my opinion, this is one of aesthetics. Um uh element G of the municipal land use
law states that aesthetics could be a basis for the grant of a variance. And if you imagine this with without the dormer with the roof reduced down substantially, it almost looks like a shed attached to
the building as opposed to an element of the house. And so in my opinion um this could be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good or the intent and purpose of your zone plan by advancing uh the elements of the uh
municipal land use law. I think we've met the positive criteria. Uh as you know this is not a use variance. We don't have to prove under the Medici case that the site is specifically suited for this use. It's a permitted use. So, uh, and the fact that we're not
exceeding height, we're not exceeding building coverage. Um, those elements in my mind are the key to saying that yes, you could grant this without a substantial detriment to the public good and the intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance. There's one other element that I'd like to bring up and that is um if you're looking at the exhibit, you can see that the front porch has no railing. Um on a prior application, one of the conditions that the zoning board
had placed on this applicant was that for safety reasons that we should have a railing. Well, the porch is going to be constructed 6 in below the finished floor. So when you come out of the house, you'll step down 6 in. And we're
going to raise the grade in front of the porch so that the step down off of the porch is no more than 8 to 12 in. So based upon that, there is no safety concern. So we would like to get that
condition also um eliminated from uh this property. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Does the board have any questions for this witness? >> I have a question. Um,
>> so what is the existing uh rare yard setback? >> Yes, we were granted a variance for that at the prior hearing back in 2025, I believe. >> And uh that was the condition that I was referring to in that application. Uh
condition D was that a a safety railing be established along the porch. >> Okay. >> So we're going to modify the porch, raise the grade in front of the porch, so there is no safety concern. >> Okay. Um my second question is um looks
like the side street. Oh, okay. That's also the variance that was granted previously, the side street, and you actually you improved it from 2.3 to 15. We're compliant with that with that >> variance that was granted under previous
applications. >> Gotcha. Okay. No more question. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. Um what are the height of that storage uh area? The area that you're looking to finish up >> the the height to the roof itself. >> What will the ceiling height be to that room?
>> The ceiling height I believe was 76, wasn't it? Uh let me see if I could find that on the uh I think there was a section uh bedroom.
There you go. It's 7 foot6 to the to the collar tie. >> So by finishing that effectively it's becoming habitable. >> Well, that's what you're that's what we're asking for that it's being considered habitable by the building department. But from a practical sense,
it's nothing more than a closet off of the master bedroom. That that Exactly. And that's why we're here. And in my opinion, uh, I felt that the grant of this variance was beneficial for the for the look of the building, the aesthetics
of the building, the streetscape, and the facade that they certainly outweigh any detriment that you might have. Keep in mind that the building is nearly 300 square feet less in size than what normally would be permitted under the
code for a lot of this size. >> Any other questions from the board? I thought maybe do you want to put in the record also that because you're relying on the benefit to the communicatea community of it being the aesthetic that this is a um a major
artery in town that people see every single day. This property you might want to Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, it's it's certainly along South Livingston Avenue and the Plymouth Drive facade is important. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? We'll get to
comments later. Okay. Are there any questions from the public? >> You want to call any other witness? >> Mr. Reinhardt, you have any other witnesses other than >> Mr. Peter Serbico is the architect. >> Okay. So, why don't we swear you in? Do
you swear for tell truth for a zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. I think you've been uh before us uh in the past qualified in the field of architecture. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. You don't have to keep your hand up. Um and uh you uh continue uh to
have a valid license to practice architecture in the state of New Jersey. Correct. >> Yes, I do. >> So, if anyone on the board have any questions or objections to this witness there being no objections, witness accept as expert in the field of architecture, you may proceed. >> Thank you.
>> Well, going to say Mr. Lance Farmer did a knock out of the park job here with what I would have really spoke about. Um but yes, we we intended to uh
make this update in terms of making that uh space a storage room accessible from the uh from the bedroom. Uh rather than have a pull down attic stair in the in the garage just made a lot of sense. And uh so we studied it a bit and we we
arrived at the uh at this design which does you know it does improve the the streets the street view of this home uh tremendously which we didn't have originally. The dormer was not there in the original submission. So uh as Mr. Lama said there's there's really zero
detriment uh coming from my professional uh opinion on it. If there are any questions, any other stuff that Mr. Lama didn't cover. I think he did cover a really good amount of of the height. I was going to mention the height of the the space under the
collar tie is 7 foot6. So, he did already. >> Thank you. Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anyone in public have any questions for this witness? With being no questions, do you want to
make any closing statements? >> Thank you. >> We're good. Thank you. >> Does anyone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second that. >> Hold on. I got to switch here. I'm secretary and chair at the same
time. Hold on. Okay. Um, >> you leave me alone. Um, >> uh, Miss Juan, >> hold on one second. Because besides just the motion to approve, don't we have to
also are we also accepting the removing the conditions that were on the previous thing for the railing? Because that's a whole other >> Right. >> Well, the as a res Mr. Lonza Fama testified in the plan
show that the grade has been increased and the porch has been decreased in height. >> Correct. >> Correct. And therefore when you approve it tonight, one of the conditions of approval would be the removal of that. I already had it down. Um, so I should
have said one of the conditions of approval would be that the new plans maintain the lowering of the porch, the raising of the grade to eliminate the need for the railing. >> Correct. >> I'm sure Mr. Lavama would agree with me on that. >> I do agree.
>> I knew he would. >> Miss Juan, >> yes. >> Yes. >> I got back to Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Weissman. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Horn, I vote no. Um there was an express condition in the original um not to use the attic as capital area and I do feel that that is what is occurring here. However, the motion does pass. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. Thank you.
Oh yeah, we're back. >> Okay, little switch. All right, Mr. Horn, will you call the next application, please? Thank Lot 5800 lot 32 16 Country Club Road application number 2026-41-B Donnie I'm obligate approve for a new single
family house in violation of the following sections 170-87 capital Florida ratio 8% allowed 22.5 >> 22 Can you hear me 22.5% proposed 4.5% variance requested.
>> Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. Our attorney is not here. We just have to wait for him to come right back. So, just few seconds. Everybody's sitting on this side. >> You need to turn your mic front on. Then when you're ready to go, >> I'm loud. People can usually hear me without a mic anyway.
in Clifton. You look, you got one door. >> Okay, >> that's ready to swear in. >> All right. Uh, >> may I just introduce myself and then I'll say good evening everybody. My name is Steven Shepus. Nice to see you all again. I'm the attorney for the
applicant. Uh, if I may be seated then I can uh >> Yes. >> perhaps allow council to swear people in. I understand it's something he enjoys doing. >> All right, >> Mr. Shepus. Uh, we got Miss Bravo. All right. Do you swear for untail truth for the zoning board tonight?
>> I do. >> All right, M. Bula, you've been qualified in the field of >> architecture. >> Architecture. I got confused because you were wearing a tie. The architects usually never wear ties. Um, so you qualified in the field of architecture
uh before this board on multiple occasions. Correct. Your license to practice in the field of architecture state of New Jersey. Thanks, Steve. Is current and up to date? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness?
>> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture as um offered. Thank you. >> Okay. As uh Mr. Mullah was being sworn in. I took the liberty of handing up an exhibit which I marked pre-marked as A1 uh dated it today May 28, 2026. So Mr.
Babula is going to comment on that during the course of his testimony. >> And and Mr. Shepers uh uh how many pages do we have for A1? I figured you could count faster than me. Uh >> it's five pages. It consists of a cover sheet, copy the pertinent portion of the
tax map, and then a series of uh three pages of photographs. Okay, Miss Hollis has one. >> Okay. Yeah, if I may just briefly comment on the application. We're only asking for one variance. It relates to floor habitable floor area ratio. Property is located at 16 Country Club
Road. It's in an R2 zone, which I believe is very important. I reviewed your zoning ordinance and it specifically provides that minimum lots uh in that s in that zone must be 25,000 which is a directive must be 25,000 ft. Uh we are uh about 30% shy in minimum
lot area. Attached to the application is a copy of the filed map that was filed with the clerk of Essex County back in 1940 by which this lot was created. So the lot predates the current zoning ordinance. So when the ordinance mandates a minimum lot area of 25,000
square ft, we're about 30% shy. Uh thereby resulting in an undersized lawfully existing lot. uh we seek uh relief as it relates to this uh ordinance which mandates the maximum habitable flare area ratio of 18%. I would submit to you that the ordinance
anticipates a lot of 25,000 square ft. So since we're 30% shy uh we are deficient in or in excess of that ratio. So that being said I'm going to ask Mr. Babula to talk about the lay of the land. Mr. Babula tell us what's on the property today, the size of the lot, dimensions of the lot and then what's
proposed. >> Uh sure. The um the existing property is about 89 uh feet wide by 197t deep where um 125 ft wide by 200 feet is required. Uh today as exists on
the property is a one and a half story kind of Dutch style uh Cape Cod home with a uh carport and a detached twocar garage in the rear of the property uh w with a long driveway that goes from the front of the property all the way to that rear yard uh in the back as well as
uh an existing uh deck in the rear of the in the in the rear of the house. And as it exists today, the uh the existing dwelling is deficient in the sideyard uh setbacks. Uh 15 feet is required. Uh the existing left side is
11.59 and the existing right side is 9.03. Uh our new house uh will meet the sideyard setbacks with uh 15.48 on the left side and 15.35 on the right side. So, we're actually bringing that existing uh non-conforming into
conformance. Um on this on this uh new house here, uh what we are proposing is a is a more of a modern style uh two-story um colonial with the two-car garage facing front. Um we let's see,
our first floor, as I said, has the two-car garage in the front on the left. uh a nice two-story foyer, office on the right, an open concept for the kitchen and family room in the back with the dining room and also a guest bedroom suite. Uh and the second floor we have
um four bedroomedroom on suite and a laundry room. Uh as mentioned before, we are seeking a variance for the habitable floor area ratio. Uh 18% is required. we are at 22.5% which uh equals uh 3,914
square ft of um habitable uh floor area. Uh the habitable floor area in this zone that is allowed is 4,870. So we're actually almost 1,000 square feet below the the floor area. Uh but we are over on the ratio.
>> Mr. able. Um, I mentioned earlier that the minimum lot size for the zone in the R2 zone is 25,000 square ft. Can you tell us exactly what the size of this lot is? >> Our lot is uh 17,46. >> Now, what is this habitable floor area
in square footage for this proposed dwelling? >> Uh, in square footage, it's 3,914. >> Okay. Now, what's the maximum habitable floor area in square footage for this zone? >> For the floor area, it's 4,870. And if this was a compliant lot at
25,000 square feet, what would be the permitted floor habitable floor area in square footage? >> Uh the ratio would be 4,500. >> The square footage would be 4500. >> Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. >> So you're proposing a 3914 house. >> Correct. >> Okay. So let's talk about rear yard setback, front yard setback. What's on
this front yard setback presently? And what's on the rear yard? What's in the backyard? >> Uh the current front yard setback is 76.2 um feet. Our proposed is 62.04. and the required is 60. So, we meet the front yard setback. Uh the rear yard
required is 35. Uh the existing is over 35. Uh I'm sorry, the rear yard uh required setback is 50. Uh the existing is 87.24 and we will be 75.98. >> All right. Now, I notice there's a large accessory structure to the rear yard.
How do you get there? What is it? And what are the setbacks on that structure to a property line? Uh so the existing detached garage there uh the way you would access that is through the long driveway to the left side of the property. Um the setbacks on that detached garage are 10.10 ft off the
side and 13.5 from the rear. >> Okay. Now it looks like there's a large paved area that not only gets you there but also in front of that garage. >> Yes. >> Okay. So tell us what will be removed as relates to the impervious coverage that exists today. So the the entire detached garage and that entire rear uh yard
driveway will be removed. So we are actually reducing the impervious coverage um by about 2,000 square ft. >> Okay. So what's that area going to become if it's not a garage and a parking area? >> Uh that'll be yard and grass. >> Okay. All right. Now, Mr. Babul, I um
handed up to the board exhibit A1. And uh you have a copy there with you this evening? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Have you reviewed it? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Uh the uh series of photographs uh reference properties the subject property of houses to the right and left and also two houses across the street. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Do you recognize what's depicted in those photos? >> Yes, I do. >> Do those photos fairly and accurately reflect uh the conditions that are stated on that document as being what they are? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, tell us a little bit about what you see on the houses on the street and as you're coming into this
development from Eisenhower Parkway. Um well, first from coming from Eisenhower Parkway, uh there is a neighborhood with substantially large homes, uh as you're going through here on the uh Country Club Road. And then as you come past the power lines, the neighborhood changes a
little bit. Uh we are one of the first houses on the left. Um which is, as I mentioned, a one and a half story home. Uh the two houses across the street from our property are uh two more modern um newer homes. They are also twotory. Uh,
one is a contemporary style and one is a more traditional two-story colonial style. >> Are those the photos referencing 11 and 17 country club road? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. Now, we're all in the same zone. So, these other houses you mentioned uh coming in from Eisenhower Parkway are also in the R2 zone. Correct. >> Yes, I believe so.
>> So, it's not like there's a zone line somewhere between where you come in and where you end up. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, is it fair to say that uh the houses that you referenced as being larger or uh and even these two across street are we're all in the same zone? >> Yes, we're all Yep. >> Okay. Um I don't have anything else for
Mr. >> Does anyone on the in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any qu questions for this witness? >> Does anybody on the board have any statements?
>> No. Well, you got to ask Mr. Sheep. This is your This is your only witness, Mr. Sheep. >> Yes, Mr. Pavoula concludes his testimony. You have anything else, Mr. Pool? >> No, he concludes his testimony. >> Okay. >> I have no other witnesses. >> And uh closing statement. >> I don't think it's necessary. I rest on
the record. >> Okay. I'll just make a quick comment. Um, so you stated that this lot is 30% underside. It's it's really like an R3 and a half, right? >> That's that's a good way to put it. >> Good way to put it. Okay. Um, and I
appreciate the fact that you did um construct this house um under 1,000 ft under the required. That we really appreciate that. Um, and I do think that it is a um definite improvement to the neighborhood. So, thank you very much for your thoughtful design.
>> Does anybody on the board have any questions or Would somebody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> I got it. Wisman and Sherman. Uh, Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yep.
>> Mr. Horn. Yes. Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. >> Miss Juan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ambati. >> This is the class. I can't get off the mute button over there. Um, Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Motion is passed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Enjoy your summer.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, next up, let's keep going. Block 4302, lot 321 Avon Avenue, application number 2026-5-V, Taozong. Applicant seeks approval for new single family house in violation of
the following sections. 170-99 C4 rear yard setback 35 ft required 17.7 proposed 17.3 ft variance requested 170-87 LD corner front yard setback 35
ft required 30.1 ft proposed 4.9 foot variance requested 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 34.68% proposed 4.68 68 uh% variance requested.
>> Is somebody here on >> Avon Avenue? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Welcome. >> Hi. want you can go ahead and take a seat. >> Okay. >> Will anyone be joining you this evening?
>> Uh just two of us. This is the applicant um Tao Jang and I'm the architect for the project. >> Okay. So you're the architect. >> I'm the architect. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Uh so uh you're Mr. Zang? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And uh will you be
testifying tonight or you just relying on your architect's testimony? >> Yeah, rely on her. Yes. rely on the architect. Okay. All right. So, um, ma'am, why don't we get you sworn in? >> Sure. >> Do you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Can you please uh bring the mic closer to you so we can hear you? >> Sure. >> I Yeah. >> Okay. And uh can you do us a favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? You should put that in your hand. >> Yeah. Chong Q IO N G Wu Wu.
>> Okay. And uh so uh can we have your qualifications as an architect on briefly? >> Sure. Um so I have my undergrad uh degree in uh bachelor of architecture for Iowa State University and uh master's degree from Columbia University
in architecture and urban design and I got my license in um architecture in New Jersey in 2017. Um, I have been practicing architecture since stand and my license is in good standing.
>> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? No. There being no objections, this witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. So, please. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone and um actually I
have a request um for the drawing uh I have another set on my uh thumb drive has the spot elevation on the drawing. I think that will help you to understand um the drawing better. May I use the thumb drive? >> Okay. So the the the drawings you want
to reference were those part of what was provided to the board or is this something in addition? >> It's the same drawing but just with the annotation additional annotation is it possible to >> Okay. So, what we'll do, you can go ahead and and and do that. We'll we'll make sure
>> Oh, blue one. Okay. Okay. When we see about bringing up those Okay. >> Okay. So, you're saying So, you're saying this is the same one that you provided the board, but has some additional notations on it, >> correct?
>> Okay. So, for the for the record, we'll just call this exhibit A1, just for the record. Okay. Sure. So, um good evening everyone. So, I'm here to represent um uh this house uh
the one Evan Avenue and uh it's a new single family home in a corner lot that's um bordered by uh Evan Avenue and Amelia Avenue. The property is in a 9,915 square ft lot in R4 zone and the plan is
to um replace an aging outdated structure with a um highly functional modern home and uh because this is um you know quarter lot. So uh the challenging we're facing is um to have
the two two front yards. So uh which actually restricts our buildable footprint. Um so in order to um achieve a functional layout without expanding the home's uh footprint outward. So we
are seeking uh four variances. Two relates to the setback and two relate to the the area and F. So first I'm going to talk about the setback variances. Um so
so there are two setbacks. Um one is the Amelia Avenue uh front setback. The ordinance uh requires 35 ft and we are proposing 30.1 ft which is a 4.9 ft um
variance. Um however the the existing house sits just 22 feet from the road. Our design actually pushes the new home back adding nearly 8 feet to the the open green space to Amelia Avenue
streetcapes and we believe that will benefit the neighborhood. Um the second setback uh variance is the rear deck setback. So we requested a variance for necessary first floor rear setback uh rear deck because the building footprint
is highly compact. is only 38 uh 38 feet six inches by 46 feet two inches. So the first floor interior is very tight. Um the deck is essential for
the basic indoor outdoor daily living use. Um the two um area um variances one is the headle area floor area. The second one is the F
uh variance. So the floor area and F is uh the ordinance limits the head floor area is um 3,220 square ft which is a 30% F and we are proposing 3,449
square feet is a 34.68% 68% F which u represents a modest overage of 219 square feet or um of 4.8 uh 68% variance. So um one thing uh we would
like to um emphasize here is the actual 219 square feet does not add any bunk or messing to the neighborhood of the house. um we utilize the the measeline level uh
instead of expanding the house outward um and uh to the to the yards. So we captured this living space vertically with u me space directly above the garage um which you can see from um
the first floor plan here. Um and because this um lot got uh restricted by both the the two um front street. So our house is like the footprint is actually
a lot smaller than um the our neighbor number five. You can see from the site plan. Um so the height is actually of the of our uh number one uh aan street is actually
comparable um to the new home of number five as well. Um I will be sharing a photo of the neighbor uh the the neighbor uh house in a minute. So um
in conclusion, so like in summary, this house actually respects the neighborhood's um character. We believe um we sacrifice the first floor footprint to grant more open space to the neighborhood along a million avenue and uses an efficient uh meine level to
recover the basic functional uh use for the family. and you also create a well proportion home um which we don't think there's any negative impact to the community and um we be kindly ask the the board to
approve the request um but just for you to understand the um condition a little better I'm going to zone in to some of the drawings so this is page one of the
X speed one. So yeah, so that's the uh the messing level um I described earlier. Um the family room. So this is just right above the garage level which this is the garage.
So we we also noticed that in living a lot of the garage they are really tall like they have maybe 15 16 feet 16 feet uh for the ceiling but um for the new house that we will propose we try to make it very efficient. So the garage is
um 8 feet and um the level be above the garage is 9 ft instead of having a 16 uh fit garage. So, it's very compact and uh small footprint
and and I can also share with the the board members a photo of the neighbor. So, that's number five, the new house. um
on uh Avan Street next to our property. So number one, this is the existing house. But when uh our our new decide would uh the house the the volume actually the the height is going to be similar as number five but smaller
footprint. Yeah. And again we are in the corner lot. >> So we would like kindly um ask the board to um consider our case and if you have any questions I would be happy to ask. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> I do. I mean my just a question on there seems to be an inconsistency between drawings and pictures where windows are. So if I look at for example on a two it looks like there are two windows
in the bedroom on the left. When I look at the drawing there only seems to be one window on A3 or the picture I should say. Oh, okay. >> And simil similarly, if you look at the
on again on A3 on the proposed left elevation, it looks like there's a I'll call it a regular size window on the side of the house on the second floor. But up on the proposed corner perspective drawing, it looks like there just a tiny little window on the top.
So, I'm not sure which is the way which way are the windows intended to be in the kind of drawing so to speak or in the diagram. >> Uh the >> there you have the bedroom I guess. What is the bedroom on the left side of the second floor? >> Yeah, you have two windows there. But if
you look at the >> rendering, the rendering only has one window. >> See? >> Yeah. And same thing on the side. You see there's just that tiny window on the side of the house where the rendering or the drawing has a fullsize window so to speak. So I'm just asking for clarification as to what the window
status is. >> Yeah, the the windows should refer to the the elevation of the >> So that's the correct one. >> Yeah, that's the correct one on the drawings, not on the right. >> We are going to make a correction. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Horn. Anybody else have any questions on the board?
>> Peter. >> Hi. Uh yeah, I sorry. Um I have a couple of questions. So the garage is in the basement level. >> Yes, garages.
>> Okay. So basically it's sort of like the right side of the house is kind of like a split level, right? And >> yeah, we have missing level. Okay. Correct. So I mean not the whole level is split level. It's just you only did it on the right side of the house and >> Okay. Um,
as far as the deck in the back, what is the width of the steps in that landing area? Well, I guess it's the width of the steps. So, >> um I believe it's uh three feet. >> Okay. Yeah.
So that would bring if it's about three feet that would if the steps to the deck the other regular deck part it's about 20 right 27 it makes the deck the deck's about 14t wide am I correct? So the deck
itself is uh 15 ft deep this way and then another um 3 ft. So maybe 18 ft 17 to 18 ft.
>> I mean for me uh uh is there any way that those steps could be put to the side so we're not in intruding further into the rear yard setback? It seems like there's space to the left or the right to put the stairs. So >> to here, I mean, yeah, it's possible.
>> So, as a condition of approval, you would uh if the board looked favorably on this, you would move the stairs from the back to the side. Yes, >> there would still be a rear yard variance, >> but the number would be slightly
>> uh the variance amount would be slightly smaller. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. By 3 ft. >> By 3 ft. Yeah. >> All right. So, the rear yard variance would be uh 20.7 instead of uh um the distance from the rear yard to the deck
is uh 20.7. This is why you don't have attorneys doing math. Rosemary was laughing. I saw you there. >> Yeah. 20.7. >> Well, if the deck's 15, then the then really it should be 20 feet because it's only 35 to Right. I mean, unless the curve there's a curve in the back, I
can't tell. >> No, we're we're So, if if if >> Well, they said the deck's 15, right? >> 20.7. So, the so so the distance from the rear yard to the to if you remove the stairs will be 20.7. Okay.
>> So therefore the that would be the variance amount uh of now um >> no it would be 14.3 >> variance would now be 1433. So the variance would be smaller. >> Yeah. >> Wow. Okay.
>> Elementary math. We did it. >> Did you? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. I had two questions. Um, first I was curious because you moved which which I appreciate that now the setback you're asking for a setback
variance but at least you've remediated from where it is now which is great. Um, but I'm I'm curious because I think it looks great this right side of the house this wraparound porch. Mhm. >> So, and now you know sort of we'll say
too close via law that you you're you're still this side of the house that's now on the left. It it's sort of like a front property to the street to Amelia Street. Like I was curious why you wouldn't do the wraparound terrace
to to wrap around with the streets because right now you have a wraparound where a portion of it not on the main street and the and the other portion's looking right into the neighbor >> wouldn't like aesthetically especially because we're living I don't want to get into
design. I know I'm not designer but I'm >> but I I got to but but we're looking at a wall. We're proving we're approving a setback. So if I'm looking at, you know, is this a good, you know, to violate the setback, what are they looking at? They're looking at most like especially the top floor just a wall. Um, but I see
the other side would have been appealing. So that's why I'm curious on that, you know, what what's going into that. >> Um, so I think our initial um thought was um also that was client's request to have a more like less public but more
like a semi-private um kind of um balcony in that case. So that's the the client's request to have this corner to have the balcony on that corner instead of the the front. >> Did you want to
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. We we got to swear you in if you're going to say something. Yeah. >> Do you swear for tell truth for zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. Mang. >> Yeah. Uh yeah. to be honest, you know, I think this uh concept is come from the original driveway location and finally
the design uh finally like that, you know, but uh uh to be honest, you know, if uh we can flip it, it's going to be great and uh contribute more uh curb appe for the uh neighborhood, I think. and also not facing the uh neighbors,
you know, for the for the right side number five, you know. I think the the the the porch facing the street going to looks nicer to be honest. Yeah. >> Which you're saying it? >> Yeah. I think if the if the house can be flip, you know, left and right, I think
make nicer to the neighborhood. >> Yeah, I understand. Yeah. >> Yeah. But the why the why the house looks like now because of the uh you know at the beginning uh we try to keep the same driveway location that's why you know so the driveway here
>> oh you're focused on >> yeah it's the same driveway site you know that's the only thing that's the only reason you know so yeah >> um and my my second question so you're also asking for not just a ratio variance but the actual habitable the
area variance as well >> you know It's I don't know if you heard me speak earlier, but you know, I always have concerns and I get personally it's it's good for you and and and this house looks great. Um and I think it would definitely a substantial improvement
over what's there now for the community, but in terms of going over the limit that was established, do you have any testimony as to what the benefit to the community is that's going to substantially substantially out? Not not that's not the not the standard
standard is >> not the ratio I'm talking >> no no no this is it's a C c2 right >> right so flexible planning alternative positive negative criteria it's a C2 variance but she doesn't have to show
it's a benefit can fit into the character of neighborhood not that it's a benefit not necessarily that it's a benefit to the neighborhood and you know I think there was also you know there's argument here that it's also potentially a C1 because of its nature as a corner
lot which is causing the two there that's what the uh architect said before that there's in essence two front yards that are kind of uh causing um doesn't go to the HL floor area but goes to the point about the rear and and the um
corner lot piece >> um which always creates a a weird set of circumstances because you never know which is the front New York and let me rephrase that and yeah and I agree with that on the setbacks. I don't think the hardship applies and just focus on the floor ratio. So I I would just want to
see that the the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh the detriment. That's what that's what that's the standard that I'm looking for. So I might have misspoke. Thank you. Um I'm just going to um maybe expand on that. I think that the design
is beautiful and I that whole area I think we've passed or we've actually looked at three or four different houses on Avon in the past like couple of months. So there's a lot of development there. I think it's beautiful. Um it is a brand new house though however and you are seeking four variances.
So, um I am having a little bit of an issue with four with four variances specifically the um floor area ratio and the um the area. Um just the fact that you're here because
it is a new home. >> Yeah. If I can um just emphasize the reason that we made that adjustment is um because again this is a reemphasize that this is a corner lot. So um our lot
actually if you can see the site plan um actually it's a little bit larger or deeper than the number five uh house the lot but just because this house is on a corner lot so we have to um respect the setback uh requirement and we are trying
um to improve that and actually the the um the design that we came up with is to help with the existing conditions. So existing house actually is closer to uh Millia Avenue um the I think the it's uh
22 feet. So we are trying to improve that condition to um to try to match as much as possible with the the building footprint that's required by the zoning. um by doing that we have to sacrifice
the the functional use um of the the first floor. So that's why we came up with another idea to um try to meet the requirement but also to make the house more um efficient in a way. So and now
increasing the volume of the house. So that's the solution we came up. >> Yeah. just just to expand on on sort of what was said. I I understand, you know, your position and the and the issue of the sideyard, you know, being the front
yard. That's that's one thing for that variance, but that doesn't still explain the need of why it wouldn't affect and doesn't explain why the House would be bigger than 3220. I
mean, that's that's just the that's really the issue. I mean, you know, the the sideyard's one thing. I I I I I I understand you made it better. You went from 22 to 30, but none of that explains
why in an R4 zone for having a lot size that's I mean, slightly larger. And I mean, and still 30% even of that, you know, is still under 20 3220. So, even to go past the max, um, I just don't
understand why this couldn't be built even at 3220. >> Let me just, um, I I should have said this before. Um, I know you're not represented by council. Uh, one of the variances that you have to
that you're seeking tonight for uh, flur ratio is what's called the D4 variance. And because it's a Dvariance, you may have heard me say this before. The Dvariance requires the affirmative vote. It can't be an abstension. It's
got to be an affirmative vote of five of the six members tonight. Now, normally the full complement of the board is seven. Okay. So, sometimes uh and uh my colleagues in the uh in the peanut
gallery out in the chief seats probably would agree with me. >> Oh, seven. Oh, sorry. Well, yeah, you got seven. So, there's a lot of conversation there. I'm think it's Well, you know what happens when you get to quarter to 10 and you've been up since
5, you kind of start to lose it. Um maybe my comments were more along the lines, have you heard the comments of the board? Um some applicants will sometimes decide based upon the comments from the board
that maybe they would want to look at the plans again and maybe see if there's some other options here based upon those comments. Do you want to talk to your architect very quickly about that? If you want to continue or let the board
then go to the next step, do you want to ask your architect about that? >> Uh the to be honest the thing, you know, for us is uh more about the schedule because for example, if we don't vote today and we do some modifications and
then this can be much easier to review. Well, let me give you let me give you the alternative there. >> Yeah. >> If the board were to not look favorably upon this, if the board look not favorably upon this, you would not be able to come back with the same plans.
There's a theory in the law called rest judicata, meaning the board already decided it. So you would have to then if you were to not be successful, you'd have to come back with plans that were substantially revised
to come back before the board. Okay? And then you would be talking not a couple months, you'd probably be talking about a couple few months if not late into the into the year. So, it's something that a
uh an attorney would probably give you some input on and I think it's only fair that we I give that to you as the board council. So, uh with that in mind and hearing the comments from the board, do you want to talk to your architect for a
second about a continuence before we take the next step? Yeah. >> Why don't you why don't you you can turn off that mic. Just ask your architect for her input. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, Mr. Sang. >> Okay. Miss Woo.
>> Yes. So, um, we we just have a few questions. So like uh for the next step um so if we decide to proceed uh there will be motion take place and then if we decide to um to further develop the drawing
meaning we have to resubmit the variance and schedule a date a month later right not not for the next next month it has to be like a few months for the future right >> so uh I was just having that very conversation with Miss Hollis Mhm.
>> Um there is a very limited window. >> Mhm. >> If you were to ask for a continuence, there's a very limited window for you to get in for the July 30th date. >> Now, if you're going to get in for the July 30th date, you would need to and
once again, I'm going to try to count and that I'm going to look to Miss Hollis to remind me. they would need to get in their plans back to zoning um as soon as possible. Let's put it that way. Um so like I said, there's a
very limited window. We have many matters on for July 30th. So, if you can get those plans in as soon as possible, uh, talk to zoning department and we'll try to we'll pencil you in for July
30th, >> but then you the next available date would be August 20th. Okay. So, do you believe, Miss Woo, I know you do. Uh, she's going to shake her head. Yes. uh
that you'll you'll get the you'll get revised plans back in time to get to the July 30th date. >> Yes. Yes, we do. >> Okay. So, Mr. Zang, you would set the button. Uh Mr. Zang, you you're asking for uh continuence to the July 30th
date. You're going to take the board's comments back. You're going to talk to your architect and she will submit revised plans. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So for the record, this matter is being continued to the July 30th date. No further notice is required. You have
to send any notice to anybody. And this is the notice. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Secret. Thank you, M. >> Oh, Miss Woo, uh, just do us a favor. >> Yeah. >> Uh, that um, uh, exhibit you pulled up, please make sure you send that to Miss Hollis tomorrow.
>> Okay, we'll do. >> Y, >> appreciate it. >> Thank you. Right. >> Next up, block 1703, lot 5.02, Bree Franklin Avenue, application number 2026-20-B
democra for a new single family housing violation of the following sections. 1799 C2 front yard setback 40 required, 30 ft proposed, 10T variance requested. 1799 C3 right side yard setbook 10 ft
required 6 1/2 ft proposed 3 and 1/2 ft variance requested 1799 C4 rear yard setback 35 ft required 30 ft proposed 5 foot var requested 1799 C3 aggregate sideyard setback 30%
requested sorry 26% proposed 4% barren requested 170 87 CC4 Four habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 61.82%
proposed 31.82% variance requested. >> All right. So uh it's already just uh we're going to wait for the board members to come back. They're not recused. They're just >> No, understood. >> They just took a short walk. They'll she'll they'll be back in a second.
>> Understood. While we're waiting on them to come back, I just have a couple housekeeping questions. I know we got started later this evening than normal because of the prior event. Is your cuto off's time still going to be 10 or is it 10:30 or if you have made a decision? I I I think that we'll be able to hear
your application. >> Yeah, we there's don't don't bring up a sore subject, but uh yes, as I as as I as I I've I've tried to reiterate many times with applicants that uh you know,
brevity is the soul of what? It's not copyrighted so I can say it as much as I want. I don't have to pay Shakespeare for anything. >> Well, you know by now the Dowardies are not brief. >> That's Yeah, that well you know was not going to cast dispersions based upon uh
clan relationships. Um yeah no we'll as soon as we have the uh board members back we can begin. How many witnesses? >> My plan is two. I have the engineer and the architect. >> Okay. >> And the engineer's dual planner as well.
Okay. Okay. Numbers are numbers. Okay. >> I'm glad you made it back. >> Okay. Rosemary. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madame Chair, professionals, members of the board. Attorney Rosemary Stone Dowy here
tonight on behalf of the applicant, Mr. James Amarosce. We're here tonight for the property located at 3 Franklin Avenue. As board member uh Mr. Horn just indicated, I just want to give a brief opening remark and then give you a road map of where we're going. Um, this lot
is a little bit different than some of the applications you've heard here tonight, including the one prior to us, because this is an undersized lot that was created by the planning board in 2017. So, we are only a 5,000 square foot lot in the R4 zone, which requires
a 9,375 square foot minimum. And the planning board did approve this subdivision back in 2017, cognitive that there would come a time that an applicant would be becoming before your board to build a
house. Just by way of background, the person who achieved the minor subdivision was in fact my client. His parents were on the front lot on McCall and his plan was to build his house on the rear lot. Unfortunately, we had
COVID. His father passed away and things took longer than he anticipated. So, we're now here to finally realize that dream and be able to build the house for his family. With that being said, there are a number of variances and they are
all driven by the fact that this is a 5,000 square foot lot. If we were a conforming lot, we would actually only have one variance here before this board this evening. With that being said, I would like to say we're going to start
with Mr. Frederick Miola who is going to testify as both an engineer and a planner. And then we have Mr. Douglas Azrael, who will be our architect. Um, council, if you'd like to swear them in. I know they've both been in front of your board a few times.
>> All right. We're You You want to start with Mr. Miola? >> Sure. >> All right. We'll we'll swear in one at a time. Uh, Mr. Miola, uh, Rosemary, just swing the mic over by, do you swear for Tell Truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. And, uh, can you please state your name for the record? >> Sure. Frederick C. Miola. M E O L A. >> Okay. Miss Miola, tonight you're going to be testifying in the role of both an engineer and a planner. >> Yes. >> Seems to be a a repetitive theme
tonight. And uh you've been qualified before this board and many other boards. Um I don't mean the cast dispersions, but many other boards uh as in the field of both engineering and planning. Correct. >> Yes. And you uh continue to hold a valid
license to practice uh in the field of engineering and planning in the state of New Jersey. Correct. >> Yes. As well as surveying and as well as certified flood plane manager. I got a lot of initials after my name. >> Well, just make sure you put them all on the calendar so you remember when you
got to renew them. Okay. >> Thank go Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> Okay. There being no objections, this witness is accepted as an expert in planning and architecture.
>> No. Engineer. Sorry. I know. I'm sorry. Engineer. It's 10:00. Yes. >> Yes. Engineer. 10 o'clock. I'm sorry. Okay. >> Um, so Mr. Miola, do you need me to do the laptop for you or are you going to be able >> We'll see if I can do it.
>> I'm not totally computer literate, but we'll see if I can get them to work. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Engineering. >> Safe plan. Safe plan. >> Yep.
>> And then this is also touchreen. Okay. >> Okay. Okay, Mr. Miola, could you please go through what the existing conditions of the lot is today? >> Yeah, the the property we're dealing with is a lot that's 5,000 square feet,
50 by 100 in an R3 zone, which is 9,375 square feet. >> Mr. Miola, I believe we're R4, correct? >> I'm sorry, R4. I apologize. I need my cheat sheet.
Okay. And just to give you kind of an overview of the neighborhood in the lower left corner of the drawing, I've shown the houses on both our street and McCall, which is the street that backs up to us with the all the lot
sizes and the square footages of all those houses. This is a neighborhood that's in an R4 zone, but there isn't a lot out there exception of possibly one that complies with the R4 zoning. And
the neighborhood is also separated. If you go to the south, you have a large power line easement which separates it from all the rest of those neighborhoods. And if you go to the north at the end of where
number one Franklin is in the house behind it. Make sure I'm going the right way. I believe it's this way. I'm sorry. I don't know if it's my eyes or I can't read the the dimensions. I
don't want to mislead you. Okay. Okay. So, if we're heading towards the north, number one is the lot adjacent to us. That's the last residential lot. Then
after that there's a cluster of seven duplexes that have been built and then you get to East Mlullen if my memor is correct. So that's the neighborhood we're dealing with. That's what we're talking about. And I'll be honest with
you, that's a lot of why the planning board approved it. Because this is property and a development in a neighborhood that while it's very nice and it's very attractive, doesn't meet the zoning.
You know, almost every single lot out there has been developed to 50 by 100 foot lot. So that's what we're dealing with. The home in question that the client is proposing is a home that we feel
is reasonable for the neighborhood. We we're showing you the setbacks on all the houses that we have around us and glad we have this little easel over here.
And you can see that the character neighborhood doesn't meet the sideyards, doesn't meet the front yard, very few meet the rear yard. And when I did a estimate of total building
coverages on all those lots, I have one lot that is at 25% total building coverage and after that I go anywhere from
36% up to 58.3%. So, the developments of the neighborhood are not fitting with the zoning it's in. There's no way around it. Um, and the
house sizes are varying anywhere from 2300 up to 3,800. So, what we looked at when the client came in was, okay, what would make sense
to put on this lot? And one of the things we did look at is the home that was constructed at number one Franklin because it's basically it's the closest home to us. That home was approved in
2017 with a 2924 square foot house at 58.3% total lot coverage F. So, and that house has a setback
sideyards. It was granted a variance for the front yard. It was granted variances for the sideyard. That home is I just want to give you the step back so you have a feeling for the neighborhood. I apologize. It's still in my folder,
but I could Okay, that home on number one Franklin has a 8ft sideyard on one side and a 5-ft sideyard the other for basically a 13 ft combined sideyard.
We looked at trying to mirror that and I said, you know, we got to look at the person on the other side of us as well. And that house is close to it's closer to the property line. It's
4.9 adjacent to us and 4.8 eight on the other side. So, we said, you know, let's split the difference. Let's make it 6 and 1/2 ft on each side. Try to provide as much space as we can between both
homes. Uh, but the character of the neighborhood is such that very little, if any, out there meet what the R4 zone says. And and that's what we're dealing with, trying to figure out what makes sense to
put on this lot that would fit into the character of the neighborhood. And um as I said, I went through the trouble of giving you all the homes and
you have all the lot sizes. Uh I have all the square footages here with the percentages. If you want to know, I can tell you which lot, whichever one you want. I have them all broken down. And you know, that's that's what we're
that's what we're wrestling with. What ma what makes sense to fit into this neighborhood because you can't use the zoning. The zoning was anticipated lots that are almost double the size of what we're dealing with. you know, you can't
get any of the percentages to make any sense dealing with that. And I should point out that the one lot that I said which was built in 1948 is which is 25% which has 2500 square
foot is the lot that's two doors away from us which we're showing is lot three which is a lot that's 50 feet by 200 ft. It's one of the few lots that wasn't ever cut in
half to be 50 by 100. If you look at the map, almost all the other ones are now all 50 by 100. So, the 25% is closer to what was anticipated, but the shape of the lot is nowhere near
it. You know, the the zoning would require the zoning would require lots that are 75 by 125. There isn't one out there, you know. So, that's that's the the
problem. And that's what the problem we were wrestling with. And I'm sure that's going to be a problem what the board's wrestling with because, you know, while it fits with the neighborhood, it seems to fit with the neighborhood, it doesn't fit with what the zoning wanted.
>> Sorry, we're struggling with the math here. >> So, because it seems to be different in different places. So, are you proposing a house that's 3,91 square feet or a house that's 2610?
because it says on the application it says 2610 but on this D on the drawing in front of us it says 3,91 and I think the difference between the two by my calculation is the attic. So the 391 includes the attic square
footage but the application has 2610. >> So what's the number? We we went through this. Doug came over to my office today and we went through it all. And I believe the map that we have up is the one that has been adjusted to the proper square footages.
>> No, no, no. I'm asking for the actual house is is the proposed square footing for the house 391, which is what's on >> the plans or on the application it says 2610. It's what's on the plans and
that's why it was also noticed for a maximum building coverage in our notices and this was brought up to the attention of the planning department um before the application was filed because the air was caught early on very early on.
>> So you're proposing a 391 square foot house thus the 61.82% F. Well, the F is driven from the attic space, which the architect will talk about when the architect comes up, but
uh there is no floor um habitable floor area. It's only habitable floor ratio. That is the very att I think I think the board's just trying to get a handle on the physical
floor area of the house. The proposal is that the total square footage of the house per the ordinance is 3, >> 220
square ft. >> Yes. >> And you're proposing a house of 3,91. >> If you want the architect, he's right here. He can explain the number for you. >> I just have a question. >> No, we're not asking for a variance. You're correct. were under what is permitted by the ordinance. So there is
no habitable floor area. There is a habitable floor area ratio and that's driven by the lot size of 5,000 square feet. >> I have sort of an unrelated question. How what is the size of the house that backs up to this? The um
>> lot number one 50. >> What >> I think that's his house. No, the the the h the house was sub subdivided. So >> the house that's behind us >> back up to it. How how big is that one? >> The house that's behind us on the call
is a 5,000 foot lot and it's lot 10. Lot 10 has 1950 square foot. It's a Cape Cod. It was built in 1960 which is coming up to 39%. >> I don't think we're talking about the
right house. No, >> he's talking about the house that was part of the subdivision. That house is 1949 and per the um and this should be in the application packet. I included a copy of that resolution has in there that that
house was granted a variance of 14.9% of the permitted habitable floor area ratio um for that existing house. >> That's what I was looking for. I'm just I was looking for that. That's on page three under item D.
>> How much paper? And that was at the time that the subdivision was granted. That house has since had an addition put on it as per the Oprah and the materials and is actually larger now. >> The house behind us on the call. Yeah.
5.01. >> What's the new What's the What's the new size then? No, I'm just doing what no attorney does, which is math. I've got >> That's okay. We're in the same boat here. >> I'm actually gonna write it out, though,
so I'm not using my fingers. At this time of the night, we all have the same problem >> pretty much. Okay. According to the tax map that's part of the Oprah, it's now
approximately 2,846 square feet, >> but that's just the tax card. So, >> thank you. >> Which um >> comes out to 56 and a half% just so you know.
So on the on your uh you know adjacent buildings exhibit um I don't know if you know you updated the the revisions. I mean that they're kind of current but I don't get why where you show lot three
on McCall Avenue. That lot has already been subdivided. There's a house number seven that exists there and there's what can you tell me about that house because that house is new. Uh >> I I apologize. I didn't realize I hadn't subdivided other run the town hall and
gotten the information on it. So that at the time I did the map that was the 50 by 200 foot lot. So that that was the last one left out there. So >> okay. So >> now they're all the same. They're all 50 by 100. >> So okay. Okay. So, then there's no no
info as to house size or anything. >> No, I I can get it. I I I my client may be yelling at me, but I have a feeling we're not going to get this done tonight. We're going to run out of time. So, I will follow up and get it done for us. So, you will have
the information. >> Uh another math question. Um the the proposed floor area ratio in the application is uh 61.82. 82%. >> Correct.
>> Uh you're saying the habitable floor area now as per the plans is 3,91 square ft. Correct. >> That's what the architect is saying. Yes. Mhm. >> So shouldn't the habitable floor area
ratio be >> It should be less. >> Less a lot less. >> Correct. >> So that's >> Yeah. >> Not 61%. Right. >> Correct. It should be 60.74. It's actually lower than what we noticed for. It's less. Correct.
>> Rosemary, you may want to have Doug explain it. >> No, I I will when the architect comes up, but he's already doing the math, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Let me let me let me let me try to bring this back on track because we got >> Yeah. a lot of flowing numbers back and
forth >> and we want to create a nice clean record. >> It's one of the things they tell me I'm supposed to do. So, um, Miss Mioa has been testifying about
the buildings in the neighborhood that about the lot sizes in the neighborhood, the house sizes in the neighborhood. Um, I think the board has clarity now. I think they do with
regard to the actual uh proposed square footage and obviously there's no variance requested because the habitable floor area because it remains below the zone standard.
The habitable floor area ratio is actually not 61.82 82, but that number is actually lower. >> Okay. All right. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. See, this is this is a
problem. I'm going to stop this right now. Just I'm just gonna just gonna stop, okay? Because here's what the problem is. The problem is the when the board grants a variance, it grants a
variance specifically for certain numbers. And I know the board is very cognizant of this and I put this very clearly in the resolutions because what we don't want to have happen and council understands this when the board grants a
variance for 10 feet, we want to make sure that it's very clear later on when the building gets built that it actually is 10 feet. So we try to make this very very clear and my concern at this point is there is a significant lack of
clarity um with regard to a very important variance. So I don't know if this is something that perhaps we need to call the architect for and just clear this
point out because I don't need crosscontamination amongst the board. I don't want the board's job is not to do calculations. Everybody's got their calculator out or their phone and I want to stop that. I want to be clear as to what the actual
variance is. So, can can it's your application, Rosemary, but I'm I'm I'm going to suggest that perhaps we just briefly switch out Miss Miola for the architect for testimony just so we have the clarity on the F. Is that
okay by you? It is. But I just want to say one thing. Sorry. Yeah. >> Um >> my position as applicant council was this matter was reviewed by your zoning officer. Your zoning officer said it was 61.82%.
Um so my position was I deferred to your zoning officer as being the one who reviewed it, came up with the 61.82%. That's what we showed. That's what I noticed for. >> So okay then. All right. And then when we got here this evening, um, my
client's architect said they had a conversation. I'll let them testify to it. I don't know if you want to have them come up now or wait till the architecture, but it's a question about a covered area that's causing that. My position is I would be asking the board
to follow your zoning official 61.82%. >> That's what we have. >> Right. >> All right. Then what? Wait, wait. Then what would Time out time out? Okay. Because we're we're uh well, no, what I what what I am is there's a lot of crosscontamination
going on on the record about what numbers are. I'm fine. But I >> what I'm what I'm trying to avoid here is I'm trying to avoid the board doing calculations. And this is >> it's their application. You got to let
them testify. Let them finish the testimony. Um >> we're just But no, we're just trying to get clarification. So we don't understand what's happening. So that's why we were asking questions because we don't understand. So we wanted to just get information from you. So >> in the midst of doing that, now we've
said it's a different number. So at the same number, we all agree. We all agree. We were just confused about the attic space and that was the number. We cleared that up. Now we know it's 91.82. So we're okay with the numbers.
>> The front porch is >> right. I'm sorry. We were just confused because there were two sets of numbers, but now we're clear on the numbers. No, understood. Okay. Um, >> and a very good one at that. >> We're very lucky to have him. We are. >> Stay away from us.
>> We're very lucky. No. >> Okay. So, um, there's a lot to go over here. >> Yes. >> U Mr. Miola hasn't really gotten into the testimony as to the proposed plan. As you heard, he spent a lot of
testimony about the lot, the adjacent lot, the neighborhood. He was really more maybe flipping the script, doing more of the planning testimony first, then the engineering. I think it would be helpful if Mr. Miola actually went through what the proposal is um so that
the board can have clarity as to the proposal and then we could jump to the architect. Unless we can jump to the architect first, whatever the preference of the board. >> I I I we do have one
other application tonight. Um all right. Why don't Mr. Miola is on the stand? It the board can uh can proceed with um you know finishing off Mr. Miola at the very least. >> Mr.
Can you with brey go through what is the actual proposal that is shown on the plan? >> Yeah, the actual proposal is for a twostory home with some attic space. That total square footage is 3,5
square feet. >> No, it's >> 3,3. >> Okay, we're coming back. Okay. Um, >> wait. There was a number that
>> council if we can swear in the architect briefly, >> but it's 391. >> Would you guys like to come back another time and we can start early? You could be the first application. I just feel like it's getting very late >> and there's a lot to cover here and I think this could go on for another hour
and a half. I I understand you know um my understanding is your next hearing's not until July 30th though correct >> and there's already four matters in front of us that were carried
>> but there's a lot to discuss >> sk miss Hollis is the one that has to give us the >> the date um which is the 61 >> this is not a question of any change in plans the plans are going to be, you know, whereas the last application they had to worry
about, you know, meeting certain time frames, which I know >> there would be no resubmissions. It would just be >> continuence. >> Um, >> because we want to do the right thing by you and give you the time that you deserve, but we just want to make sure that
>> Yeah, we're facing two problems here. Number one is that I think there's some clarity issues and number and number two um clearly there's going to be uh a lot more testimony, a lot more questioning
with regard to this particular project. Uh >> correct. And that's why I had hoped we would be able to get through the engineer to get some feedback from the board knowing that we were likely going to be carried so that if there was any tweaks or anything that I needed to
discuss with the applicant, I would have the benefit of hearing some of that knowledge. >> Sounds reasonable. Okay, we can give you June 28th. >> June 28th. >> 23rd. >> 23rd. >> 23rd. June. We can give you that date. I
>> was going to say. >> Perfect. >> New date. >> Yeah, we're changing the date. We're having a special meeting. No, I'm just joking. No, June 23rd. June 23rd. >> Thank you so much. and we'll pick up where we left off and we'll have all the numbers and we'll go through everything.
>> Okay. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Okay. All right. The matter's been this matter has been carried to June 23rd. There's no need for renotice. This is the notice. Sorry. Okay. Uh, Mr. Horn, did you uh announce
please >> put on your mic? >> Block 4204, lot 13, 106 Kimble Avenue. Application number 2026-21-V Jagan Anaga. Does that come close? >> Yes. Thank you. Applicant seeks approval for twotory rear edition violation of
the following sections. 1709 C2 front yard setback 40T required 35.8 proposed existing 4.2 variance requested. 1799 C3 sideyard setback 10 ft required 9.6 proposed 4T variance requested.
1799 C4 rear yard setback 35 required 27.7 proposed 7.3% variance requested 17087 BB4 habital floor area 3220 ft allowed 30 to 39 foot proposed 119T
variance requested 17087 CC4 area ratio 30% allowed 39.3% proposed 9.3% variance requested may proceed >> thank you >> okay so I I assume that You're Mr. >> Andda. >> Anagunda.
>> Okay. Thank you for being kind and saying that I pronounced it correctly. Okay. So, you're the applicant. You're the owner, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you have uh your architect with you tonight. I knew he's the architect. No tie. Okay. >> Uh and uh will will you rely on his
testimony or are you going to testify? >> I'm going to rely on his testimony, but I can play. Just start it. >> Okay. We're going to swear you in very briefly. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Do you have something you want to say to the board before your architect starts? >> Yes. I appreciate like you staying
behind 10:30 for us like I had in planned but all right. I really appreciate you guys staying late. Thank you. Uh so we have been a Livingston residence for 8 years. We closed our house May 25th and then just past 8 years we have been living in that house.
>> Is it better now? >> Yeah. And a little louder. >> All right. So yeah, we have been living in that house for like 8 years now, a little more than 8 years and then the family is growing there and as we see our family needs grow and then the kids growing up, they're looking for additional space for them to have their
own bedrooms. So that's where we are looking for some addition in the existing house with whatever is that we can possibly do within the limited space that we have. So I would hand it over to my architect to take it further. >> Okay, sounds good. Do you swear for and
tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. It's Michael Doster. D O S T E R. >> All right. Mr. Daster, uh, you've been, uh, qualified recently before this board, right? >> Yes, I have.
>> Okay. In the field of architecture, uh, and your license, uh, to practice in the field of architecture in state New Jersey is current and up to date. >> Current and in good standing. >> Chair, >> thank you. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections? Oh, sorry. >> Sorry. Does anyone on this board have
any questions or objections regarding this witness? Okay, there being no objections. This witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. But before we go on, I just want to say your kids are amazing. You sat here for hours. You guys are great. So, thank you so much for sitting
there and watching this whole goings on. Stars of the night. >> We'll write your path. Perfect. I will uh try to keep this brief. Thank you again to the board for uh bearing with us and staying with us. And I do apologize for not wearing a tie
tonight. The next next presentation in Livingston, I certainly will break that >> bow tie stereotype. >> We require bow tie. >> I may do the bow tie next time. >> So, good evening again. Uh I'm here tonight representing Jagen and Deepty Takalapali. They are the owners of the
property at 106 Kimble A in Livingston, New Jersey. The property is located in an R4 zone, block 10, lot 453. So, if you'll refer to sheet A-01, which was included within the package that was submitted. I'll uh briefly walk
you through the property. You will see currently there is a excuse me, a two-story single family home. There's a double wide driveway. There's a currently an existing rear patio, a front porch, as well as a detached
one-story frame shed. The proposal before the board is a two-story rear addition to the existing home. The addition is 12 ft by 18 ft 6 and 1/2 in. As you'll see for as previously stated
and per the documents in front of you, uh the property already has several existing nonconformities including minimum sideyard setback, minimum lot area, minimum lot width. None of these none of these conditions are being intensified or made worse as part of
this application. I do want to highlight to the board that the lot is undersized by 881 square feet. We are however requesting uh relief for several bulk schedule requirements
including minimum rear yard setback, maximum building coverage, maximum habitable floor area and max habitable floor area ratio. With regard to the rear yard setback, the existing condition is currently 37.4
ft. We are proposing 27.7 which requires relief for approximately 7.3 feet of encroachment into the rear yard setback. In terms of building coverage, the proposal results in a total building coverage of approximately
2,210 square ft. I say approximately that it is exactly 2,210 ft, which is 87 square ft over the permitted maximum. For the habitable floor area, we are proposing an increase of approximately 119 square
feet above what is permitted by the ordinance. The proposed habitable floor area ratio is 39.3, which would be approximately 9.3% above the allowable maximum. This home
is a true slab-on grade. There is a one and a half story great room towards the rear of the home uh per the request of the town zoning department. We added that total square footage calculation into our overall number.
So if you'll please scroll to or scroll flip the sheet A-02. These are our existing floor plans. I will uh save some time. Um It's essentially a slab on gray with a garage. We have a formal dining, living,
kitchen, and great room. Um, on the second floor, we currently have three bedrooms, as well as this large double height space, which was included in those calculations. There's also a double height space upon the entry of the home.
Sheet A-03, you will find the proposed floor plans. The addition extends approximately 6 foot 5 and 1/2 in beyond the existing rear wall of the home. As part of the renovation, we're updating
the kitchen, the bathroom, and creating a larger dining room area on the first floor. You'll also notice the addition provides space for a puja room. This is an important feature for the family as it will allow them to have a dedicated space for daily worship.
On the second floor, we are proposing a new bedroom to the rear of the house. We're also adding one additional bathroom and renovating the bathroom and the existing laundry room space. Going to sheet A-04, you're going to see on the top left uh
indicated as F1 is the proposed rear elevation. The intent is to match the existing character of the home. We're continuing the existing shake siding. The uh we're going to match the asphalt roof shingle so that
the addition feels as cohesive as possible with the rest of the structure. Architecturally, the addition is designed as a simple reverse gable which will be a frame over over the existing roof structure. It's running perpendicular to the main roof line of the house. Uh in terms of height, the
proposed addition remains well under the existing uh the maximum building height permitted for the zone. So we are fully compliant in that regard. I would like to point out that it is strictly a rear edition and the front
elevation will remain unaltered. Um in light of trying to keep it brief, I I'll stop at that point and I will open it up and see if anyone has any questions. I'd be more than happy to to field them. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have
any questions for this witness? >> None. >> So, in terms of uh encroaching on the the rear yard setback, are you relying on C1 that it's a hardship because it's a short um
because it's a short length of the property? I just want to know. >> So, yeah, definitely. I mean, we're we're not compliant as far as >> What is it? The hardship of of the lot being too short versus the minimum. >> The the square footage the square
footage is certainly the hardship as as far as the lot being >> um smaller than required. >> But as far as on the depth, that was just the space that we needed to to fit, you know, >> to to contain the program that we were looking to add to the house.
Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else on the board have any questions? >> Uh, I have a question. >> Sure. >> Um, the am I right that the house does not have a basement? >> It does not. It is a true slab on grade. >> And how what's the square footage of the
attic at right now >> of the attic? Um, >> and is it uh already like open and being used or not yet? >> No, it's it's a pull down. All right. So, basically this whole 33 39 square
footed uh feet of uh the proposed square feet is just the first floor and the second floor. >> First and second. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> Let me just uh cl let me just uh clarify something for the record with Mr.
Doster. with the how a floor area ratio. Uh would your professional opinion be that the lot uh can sustain uh the additional overage on the ratio uh in consideration of uh what's what's on
there that it's meeting uh certain requirements. You're not expanding the footprint to the to the front other sides. >> Sure. Yeah. Professionally speaking, I I feel that the lot can handle it. Um, we're we're only developing in towards the rear of the property. We're we're
keeping the sideyard and the front yard intact. >> Okay. Does anyone Well, no one's in the public. Does anybody on the board um want to make a statement? >> I'll do. Um I don't really have much of an issue in honesty with the rear yard setback that
appears to be because of the angle in the back. >> There is a weird >> Yeah, I can get myself over that one. Right. Um my issue is as you rightly state right you are on an undersized lot by about 9.3%. And yet you're still asking to go above
the maximum habitable floor area um by you know 119 I think is the number if I get it correct right. Um that's the part that I struggle with. Um, sure. I get you're going to wind up do anything you do to
this house, you're going to wind up having a a habitable floor area challenge because of the undersized nature of the lot. Um, I would have been more comfortable had you at least kept to the habitable floor area of the of uh the ordinance given
the significantly undersized lot. >> Sure. I I totally understand. The only response I could have is is the the double height spaces. The the great room is a story and a half. >> I get it. Great. But you kind of knew what you were work I I have one of those
as well. So I I look at that and see you elements of my house. Um uh but you kind of knew that when you were putting it together and the 119 it just seemed like eliminating you have a lot of varants you're asking for us and I understand some of the challenges
of the lot you're in. that seemed to be one that maybe you could adjust to avoid at least eliminating one of the variances. It's just my comment. >> I I want to say I agree with Mr. Horn.
>> Are are you double counting the height and a half? >> Yes. >> Oh, so you are double counting that space. >> Yes, that was a request for the per the town zoning department. >> Okay. How how much is that square footage that you're double counting or the single the single portion that
they're counting twice? 300 square ft. That's just that great room space. It's 20 by 15. >> I think the stairwell is also additional. >> And then the stairwell is an additional. Exactly. Yes. I don't want to make the meeting any longer than it than it is, but I do
concur with Mr. Horn and Miss Juan. Um, you you you've sat through all these applications tonight and um unfortunately like we're faced with these really difficult decisions because we have to follow the the zoning we have to follow the zoning um variances, the step the setback requirements. Um I wish
that you had come with fewer with fewer um variance requests. I do because then it would have made it a little bit easier. Um, it's difficult when you have five and um I would hope that you would go back and maybe look at this a little bit more closely and see what you can do.
>> Quick question. So, the the sideyard setback is that triggered by the extension of the back of the house or has that been there? >> That's an existing >> existing. Okay. >> That's an existing non-conformity. >> So, it's really four because you have the one existing. Okay. And so does uh
front yard. I believe >> front yard set back has been existing. >> Yeah, it's all existing. >> Okay. So, >> we're only going for the rear yard, >> right? So, let me let me just clarify this for the record. So, Ster, there's a front yard setback which
is pre-existing. Correct. >> The sideyard setback at 9.6 that is pre-existing. >> Correct. The rear yard setback that's being changed. >> That is correct. >> So that that is a new one. Yes. The rear
yard setback >> that is being intensified. >> And the floor area and the floor ratio obviously those are are beingreased >> are new. Right. >> And as you've stated your lot is um very undized.
>> That is correct. Would you mind if I just spoke to my client real quick and see if they wanted to do a if I may. All right. Uh just want to say like we looked at the option of like if we can add additional space by covering
up the great room but that required like for us to raise a ceiling height. So I had to take out the entire roof raise it up because it would not allow me to add extra room that would have been like rebuilding the house. So that that was one of the main reasons like I don't
have any other option. I cannot even buy a new house. That's where I was looking for like where else can I add extra bedroom and an extra bathroom for the family. So yeah, >> and like I said, I understand that, right? Because looking at your lot, right, doing it that way would eliminate multiple things, right? Um, and that's
why I said for me, the fact that you now needed this um, uh, rear yard setback that was just kind of the unfortunate nature of not only do you have a smaller lot, but you have that angle in the back, right? So, like I said, I could
get my head around that. I think for you to do anything to this home, you're going to need some sort of variance probably around the half a floor ratio given the undersized lot, right? The other two you kind of already have. So now you're you've got two variances
pre-existing that kind of use more of the lot than you technically should. You're asking for a third and I can understand that. Like my comment would be if you could eliminate the hab floor area
uh variance it would be easier for me to get my head around approval if I hopefully that was clear. You know where I was going. >> Thank you. So, so with that in mind, um, in light of the board's comments and
in light of something else I said, even though there are seven members, >> I can count now. You still need you still need five affirmative votes. >> I know. I have heard. >> So, so we're So, uh, I'm I'm Are you going to ask for a continuence to allow
to take in the board comments and allow Mr. doster to uh go back to his CAD machine and see what he can figure out >> probably. But let me just Dr. >> I was going to say pencil. Nobody uses pencil anymore.
Now it's all these high-tech things. If the board would be okay, we would like to do Oh, I'm sorry. >> I'm I'm sorry, Mike. Go ahead. Just get close to the mic. >> If the board would would uh approve it, we would like to do a continuation. And >> Okay. So, the only the Now I got to look
at Miss Hollis. >> And she and she hates when I look at her and ask her these questions. >> Putting her on the spot. >> Yeah, I know the applicant had indicated to me privately that he has some travel um plans. So, I would have accommodated
this one for the June 23rd hearing depending on if the architect can get those revised plans in in >> Sure. Yeah, we'll get it in. Absolutely. >> Okay. I'll postpone my trial. >> So, >> for the record, this matter is being
continued to the June 23rd date. There's no notice required. You don't have to send any more notices. Okay. >> Are we going to get >> Are we going to get revised plans >> or? >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Mr. Mr. Doster is going to
fire up the computer tonight and work work his magic. He's >> grab a Red Bull and >> Yes. drink drink a couple Red Bulls and get it over to the planning department. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. June 23rd is the date. This is the notice. We'll see you then. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> This meeting is ajourned.