Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston zoning board of adjustment. Today is August 26, 2025. If you're 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 for the
grant of that 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 the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision of decision, excuse me, and
that court may overturn that decision of this board. If you're objected to any type of variance 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
provide, please provide a copy of your complaint, to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting 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 Bullden Board of the Municipal Build building. In addition to having notice posted, notice of this meeting was placed on the township's 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'd like to address the board, please come to the front and use a microphone so we can make sure your comments or questions are part of the record. I'd like to say I appreciate this is this meeting is a little late today. I had uh a conflict, so I appreciate everyone coming in late today. If you could call the role,
please. Mr. Kenya here. Mr. Horn here. Mr. Sha here. Okay. Mr. Sherman here. Uh Mr. Wiseman here. Miss Soho here. Miss Con Miss Connor is out. Mr. Beer
here. Okay. Um we have two adjournments uh today. Um 64 Hillside Avenue, block 3901, lot 76. Um, if you're here for that application, it's been adjourned to October 28th,
2025. It will not be renoticed. Also, if you're here for block 451, lot 18 20 Cambridge Road. That two has been adjourned. Jackie, that's also to October. Okay. So, it's the same date, October 28th. If you're here for that
application, you no need to stay. So, two down. Kenya, if you would like to call the next application. Okay, next one. Uh,
the Okay. Block 4900, lot 55, application uh 75 Ridge Drive. Application number 2025-29-V Alo and Ankita Batra. Application seeks approval for the first floor addition at the rear and second floor addition in
the violation of the following section 170-87L 1C corner lot setback 40 ft required 23.8 ft proposed 16.2 Two ft variance requested 170-87
CCC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 23.3 person proposed 2.3 person variance requested. All right. So uh I'm assuming that you are the basis. Yes. You're the owners of the property.
Correct. Okay. Wait. You gotta uh Yeah, click on the button. Good. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Perfect. So, sorry. Go ahead. So, you I'm just confirming you are the owners of the property, correct? Okay.
And you have some witnesses tonight that are going to testify with regard to your application. Correct. That's right. Okay. So, we have the architect and engineer. Yes. Okay. Go tell the engineer. He's dying to tell you all about the numbers and
everything. Uh, all right. So, why don't we What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Just accept the guys who build bridges. Um, okay. So, uh, uh, who who are you going to call first? Architect.
Architect. Okay. So, uh, why don't you go to the, uh, microphone? I'm gonna swear him in. Not swear at him. I'm going to swear him in. Okay, sir. Do you? All right. All right. It works. You raise your hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth for the zoning board
tonight? So off you got I do. Okay. Can you do us the favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? Sure. It's Yuval. Y u V A L middle initial I Wellish. W L L I S C H. Okay. And you've appeared before the
board previously, correct? Many times. Okay. And you've been qualified in the field of architecture, correct? Yes. And your New Jersey state license is still active. Correct. It is. All right. You haven't received you haven't received any emails today, right? No. Okay, chairman.
Okay. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accept as expert in architecture. Okay. So, I'm not sure I'm that good at this uh
thing. You want to help me a little bit with this? Just like last time. Thank you. Uh, if you can put the uh floor plans. I mean, I have them over here, but they're so far away. Yeah. Would you prefer to have it on the
screen so it gets recorded? I know the members have a copyright, so I'm pretty much gonna No, it's not up. Oh, it's getting closer. That's some of it. Magic. Okay, here we go. Yeah. How do you
Is that the house? Oh, how do you make it? Do you know how to make it like smaller? Yeah, this goes up and down. Oops. It goes the other way. Yeah, I'm trying to. There you go. Oops.
Doesn't work the same way as I wanted to. Okay, good. Well, basically we all we all went through this like the last time. So, I'm sure the board is uh pretty much uh familiar with that. I'll just try to get
the front over here. Oops. I did something wrong. That's okay. What is my plan? You know how to put it back? I'm not very good at this.
Let's go to the first one. There you go. There you go. Oh, that's a It worked. It worked. It worked. Technique. We work with a computer every day, but we're not master mastering them. So,
um, okay. So the last time we attended uh was on May 29 and uh 2025 and since that time the engineer, my client and myself try to work very hard to uh pretty much
adhere to what the board had said and uh we carefully keeping in mind all the things that everybody said. And the main thing was practically making the house smaller to adhere as much as possible to the uh zoning.
So let's talk about the habitable 4 area. In the last hearing, the proposed habitable floor area was that what we proposed was 4126 and the maximum allowed in this air in this zone is 3520. So we cut it below that number. Right
now the house is 3517 square ft with an HFA ratio of 233 and before it was higher than that. The reduction represents 609 square ft less than the original application which is
approximately 14.8% of the house almost 15 decrease from the last time. By making this adjustment, the project is now fully compliant with the floor area limit of the zone. Though we are still requesting a relief
on the ratio, we are about 347 square ft above the number that this lot allows, but at least we comply with the maximum. Um, we have a setback issue on Bernett, which is the side street, because it
existing, but we pulled on this one. Sorry. I'll try not to make a mistake this time. You want to pull it to the next one? Oh, you do it with your finger. Absolutely crazy.
There you go. Just pull it this way so we can see the side. Okay. So, the addition before went all the way to here and now we pulled it all the way to here, which is, you know,
instead of uh like 20 23.8 ft before, now it's 38.2. We're still not reaching the 40, which is the one that the zone allows, but we just couldn't make the the rooms like any smaller. We wouldn't get the the stairs to work and all that stuff. So,
right now, we're just 20 in over the allowed 40 ft. Um, that's on Bernett on on the main street. We're fine. Uh as the board knows the required F in this zone is 21 and the
original proposal last time was 27 what we brought it down to to 0233. Uh like I said before it's about 14 we cut about 14.5% of the of the house. Basically the house does look the same
but it's a lot more reverse like away from the side street. I know some board members were a little bit concerned about that because when you go to the school you see that from the main road not so bad but so we pretty much reduce
it that way and that's what we did. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? What's the uh the height to the top peak of the house from the What is the height right now? Yeah, it's less than what what is the maximum
allowed? Can you get me the the first one? They just making making almost 35. Yeah, that look pretty here. It's so small in here.
Yeah, the height is 34T 7 and 1/4 in. Okay. And that is measured in Livingston from the average ground to the top. So actually in real life it's not like that. It's a little bit less, right? Because the average is over here,
this line. If you measure from the ground, it's different. But there are no measurements for that because the zoning department doesn't want that. Anybody else have any uh questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions? Oh, I'm sorry.
So, that would make uh the attic uh taller than seven feet at this point. Um I'm not sure, but I I mean proportions. There's no limitation on that. So, correct. Just want to make sure that it doesn't become a habitable. Oh, no, no, it will not. By all means,
it will not. There's no intention to do that. So, no problem with that being a condition of approval if we approve it, right? I'm sorry. No, there's no problem with the attic not being habitable as a condition of approval.
Yes, you can put it as a as that. Sure. Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay, one down, one to go. Thank you.
All right. 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? Uh, William Scott, ST. Okay. And, uh, you appeared at the last hearing, is that correct? Yes, I did.
And you put your credentials on as an engineer and it was accept accepted by the board, correct? Yes. And, uh, your license to practice in the state of New Jersey still up to date, correct? Yes, it is. All right. I bet you you checked your emails before you came up. I do. Yes. Okay. There we go. Okay. Does anyone on board have any questions or objections
regarding this witness? There being no objections, uh, the witness is accepted as expert in professional engineering. Um, I don't recall there being any questions or concerns raised at the last board meeting. So, um, in the U to save
time for the other applications. I'd rather just open myself up to any questions you might have regarding the site plan. I appreciate that. Does anyone in the board have any questions regarding the site plan? Does anybody in the public have any questions regarding the site plan?
Seems like there's no questions. Thank you. All right. Do you guys want to make any statement? As the owners, you have an opportunity. Last time when we were here, we were we
had like three variance request and two children. This time we have three children and two variant requests. We were really happy. That was good. Okay, I was in the labor in the last meetings. I was at the hospital. Yes, we would really appreciate your
blessings to the girl and us as a family with the variance. Does anybody in the public want to make any statement regarding this application? Does anybody on the board want to make any statement regarding this application? I just want to say thank you. Appreciate
it. Right. I know uh was definitely interesting circumstances with you worrying about your wife last time, right? And you took our feedback. I think the house now still gives you what you need from a size and scale what we were looking for for your family, but addressed our concerns about that
community. My kid went to Burn Hill, so I know exactly where this house is, and I I know the side views of it. So, I just wanted on behalf of the board to uh give you our appreciations and congratulations um for uh making those modifications. Yeah, I too want to thank you for during
your stressful time when you were having a baby and doing this and you were had to go back and you know keeping the smile and thank you very much for making the adjustment and coming back. But yeah, congratulations. Does anybody in the board want to make a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve with the attic uh not being habitable as a condition of approval. I'll second it. Okay. Mr. Sherman, yes. Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, yes. Mr. Shaw, yes. Mr. Wiseman,
yes. M. So, yes. Mr. Beer, yes. Motion carries. Congratulations. Congratulations. Good luck with the baby. Thank you. Okay. Block Block 40001. Block 401. Lock 1502 23 Harvest Lane
application number 2025-26-V Bargo Modi application seeks approval to finish the frame space to habitable living space in violation of the following section 17087 BB4 habitable floor area 3220 ft allowed 3835 ft
proposed 615 square ft variance requested 17087 CC4 habitable Floor area ratio 30% allowed 36.2% proposed uh 6.2% Two person variance requested.
Richard Skolnick on behalf of the applicants. We are in the R4. We do need the floor area ratio variances. As mentioned, we're 615 square feet larger than permitted. This application was before you on May 29th.
On that night, the architect, Aean Sedra, and our planner, Alex Doerty, both testified. But at the end of the hearing, Mr. Wel pointed out that there was a recorded deed restriction on the property. If you
recall, when the lot was created, the planning board had a condition in that approval that said no floor area ratio variances. So in essence there was a title defect. Immediately after uh that meeting the
client hired me. We filed an application with the planning board to remove that deed restriction and we had that hearing at the planning board in June and by resolution memorialized on July 15. The planning board lifted
that deed restriction that said there could be no more variance applications. So, we're back before you tonight requesting uh the relief on the maximum F and the floor area ratio. You've heard
all the testimony uh but we're going to do a quick summary to get you back into it. And there were some very unusual circumstances, if you may recall, where the builder uh built the house with extra space on the second
floor. Not the third, not a third floor attic, but extra space on the second floor. Uh a CO was issued. my clients closed on the property, not being made aware uh by anybody uh along the way
that variance relief would be necessary to build out this extra 615 square feet. So, the building is constructed. You're going to see in the pictures, we believe there's absolutely no impact on uh any of the neighbors. Of
course, the planning board has looked at it and said, "We understand what happened here. you can go back to the board of adjustment uh for the relief. So, um that's where we're at. Uh Mr. Doy, you understand you're still under oath? Yes.
From that meeting. Okay. We'll just do it real quick. Do you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight? So, hope you got it. I do. Okay. And Mr. Dhy has already been qualified in the field of planning. Uh continues to be qualified in the field of planning. Um New Jersey license
is up to date. Correct. Okay, chairman. Okay. Uh, chairman, we have the architect here if needed. My client's here, of course, as well. It's a devariant, so we need the five affirmative votes. Alex, uh, can you run
through your testimony? Certainly. I'll be uh I'll be brief. I'll hit the the points needed. Um, as council indicated, we were here before um where we um presented many of the uh exhibits. I'll I'll brief through them. Uh on the screen is the zoning. Um outlined in red is approximately where
we're at within the township of Livingston. Um we kind of hone in a little bit for those that are looking for orientation right behind the Bottle King uh the Bank of America uh right off Route 10. We are kind of on that French zone if you will next to the B1. We are
in the R uh the R4 zone. And this is block 401 lot 15.02. Um this slide here from DP GO web represents a larger lot. This was part of a subdivision as alluded to before where that resolution was on there about I'm sorry the ordinance was on there
about the F for that subdivision. Um for purpose of of the this slide on four this is what's out there today. These are the existing uh property to the left 23 Harvest Lane part of that initial subdivision. Um you see beautiful home modern clean up to date. Uh we take the
drone out give you some context of where we are. It is kind of a deadend street back there. doesn't have direct access to Route 10. Again, the CVS uh Bottle King is off to the left and the bank is uh right right behind the property. Uh we have a unique situation where the
property exists. Um I do testify nightly and daily. Um F certainly um very common request. This application for the board is unique as council indicated. There are um unique circumstances with this property. The existing structure as it
stands today does have a window back here. It's elevated back here. Um right behind the bathroom on the second floor and photo 13 um is this void of dead space. As we can see the HVAC electrical, it's been framed back here.
Um this is the area in question that we're asking for some F relief. That that relief again 36.2% where 30 is required for F. And then we have the habitable floor area um where we're over on by 615 square feet. We're asking for
3835 where uh 3220 ft is permitted. Um unique about this in FR F is a way to control scale bulks and massing ensure that there is a balance here. The property is not overly intensified. Um by that the structure exists there
today. It's kind of unique. It's a part of a subdivision. Um it certainly blends well. This is a unique F. We're not asking for an addition. We're not asking to grab attic space in that regards. This is on the second floor. It is there. Um very unique from a planning
standpoint. I have not come across this uh um you know situation before. But from a an F standpoint and the the reason we have F really is for the scale size and and and overall bulk controls. Um from a planning standpoint, that scales and massing of the structure is
there today. It certainly would add um more efficient use of that second story. Again, this is not the attic or we're asking for an addition off the rear. There are no violations by way of lock coverage, impervious coverage, setback relief. This again is a really an internal programming of of the structure
on that second floor. When you talk about that F, it's a little bit more relaxed than that Medici D1 for sight suitability. Uh we need to advance the misable land use law, prove the positive, negative, and and better zoning alternatives. So when we talk about this advancing the miscellaneous law purpose a the public health safety
and the general welfare the structure is modern it would be code compliant and really you know meet the consumer expectations of a modern home um what's out there again that that massing that window in the back you would naturally visually believe that that was part of the second floor um appropriate
populations and appropriate locations this again is a single family home um the plans and I'll show the plans in a moment really is to divide this space and the architect is here as well as the applicant. Really is to divide this space into two functional spaces. An additional bedroom. We have a growing
family. Um we have multigenerational family and guests. Um and then a large sun room to enjoy relaxation and and take you know um some some light in. So for purposes of can the site accommodate that um additional bedroom that intensity we look at for F on the
property. We have an ample driveway uh and and a garage. Uh we are in that deadend area here on Harvest. So when we talk about the driveway and the garage, adding an additional bedroom, we could certainly accommodate an additional vehicle if that did come with that. Um but again, I think the intent here is
really to um modernize the interior which would advance the the the safety by getting this looked at, getting it up to code. Um certainly uh density by way of it's still a single family home. We have the space on the property to acquire that extra bedroom. We're not
asking for two bedrooms. We're asking for an additional one. Alex, just in terms of the negative criteria here to focus on that, do you see any detriments to the neighbors here? Are they going to uh understand or feel or be impacted in any way by this
extra 615 square ft on the back there? Could you just show that? Right. Because additionally, when we look at this, there's no there's no virtual uh visual uh change here to the built environment. Um, we have the accommodations for parking. We're not asking for an addition over the patio or
sideyard. From a negative standpoint to the surrounding properties and and the in the general neighborhood, I from a planning standoint, I don't see that. Um, you know, there's trees in the back. We have ample buffer um behind the property as council's referring to um in the back of the site here, we have this
large uh area that is open space, if you will. So from a screening standpoint though the scale and massing of the structures there exists today uh there will be no negative effect felt again we're not asking for encroachments to the rear sideyard I think we advanced purpose I desirable vision environment keeping these structures intact from the
public perspective in the public realm which as you see by the exhibits very well-designed beautiful architectural homes here um certainly we could advance purpose uh G for sufficient space and appropriate locations um you know this space is there on the second floor uh
and purpose M for you know encouraging coordination of public and private procedures shaping development for more efficient use of land. We don't need to you know subdivide or clearcut any other open space to accommodate a larger home or that additional bedroom. We have that ability to do that here within the four
walls of this structure. From a negative standpoint I do not see any negative effects here. The essence of F is can the site accommodate the additional floor area. I believe this site can certainly accommodate an additional uh uh floor area on that second floor and it meets the controls for that. And from
a architectural layout or the architects here, the plan before the board on on page nine, I know it's kind of sideways. Uh a bedroom here, conceptual layout, and just an open floor plan uh for a nice sun room to kind of take in that that that sun and the view uh um through
the backyard. A real modest uh application straight down the middle. no additions, no violations of sideyard setback. I think the statutory criteria for relief would be met and approval would be warranted. Again, F really is about controlling the scale and size and the intensity and I think that's that's
encumbered here with the the uh existing conditions encompassed. Yes. So, so chairman, you know, you heard the testimony in long form back in May. We wanted to get you back into it. Obviously, uh we could give you more information. Uh we recognize you got 11
matters or so on the agenda tonight. Thank you. Um does anyone on the board have any comments or questions for this witness? So I just want to confirm for the area that you refer to as a sun room. You're not adding any additional windows. You're using existing windows that are already there.
I believe the plan is to add some windows. So you so there is so you there is an external view where the house will look different because now you're adding windows that don't exist today. There is windows back there. I think the plan is to add a few more. It's a conceptual layout. Um but I think from a
from a practical standpoint, a few windows will be placed there in the rear of the property. There's that buffer there as well. And where this side of the property there is the bank on this side, if you can see my mouse, um the plan would be to really uh just add the windows, my understanding, to to the
exterior rear um in that in that side of the building. But again it's a conceptual layout but from a exterior perspective that may be the only minor modification is is adding a window. Great. So we are making modifications that would be seen by the public given that that they are changing and adding
windows to the house in the in the literal sense from the public realm you we would see the windows. Uh I want to emphasize the location of the property in the dead end our adjacent neighbors commercial and the large buffer to the rear and the rear yard back there. the practicality of this being visually impaired an
impairment. I don't see that. I I don't the structure cannot get larger because the uh planning board said you could only come to the board of adjustment for the 615 square ft that was built. Understood.
But that also wouldn't preclude any exterior changes. Correct. I mean, you you still can make changes and stay within the 615 square feet and still make a change to the roof or do whatever else and you still be within the 615 square ft.
The the planning board did not get into that granularity, so to speak. Well, they wouldn't because it's not that's building and it's not their purview anyway. So is is there a the board has some concerns about the placement of the windows because
you know we could address that in some fashion. Um we didn't see that coming in as as a critical item. We we saw the bulk in the massing which is not changing but we we could have the architect talk about what he wants to
you know what what what the concept might be if that's a concern about well I was queuing off the fact that the comment was made that there was no modification to the external to anything visible external the house and that does not sound like that's actually the case I did not mean to misrepresent that I
was I was referring to typically I see FS as an addition being put on. Correct. But we normally don't see, as you rightly said, this kind of the house build bigger than actually it really was intended within the rules. And from a planning standpoint, adding
windows certainly helps um break up this the bulk of structures, the glazing, and we don't want that continuous wall effect, especially in a residential neighborhood. I don't see adding windows as a negative effect of of a substantial, you know, issue. Um, I think it only enhanced the property, enhanced quality of life on this,
whether for this property and and the current residents or those that would come in behind and follow. I think overall it's uh it's a beautiful building and window placements are critical also for safety concerns. If the board does see that this F is appropriate, if it is a bedroom, it
would need that second means of egress which is that window as well. So to some capacity, windows would naturally come into play. But there are window are there windows already in both the bedroom and that open room. Um I believe there's just the one large window. So it would meet the egress
standard because there is a large enough window there. So the window is not required. Adding additional windows are not required in order to meet safety standards. If if the bedrooms on that side is the concern that the windows are going to have a negative impact on on the public somehow then why I'm trying
to understand the the planning concern that you're expressing. My concern is that we are saying and I understand I was here last time to understand all kind of the stuff that happened right is we're trying to say there's this unfinished space within the house and
trying to let you potentially take advantage of that right without changing anything that was built structurally from an out outside invisibility and now we're saying you know we're going to make some changes to the outside because we're going to be adding windows that that's my concern right I'm trying to
minimize the changes that were done or at least my you know my thoughts around that. That's where my head is. Yeah, we didn't see that coming in as the windows, you know, and the the placement we could have the architect. Well, why don't we just have why don't
we just have clarification here other than the addition of windows. There are going to be no other structural changes to what's already built. Is that accurate or inaccurate?
Confirm. I'm pretty sure. Okay. So, Mr. Sedra. All right. Miss Sedra, why don't you just Okay. We're going to swear. Sure. Sedra, do you swear for Tell the Truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. And you're the architect on this project?
Yes, I am. And you've been qualified many times here and you remain a qualified architect, New Jersey licensed, correct? Yep. I didn't get any emails. Okay, good. Maybe you need to turn on your phone, but okay. Don't worry about it. Concerns here. Any other structural
changes? No, the the roof will stay the same, the ceiling will stay the same, everything will stay the same. It's just the windows. And we really need the windows, especially where we have the bedroom because there is no egress on that side. And I'm not 100% sure if these windows
are egress windows either, the one that's shown in here. So eventually, so would it be fair to say that the the windows that would be placed would be solely for uh habitability and safety purposes.
Yeah. But again, he's asking for a sun room as a design. So the sun room known for to have more windows, right? But more windows for the sun. There's no other structural change. Correct. No structural changes. No. Okay. And you would agree with that being a condition should the board agree to it that there
that would be a condition of approval. There's no other structural changes other than the addition of windows, right? Than windows. Yes. I have a question for Mr. Sedra since he's standing there. um on the like on
the picture that you've had up before showing the left side of the house um or that room, the wall slope down. So like it looks like a very short wall like on the outside wall. Do you know what height that is on the um I think it's about 6 foot to 6'8 I
would assume. Looking at it, we never got inside giving the condition of but by eye it looks about 6 feet or 6'8 high. Okay. Okay. I was just curious cuz I know you have a bathroom and a shower and whatever up against that wall. So, it just doesn't look like it's a high wall. So,
uh also the plans they're very conceptual. So, we have also we may change few things like we are showing two bathroom. I don't know if the building department will allow them two bathrooms or not. Maybe they say you only allowed one bathroom for this kind of house. Giving the water line. How big
is the water line going to the house? If that's the case, so that's one of the bathroom will turn into a closet maybe. Yeah. But also again this is this is conceptual design. Uh we're not touching the outside of the building. Any interior changes will be you know in the
inside. I I feel um having two bathrooms in that space is a little bit excessive given that it's a small property anyway. And now because you've have this extra space now to add two additional bathrooms, one
large walk-in closet, a substantially small sun room. I have to cut you off for a second cuz we really can't. Yeah, it's up to them to decide what they we technically we're adding only one bathroom because the other one is a relocated bathroom. It used to be in the
hallway accessing the sun room. Um so technically we're adding only one as part of a condition of approval we get there. I assume we're not asking for a square foot over what we got. You're not going to configure anything that
way. It's that's 3835 is the last we hear of square footage as a condition of approval. That's what's in the the planning board. We've had back and forth. 615 square ft. That's it. That's okay. The size of the room. Obviously, there's a certain amount of
uncomfortableness in an R4 getting all this, but knowing the situation, we're all trying to take all that into account. Um, you know, we just don't want to, you know, have every house be totally oversized in so many ways. We we certainly appreciate the board's concerns. Got a lot of F matters on.
It's going to hear a lot and we understand how you have to bounce. This had a very unique set of circumstance where builder built this didn't disclose permits. Yeah. Right. So just so everyone's aware the Mr. Skolnick said the planning board and
I had I looked at the resolution again just now. The resolution from the planning board specifically states that they're the they they're removing that prior condition and replacing it with a new condition saying
that that they can make an application up to 615 ft. So what they're doing is they're making it this application at the 615 foot uh square footage and with the resulting obviously with the
resulting F. So in essence the planning board for lack of a better term has greenlighted the additional 615 ft because otherwise they would not have removed the
restriction. So, just, you know, it's an it's a rather interesting uh like a law school uh test here. I'm having bad flashbacks, but um you know, where you have an interplay between your two land use boards because you had the planning
board give a uh a condition and then there was a overage of the condition. But then when the applicant went back to the board which set forth the restriction, they removed
the restriction, placed it with a new restriction. So that what they're saying is our new restriction is this number. So in essence uh what what I'm go back to is that fact that your
uh fellow land use board uh determined that this applicant can make an application at the 615 ft square footage overage. But the question that I have though is I understand that and obviously there's nothing that precludes
somebody in the future from going back there again to then get it changed again. No, no, no. That that I would I I would I let me clarify at this point the planning board has lost jurisdiction once this board gives
it assuming the board gives us variance. Now at some later point if there's a Mr. or Mrs. X out there that now want to do a renovation edition. Guess what? They're coming back to this board. That the planning board resolution stays and obviously they would have to deal with
that in the future. I think they're going to have a very difficult time regardless if any of us are here. Uh but certainly uh because now there are what are we up to almost three resolutions on this one, Rich? Uh so uh this this one
is this one is going to be as they would say papered up. So I doubt that there would be any ability to get any further relief. And in fact I would even venture to say if Mr. Skolnick came in and he was very I'm sure he was very aware of this that if he came in with 616
I would have I would have turned him around uh not not physically but I would have turned him around and told him to go. But obviously, you know, his client's adhering to the 615 to be in compliance with the planning board. Despite my prodigious talents as a land use lawyer, I think it's going to be
very difficult for any planning board to ever change the restriction, but this board could do it also. You know, we're we're here with an application for the 615, which is the maximum. So, if
anybody wanted to come in, they'd still face a deed restriction. Mr. Wel clarified and specified that the restriction on not going for the F variances was not totally lifted. It was
only lifted for the 615. But we did not you I need five votes tonight and if the board feels it has to see the final window placement to feel comfortable with the application
then you know we'll we'll have to do that and come back. I prefer not to but uh we we need some flexibility. It's it's got to make sense uh to do it. We didn't see that as in this circumstance with that big backyard with the
commercial next door as you know really having any impact on the neighbors. Okay. Thank you. Um does anybody else on the board have any other comments? Yeah. So I just want to clarify where the 615 came from if I understand it correctly because we didn't get any new
plans, right? So I I'm assuming that you took those plans that had the number 615 the overage of 615 and that's what you went to the planning board with and that's where the 615 came from. Is that correct? We have to calculate Mr. Calculation number and that's how it
came right and that's the same plans that you came in with last time as well was that number. Okay. Yep. Okay. Just want to make sure there was Any other comments from the board?
Any other questions or comments from the public? Please, you're up. Uh, sir, do you uh please raise your right hand? Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? Yes. All right. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
Sure. My name is Tarun Sony. My the name uh Tarun is T for Tango, A for America, R for Rodak Builders, U for unfaithful, N for not trustworthy and my last name is Sony which is S for scamster, O for
orange, N for not trustworthy and I for indu. My address is 25 Harvest Lane, Livingston, New Jersey 07039. You can already see the frustration. So
I hope it's evident. I wanted to know first of all as the applicant what was there which was built illegally both from a height perspective as well as from the square footage perspective and
the town passed the CEO. How did that happen? Okay. So, so now is the time for um comments about the application and I think at the last board meeting uh
where we had this application um this was uh discussed to some degree. Um, this board has no authority nor involvement with anything involving the
uh issuance of a CO or the approval of plans. Obviously, when the board gets these things in the normal course, right? Uh we get uh the board gets the plans, they review the proposal and they vote on whether or not a variance uh is
granted, whatever that variance is. uh that ma that then goes over to the township for its uh professionals in the engineering and building department to then take care of. So I I think we all know that this as Mory already said from before uh and from the last meeting that
this prop this building's already built. Um but it it still requires a variance. So that's why the jurisdiction remains with the board to determine whether or not that variance should or shouldn't be granted. And despite the fact that it's
already built, not preferable, but despite the fact it's already built, the board still has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the variant should be granted. And obviously the planning board also had their involvement in that. Uh so this board really can't opine or give any uh
clarity on the uh nor does the applicant have to give any uh clarity on that issue. it's where we are today. Um so that's that's the sum and substance of that type of uh you know questions along
those lines. So um you know the board's really not in a position to speak on those issues. But the board is taking the responsibility to pass these variances. Correct? No. The board here zoning board is passing
these variances. Right. The variances are being presented to the board for their for their decision to grant um uh two waiverss two variances for habitable floor area and floor area ratio. Yes.
Yeah. So my question is when the builder was building the 600uh 15 square ft of space and it was building the illegal structure behind it what it was approved for. Didn't the board see it?
Okay. So once again the board doesn't the board's not involved with the with the building of buildings. Uh the board is only involved with when the application is presented to it. So the application is being presented now
after the building is built. So there's no doubt that this application is being presented after the building was built. So the board would have no knowledge nor the board ever has knowledge as to what's being built. We only they only have knowledge as to what's being proposed
and in this set of circumstances is already built. So when can I can I try to clarify? I think what he because I think there's maybe Mr. Skull could help. I I think the um the neighbor might be under the impression that the I I don't know what illegalities we don't a building we
don't get a no but well I just want to ask I'm going to ask attorney the question I think you want to ask it's I believe that as far as zoning is concerned uh that that that space in the back that was built that looks like it could be
built was not habitable space we could see it's not habitable space so as far as we're concerned right Mr. gone like they're they're in it's in compliance with zoning as of today. Is that is that correct? So that part was not illegal because I think that's his question. He
feels like that what was built was illegal from a zoning standpoint. I don't think that was the case. I think that's the question. No, we have a little bit of a I represented Mr. Sony at the planning board with my client to lift the condition. Right. So he's my former client. And I'm not
currently representing him, but I represented it both at the I don't think but he's asking the question to you. So that's why I'm trying to clarify the question. I don't think you're objecting to this application. Are you not at all? Not at all. You want to application? You want this to be approved, right?
Absolutely. Okay. All right. All right. Wait, wait, wait. We got We got We got to bring in We got to bring in the horses. The horses have left the barn. Now we got to bring them back in. So All right. So what's the comment? My comment is that how
does this kind of thing happen so that when we are the buyers of it, we are putting our family savings into it and we are tricked into this and nothing has been done against the builder against the reala premium one who has been doing
this thing and it's kind of deceiting and a cheat thing that they have been doing with us. Okay. So, I'm I'm going to say this that there are I think at this point about 90,000
attorneys in the state of New Jersey. There's probably somebody out there other than me. Yeah. Okay. Because I'm I'm I represent the board. I can't represent you. Uh but there's probably somebody out there who's very smart. Uh I have 90,000.
There's got to be somebody who knows what they're doing. But there's probably two or three. Uh, but there's got to be but I I would suggest to you I'm not saying that any of your comments are not accurate, they're not true, that they're off base. I'm saying to you that they are not things that the board would be
able to answer for you, but one in which I think that you would need to seek out counsel to assist you with any and all issues you may have with regard to how this happened. So that's why I would suggest to you, but you're in favor of the application.
Sorry, you're in favor of the application. Of course, because I am in the same boat which my application Jackie will bring it soon. So, one of the conditions is that you raised the question on Windows. So, I will be having Windows as well in my application.
Well, then I'm glad you're taking notes. Yes. Yeah. But we're not hearing now, so it doesn't really matter. So I believe that when his is been approved so there would be no arguments that when I present the case every application stands on its own.
We'll take it then. Okay. But got that was my comment. Okay. Appreciate it and good luck. And uh if you could also help me that is the board like what is the rule like in an R4 zone if someone has
see see a guy with a suit and tie or a bow tie. Those are the guys. There's there's a there's a whole bunch of them here. They could probably answer that question for you. The one without the bow tie. Yeah. Not the guy with the bow tie. That's why I wear the bow tie. So you know you don't ask me. But you find any one of these other fine members of the
bar. Uh, not Dylan's. Uh, any one of these fine members of the bar, they'll be able to help you. Okay. Sure. Sure. Just for the time sake, if you know it's if you're not opposing, can we just move on, please? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Okay. Does anybody uh anybody else want to
make any comments? Would you like to have a closing statement? No. No, not necessarily. Does anybody on the board want to make a statement? Does anybody on the board want to make a motion? Well, I I'll make a I'll make a statement because I uh that you that uh
usually 615 is way too over for me. Um and it's very high and and also the fact that it was done also is not a relevant factor because again it's unfinished space. So those aren't persuasive but there but the fact that it was done at
least we could see the outcome. Sometimes we have to guess how it's going to look and it's a guess here. We don't have to guess we could see how they look. So that's one. But the second part that is distinguishing for me and it's close but it is distinguishing this is almost like a zone into itself when
you come around the bend. If you see on that if you see on that that um it turn the house turns. No, keep the the slide up your hand that you you come down the street and that house is faced this way and then the street angles and you have these two houses, you know, separate. I
don't even know that you could call them. They're they're zoned R4 because we have to divide up the town into various zones. But this is these are this is a pretty unique location because it's overlooking the CVS. So you got to make this an attractive and people could see it. So, you want something sort of a
little larger and nicer, which I think they've done a good job aesthetically, so you can see it. And at the same time, it's not you want a nicer, bigger house because you want to attract people to buy such a house because it's it's overlooking the no offense, but the the
CVS and the Bottle King. In that sense, it's not a great location. So if if this were coming to me before it was built and they espouseed such reasons under you know AG and II and those are the risk the those were the reasons you know
it looks like it would be again any other place if it was just in between two other houses 615 is too much in this particular spot this seems like a to me a unique case where I think you're arguing it substantially benefits the town versus a smaller house and I I that
that's what's most persuasive to me. A motion. I'll make a motion to to approve based upon that. Yeah. Conditions. So, you are number one with the conditions of approval. Yeah, he's the Yes. Yes. He's number one.
He's number one. And the conditions include, just to be get on the record, the conditions include uh no structural changes other than the windows. They're going to adhere to the
planning board resolution of which would include 615 ft maximum. That's that's the planning board resolution. Yep. Who's seconding it? want to go. All right, I'll do it. I didn't get that. Mr. Chairman, is
there a second on that? Mr. Kenya, you got to you got to articulate that. Yeah, thank you. Sorry for that. I was reluctant, but yes, that's it. Second. Uh, okay. Mr. Wiseman, yes. Mr. Kenya, Mr. Horn, yes. Mr. Sha,
yes. Mr. Sherman, yes. Do we need M No. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Here seven. Yeah. Okay. Miss and Mr. Beer. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.
Thank you. Please call the next application. Yep. I just have to say that. Okay. Block 401, lot 538, Hearthstone Terrace. Application number 2025-35-V. Adam and Jen Brener.
Uh application seeks approval to construct a retaining wall in the ground and inground pool in violation of the following section 170-96A88F swimming pool rar setback 20 ft required
17.8 ft proposed 2.2 2 ft variance requested 170-96A88F swimming pool sideyard setback 20 ft required 14.4 ft proposed that's existing 5.6 6 ft variance requested
170-72 C5C retaining wall 5 ft required 1 ft proposed that is existing 4T variance requested okay you're up uh chairman I remain
Richard Skolnick uh this is a a pool a case of a a pool and some pool decking and a wall that were improperly installed a few feet from where they were shown on the plans. We were here on June 11th and that night
we presented the testimony of Mr. Roth, our engineer and planner, and the board expressed some serious concerns. Uh we asked to adjourn to take a hard look uh at the issues. We've done so. Just to recap, there's essentially
three variances. There's what I'm going to call a spa jacuzzi. And that spa jacuzzi has seven square feet. Seven in cir seven square feet total. A small triangular area that is
located within the required 20 foot rear yard setback. It backs up against the school and there's about a 2.2 foot deviation. So, one of the variances is is seven square feet for the spa jacuzzi
that exists. Second, there's 78 square feet of the existing pool that's located in the required sideyard setback. And and Mr. Roth is going to go through this. And our sense from the hearing was
that the pool and spa encroachments into those 20 foot rear yard setbacks was not the board's greatest concern. Uh that I don't want to say they were comfortable with it, but the most of the discussion that we had was about a wall. It's a
short three- foot high wall that is in the required five foot sideyard setback adjacent to the neighboring property at 10 hard shorn hard stone, excuse me.
Uh the board uh had concerns about whether this wall would impact the neighbor and whether uh it could be moved uh physically uh to comply. and we went back and we we took a look at that issue and and um it is possible to to
physically uh move that wall. It's a very very significant undertaking but physically it could be uh it could be moved to uh comply with the five feet. Uh but uh we just want to sort of get into that issue a little bit deeper and
tell you why we don't think that it makes sense. We also, I believe, have the next door neighbor here to uh provide uh her commentary and her concerns if any and would like to present that information to the board.
So, uh with that, uh Mr. Roth uh you understand you're still under oath. Mr. Roth, you swear a firm held truth for the zoning board tonight. So, hope you god. Yes, I do. Mr. Roth, Satan, spell your name for the record. Sure. Michael Roth, last name spelled R O T from Roth Engineering. Okay. Mr. Roth, you were qualified last
time as an engineer, correct? And planner. And planner. And uh both of your certifications in those fields are up to date. Yes, they're in good standing. Okay. Okay. Chairman, if I may, chairman, to try to walk them through as expeditiously as we can. So, Mike, I I said there were three
variances. The first one is for a portion of the spa in the rear yard next to the board of education uh uh school property there. That's Can you just point that out on on the screen? Sure. Yeah. The the the two uh
non-conforming conditions uh we have the seven square feet which is this triangular area for the spa set back and then this area here which is 73 73 square ft um in blue for the pool non-compliance uh set back.
I'm sorry I had 78 but just 73 square feet. Correct. Okay. And then the third one was for the wall. Uh can you show us where that is on the drawing? And then we're going to go to the photographs in the aerial. So the the wall setback line is shown by
the red dash line. So the nonconforming condition is is what's uh hatched in red. So that um area that's almost forms a triangle. It's it's about um 40 linear feet in total. It runs 29 ft in the
northern direction and then about 10 ft in in the east uh direction. So uh in in total it's it's approximately 80 square ft of wall and patio that does not comply. Okay. With that setback the wall and some of the patio were were built within
the required 5 foot setback area and that's that's a violation also. Correct. Okay. Can you can we go to the aerial to just hone in a little bit more than we had when we were uh here back in June?
Sure. So, the plan that is before you is a aerial map. The subject property is outlined in red. Uh the property uh that we're going to uh discuss in terms of its impact is 10 Hearthstone Terrace. That's the property on the left side um which is to the west of the
subject property. And as you could see from the aerial, there's an existing established landscape buffer that's along that common property line. Um, and to coincide that with the site photograph, I'm going to now flip to another exhibit. Um, so, uh, this is a
shot looking northwest along that same Skick. Was this part of what was submitted or do we need to mark this? Uh, this was submitted already. We have one new exhibit. Correct. Okay. When we get to that, we'll get to So, okay. So we could see the pool here.
Where is the wall? The mic just to Can you use your cursor? Yeah. The the the wall in the patio that Okay. So that's there. Yep. Okay. So and that's three feet tall approximately. Yes. Okay. Um and then we have that tree line
right next door. So we obviously would propose more trees to uh mitigate any impact. Uh and we could add some trees. Correct. Right. Yes, we could. We think this is, you know, a a very fertile and verdant
buffer already. Uh and and a suitable buffer. Correct. Correct. There. Okay. And and we have the row iron fence that's on the neighbor's property actually. That is correct. Okay. And Mike, can you just talk about the grade change a little bit here?
Sure. Um as Mr. Scaldic noted, there's uh the wall that supports the pool patio is approximately three feet. As you go further towards the property line, uh there's actually a a stone wall that's on the neighbor's property that's probably a couple feet. Um and then you have this evergreen uh buffer screen
that um measures probably about 15 ft. So in total, you have almost a 20 foot um barrier between any view from the adjacent property to the to the subject property. Okay, we have another view of this. Yes. I'm going to flip to um so this is
now we're looking uh towards that common property line. We're look looking uh uh west um and as you could see I'll zoom in a little bit more. You could see the the wall that's on the subject property uh the other wall and then this vast
landscape buffer. So um in my opinion this is a no no impact variance. You know there's no visual impact from from the neighboring property onto the subject property. Okay. And Mike, for tonight, we sort of added some markings
to to to bring this out a little bit more. Can you show that? And this will be a new exhibit, which is going to be A3. A3. What do we want to call this? Photo uh with property line and setback line. Correct.
So, photo with property line and setback line A3. And what were we trying to do here? So this is the same photograph that we showed earlier. It's the view looking northwest along that common property line. What we did is illustrate the
approximate property line in red. And then that 5-ft setback is shown in green. Um and and we have a dimension in terms of what the um the length of the wall that does not comply with the setback. It's a approximately 29 ft
along this long way here. and then going in the side direction about 10 feet um going going towards the pool. Okay. So, I'll call it the offending portion of the three-foot wall is this stretch of 29.1 ft and 9.8 ft.
That's the wall that we need the variance for. It was the constructed in the wrong spot uh and uh it it violates and that's the relief we're looking for. Correct. and the five if the if we wanted to comply, we could take that
wall down and put it at the f the green line which is the five foot setback line. Correct. That would that would sort of make this wall uh complying. Correct. Okay. Now I I think the question from a planning standpoint,
do you see any uh any benefit uh in terms of either structural integrity or benefit to the neighbor under this set of circumstances by you know taking the wall down and and moving it to the five foot to the green line?
Is it going to make a difference to anything? Yeah, I I would say it it it would make no difference. um you know it's it's a it's a no impact variance you know whether it's like this or in conformance there's no difference to the neighboring property owner we describe that that you
know vast landscape buffer the grade differential uh based on those factors I I would say there's no um additional benefit to the neighbor to make to have a wall that conforms to that setback. So, you know, it could be done physically. Obviously, you could get the masons out there and and take it and and
build that wall to green line, but from a planning standpoint, you're not seeing how that would benefit the neighbor. Can we can we show the neighbor's house? We have a slide that has the neighbors, you know, what's back there for the neighbor? This view here? Uh, no. The one that has the the fence
sort of showing the side of the neighbor's property. I think it's photo one. Yeah. So this is this is the side of the neighbor's house. Okay. And then you see where the tall trees start. So really you got, you
know, the air conditioning units over there and the neighbor's driveway, would you say? Correct. Yeah. And and again, nothing on from the neighbor's view to the subject property owner's pool and patio, you you
can't see it. Okay. Um, chairman, the the board expressed, you know, legitimate concerns about uh what happened here and and asked us to to take a look at moving the wall. Um, we
went back. It physically can be done. It's a very significant expense and uh I think that uh I would have advised the client to come in if there was some planning benefit, some benefit to the neighbor to to move that wall. Um we're
not seeing it. Uh there is an unusually robust uh buffer here with a lot of tree. We would say plant more trees uh to mitigate, but that's not going to do anything. There's a grade change there. It's nicely landscaped. Those trees are
above another wall. So you're talking about 20 feet, and it's next to the side of the house that has the air conditioning units and uh and the driveway. So, um, that's sort of where we ended up and we
wanted to, uh, come back to you to get your thoughts. We, we want to find a solution that seems reasonable again under imperfect circumstance because obviously pulling out the pool and the spa is is a
extra extraordinary problem. So, I want to try to see where the board's at and see what sort of makes sense and what the board can feel comfortable with under these circumstances. We do have the neighbor. I have not ever spoken with her, but I understand uh and I'm
making a profer that uh she's not going to have great difficulty because that, you know, it's sort of self-evident. Is she able to get here? Okay. Um, if you'd be willing to open I could call her as a witness.
Um, let's let's I guess talk a little bit now. Uh, where we are. Um, I mean I guess I I'll start on this one and I'll let everybody chime in. Um, I do appreciate the testimony and everything else. Um, I still have this
I'm still stuck on the pool's over 5.9 ft. The patio is 64% larger than what was approved. And now the walls in the wrong spot. There was also the kitchen which got approved, put in over the uh
rightway for the storm sewer. I I just I'm having trouble getting my head around stuff, but I like to hear positive and negatively negatively from uh my fellow board members. Chairman, can I can I try to take the the uh kitchen off? I know I know the kitchen. Yeah. Yeah, that was agreed to. But
there's no that's not a zoning issue. That's an issue of the property rights or the right of we haven't really resolved. Yeah. No, I understand. And a permit was issued. I I don't want to cut you off. No permit was we had a plan and that was someplace else. I'm just it's just all kind of the picture to me. I guess I appreciate that.
Um but does someone else anybody would like to chime in negatively, positively? I I just have just two quick things just for clarification. the the the part that you have on here of the wall where you're saying that it's going to
be that was on the property line that'll be eliminated and that's still on the table. Correct. That you're going to remove that. Sure. And if nothing else was done, that's what you're Yeah. And actually, this is a good uh depiction of that. So it's it it the only encroachment is is is a is one foot
and it's at the corner that far back corner where the retaining wall meets at a 90 degree angle and there's just a sliver um that's only one foot where the red line ends that's going to be removed. So there there'll be no encroachment onto the neighboring property. Okay. Which then brings me to the next
point. So the fence that's there in that picture is whose fence? It's on the neighbor's property. Okay. Uh, and there's an agreement to use it and, you know, there's certain rules about swimming pools and maintenance and all that. Okay. I just want to just because that's another, you know, I know they're the
owner today and they might not be the owner tomorrow and the owner tomorrow might turn around and say, "Hey, my property line's really here because I'm going through it with a different neighbor on, you know, that I see be not my property, but with somebody else with the neighbor and now they're moving their fence, realizing that they now
have another four feet or three feet they can move the fence over and make their backyard bigger." So, you know, which then that would impact the one foot you're talking about, which would because then the fence would have to be 6 in off of that line. So, there's, you know, there's there's that. Is there any
fence here besides what's on the property itself owned by the homeowner? Like there's the chain link. I see this fence goes into a chain link in the back. Is that the board of ed's fence or I I I believe that's the homeowner's fence
which is on the board of ed's property. I mean he has a pool so it's got to have a fence around. That's why I'm just trying to figure out because you're talking about in the rear. Can we tell Mike? Uh it's it's it's part part of it is off the subject property is correct. It's part of it's off the subject.
Mr. Chairman, I I think I can clarify that it is not on the boards. It's on the um property owner's property, the fence. Jackie, could you I just read in the paper, I believe there was some arrangement between this property and the board of education. Maybe uh advise
the board on that. So that with respect to that fence, the well okay so the the property owner any any pool has to have fence around it. That's really boiling down to real basics. And I think
Mr. Skolnick would agree with me that should the neighbor or the board of ed or whoever else other than the property owner remove any portion of that fence, his client, the property owner would be obligated to that point to put up a
fence. Otherwise, that would be a uh violation of the health and safety regulations of uh of Livingston. Uh but I think perhaps where Mr. Sherman was going and and um you know even Mr.
Weissman um Skone like would your client agree as a condition of approval should at some later point that uh land the landscaping no longer be there in the section that your client has landscaping that there
will be a maintained landscaping buffer regardless if it's on her side or your side. Yes. their side and your side will be pronoun neutral. We have we do have an agreement with the board of ad on the fence. Okay. I
think so Mr. Westman s paper recently agreed there's I know the township has some regulations about that where if you could have a shared fence as long as you have an agreement but if you have to have a pool you have to take the maintenance rights right and I think Mr. part of your
application uh your client's application for tonight uh relies upon the landscaping that's on the neighbors property. So my point and I think Mr. Sherman's
point is that at some later point uh if that landscaping goes the benefit of the landscaping is now gone even though the property owner didn't was receiving the benefit of in essence somebody else's landscaping. So as it that's what I'm
saying I think you would agree I think you agreed with me. I think I heard that uh that um that there would be a landscaping buffer maintained regardless if it's this or if it's as some at later point the property owner would be required to
put the landscaping on her side or his side or whoever's side. That's an agreeable condition and seems to be reasonable under this circumstance. Chairman, could we hear from the neighbor? Sure.
I'm going to call her as a witness. Yeah. No, no. Just go just go right up to the mic. Ma'am, do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? Yes. Okay, that was very quick. And you can state, please state and spell your name for the record. Nancy Wal Nan C Y W L K.
Okay, I'm going to make a wild guess as to your address, but why don't you give us your address? 10 Northstone Terrace. Okay, Mr. Skolnick. Okay. You understand what's happening here and the and the relief. Can you give the board your thoughts? Okay. Um, I appreciate your concern
about the impact on our home and our property. Um, to be honest with you, I didn't even know what wall was up for debate. I think what they've done to the yard is beautiful. Um, the house sat
unfinished for a very long time. So, we're grateful that they've put in a beautiful pool and a beautiful yard. Um, I love how my trees look in the picture. Very pleased. Um, so we don't have an issue with it. It's been very amicable.
We um we don't have any concerns. The Breners have been great neighbors. everything that they've done, they've run by us and um we don't have any concerns. I guess one do do you think you'll get any benefit if the the wall is moved to
its, you know, to the green line? Is that going to impact you in any way from where it is now to the green area? Absolutely not. I mean, I appreciate everyone, you know, wanting to honor the setbacks and everything else, but we
don't see their yard. Um, we have huge arborites that we put in when we did our pool almost 20 years ago. I can't see their yard. They can't see ours. Um, I literally asked them, "Can you point out what wall we're discussing tonight?"
Because it's pretty irrelevant to us. Thank you. I have another question. So in in terms of comparing um the proposed the initially proposed impervious coverage versus the currently built impervious coverage, there's a
significant increase in that the patio uh which was supposed to be concrete now pavers substantially large. There's a big uh slate patio with a fire pit in the backyard. Um I'm just concerned. Have you ran the calculations on
impervious coverage? Yes. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Just Well, we we had to come up with a this has gone through engineering and of course the municipality doesn't regulate impervious. The municipality doesn't we we comply.
It's not regulated. We did have to expand the detention pits and and all that work's been done. Right. Correct. Yeah. We have we propose another drywall to mitigate for the additional impervious coverage. So we don't have you know we don't violate anything in that regard.
Okay. And is there a reason that the retaining wall is short um not taller? Is it just for visual concerns? Um it was designed with that height just to meet the um um existing grade and and match the grade uh approaching the
neighbor's property by Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. And just going back to the the kitchen, the placement of the kitchen, was this the plan that was submitted and approved by the building department? the the building department did approve
the electrical aspects of the kitchen. So there was an approval for this kitchen work. It is on top of the right of way. It's not a zoning violation. So it's not in front of this board. We
don't violate anything. We do have drafts of an agreement with the township attorney working out this issue. basically saying if the town ever needs to get to the storm sewer pipe, we'll
rip out the kitchen. It's on us to rip it out and we can make that a condition of approval. So, it's not you're not you can't make it a condition approval because not before the board. We have I'm representing to the board that we you know there were
there were some problems here and we're trying to make things right and that and and there was concern in the engineers review letter about the kitchen location. I don't want to litigate that here because there was a lot of confusion about that because we got building permits for that aspect and then the and
then the building department said well uh you know we're we're you know whatever they said we're either there's nothing to revoke. We got building Kitchen Kitchen's up before the board. Kitchen's up before the board. Well, I Mr. Wel, your board members
raising it and it doesn't look good for um at 9:30 I'm ruling the kitchen is not part of this. So, let's move on. But I I I what I'm asking for is not to have a negative inference about that we did something wrong that get right to the point. The kitchen is
not part of this. It's not part of the discussion. It's not part of the determination. Okay. So long as, you know, I think the board members understand that we're we're we're fixing that issue and I think we have a reasonable accommodation that the township committee will
ultimately accept. Okay. Any other comments from the board? Any other comments from the public? Okay.
That's it. That's that uh you know that concludes. Um I would appreciate if the board you know has some major concerns because we we have this issue about the the pool and if the board you know either needs more information is not
comfortable with what we're uh presenting. It's uh no Dvarian so it's just a majority but that it let us know because we want to try to find a way that uh makes sense for everybody here. But that's up to the board. Anybody any comments or
I'll I'll chime in my concerns and could be persuaded by the my fellow council members uh otherwise board members otherwise. I'm concern and it looks beautiful and it looks great. I I feel like we're being asked to rectify a problem we didn't cause. Um, and I'd
really like it. On the one hand, it looks great and I it's great that I always like when the neighbors come out to support it because that does influence here. here. I'm I'm just concerned legally because I I look at it that it's irrelevant whether it's I'm
just looking at plans and we I have to I think unless my council corrects me uh that I have to look at it would I approve these plans based upon uh C2 um because I'm not sure I heard like the hardship I I don't know if I would
approve this under hardship and I I have a problem saying that that if these plans came and it wasn't built that I would say, "Oh, sure. This is a substantial this benefit this substantially benefits and outweighs the
detriment uh of of of violating the zoning law." So, that's that's the that's the difficulty that I'm that I'm having here is what if it wasn't built and I look at this and I that's maybe I'm using the wrong standard and my council can advise me, but that's my
difficulty. I probably would give this like if it came before the spa seems like it's a little bit dimminimous shouldn't count but in this case because it's up the combination of dimminimous and it's up against the school. Uh probably I would but that's I'm just
telling because you asked for what the concerns would be. It's the legal framework the legal rationale would be. Can I address that chairman? Maybe council wants to Yeah. No, no, that's that that's fine. I
mean, it's it's these these are difficult issues because obviously as uh um Mr. Weissman has brought up, this is something that's already been built. So th this is sort
of baked into the consideration. the I believe this is being presented as um not as a hardship because it there the hardship is not this has not been a I'll have Mr.
Skolnick to speak on this but I think it's more along lines of C to it a a flexible planning alternative and that's what Mr. Roth I think testified to last time. He was kind of testifying to again as to today. Uh obviously you've heard the testimony from the neighbor who has
indicated that you know the impact to her that the impact to her was uh I'm putting words in mouth minimal to almost non-existent. I'm not sure even sure she knew what was not that casting aspersions, but not that she didn't she
didn't know what was going on, but that it didn't was unnoticeable to her. So um you know when when you have some degree and I'm not sure which board member said this but some degree it's almost better when something is built so that you
actually have the real life experience from that person of the neighbor in this set of circumstances to be able to say oh well there is no impact to me. So when you go to that negative impact that Mr. Roth speaks about you have a person who's saying I am the person who would
be negatively affected and I am saying there is none um so uh and don't once when Mr. Roth spoke about the um the the the points with regard to the positive criteria for the C2 C2 variants. So, you
have the option to to grant that. Um, and you know, obviously council indicated about the efforts they went through with regard to looking at this again um and making that determination, but yeah, you have the ability to approve this under uh what I would term
a C2 variance. I'm going to ask that you look at it like this that the C2 is a a weighing and a balancing and uh when the negatives are so small that you don't need a lot of benefit
you don't need that and we heard from the neighbor I think you you see it yourself and you heard from the there is no there's this is what you might call a no detriment or virtually no detriment case so the detriments are very low.
Under that circumstance, we don't need that much benefit and we have the benefit of sort of an appropriate pool, a beautiful backyard, beautifying um the area, an an appropriate place in a nice neighborhood
uh for a family that has a pool. So, we have some benefit. It's not we're not changing the world sort of, you know, this is not an inherently beneficial use by any means, but we have some benefit, but we have very very low detriment. And
it's up to you to sort of weigh that. I also think you may have to test a little bit wrong. It's not that we have to substantially outweigh. It's can the variance be granted without substantial detriment. That's the way I understand it.
It's I don't have my cox book tonight, but I think the qu it's I always bring it. I didn't bring it tonight, but I think at least one of the tests can can you grant without substantial detriment? So, there's always some detriment
when you don't meet the requirements of the ordinance. But here we're talking about a three-foot wall for a length of 29 ft by 10 ft.
And I thought that this exhibit is really very good because we could legally build the the same three-foot wall along that green line. And what's that going to do for anybody at this point?
I I I know that the board does not like getting these cases because I had 24 Bryant and uh and I had the case that you just heard uh that was a different set of circumstances and perhaps different culpabilities
and and now you have this one. I know that it's a very difficult position for the board to be in to get presented uh with uh after the fact requests. I get I get that. My client gets that. I think that if there was anything we could possibly do that would make any
sense to increase the benefits, but it's really only more landscape. We We can add some trees towards the front. We don't have a problem, but there's Look at this barrier that you have here. It's a grade change with a wall with mature
15oot trees and the neighbors backyard. So I just don't that's you know what I'm offering on the C2 when that when that detriment is very very low you don't need much benefit to sort of outweigh that's
that's the request those are the facts we're presenting I I don't disagree with anything you said I guess I'm still a little hung up because the original plan at six feet off the pool and even forget moving the pool now we got 11 feet off the pool
which is why the wall had to be So, it's like like how do we get here and how do we get ourselves out of it? And that's where I'm personally hung up on. Um there's a lot there's bunch a bunch of moving parts and if it was just like ah
it got built a foot over by mistake and everything you know like oh all right you know things do yeah I'm having trouble wrapping my hand my hands around I you know I I still a few people have not commented I think we need to give Mr. Skolick a little bit
better idea of where everyone else stands. So if people want to chime in. Sure, I'll chime in. I mean, would I have approved this if there was coming to us pre-construction? No. Right. I would have said meet the rules,
right? I appreciate the fact of it's done and obviously I don't know every little detail that happened. um it doesn't appear to have a massive negative impact to the neighborhood or to uh the environment that I can tell.
Um, I would be adamant on the condition as stated before that should those trees which are not yours on the neighbor's property come down and have the exact same thing on one side of my house that you would be required to put that up because again while you two get along
great today. We don't know who's going to own this house in the next 3 5 10 20 years. Um, as long as you're okay with that condition, I can get my head moving forward. Uh I think we it looks like you are making a motion to approve with those conditions. I think we should move on.
There's more comments. There might be more comments. I would I would say this for the end zone, man. I I you know, look, we're let me let me just roll back here a second. the board's role and and it's always wonderful for the board to to give its
um uh insight, but obviously the board's quasi judicial and you don't get advisory opinions from the court. You don't get advisory opinions from the zoning board. So when a zone when an application is presented uh absent
comments in favor or against a uh application, the board should really vote. I am fine to make a motion to approve based on the condition as stated before regarding um should those trees no longer exist that you would be required or the the homeowner at that
time to put up appropriate barriers. That would be my motion to approve. Does anybody second? I'll second it. Okay. Mr. Horn, Mr. Canyon, Mr. Sha. Yes,
Mr. Sherman. No. Okay, Mr. Wiseman. No. Okay, Miss Soho. No, Mr. Beer. No.
Okay, we got three yes and four nos. Motion doesn't pass. Motion doesn't pass. Okay, thank you for your time. Please you need the internet. Okay. Block 7 7105 lot 115 Demonshshire
Road. Application number 2025-58-B. Robin F. Lewis and Robert Sepov applicant seeks approval for an addition in violation of the following section 170-96 C2 frontier setback 75 fee require
required 68.16 proposed uh 6.83 AP variance requested. Well, yeah, I hope so. [Applause] I'm losing it, Jackie. Okay. Hi there.
Good evening. Good evening. Almost morning. What's that? It's almost morning. Yes. Yes. I think uh this one hopefully will be the shortest one of the evening. My name is Michael Le Perry. I am a partner with Mandalon Barrett. I am
counsel to the applicants Robert Saboff and Robin Lewis. They are the owners of 15 Devonshshire Drive. The house is located in the R1 residential zone district. We are here before you this evening seeking a C variance to allow the homeowners to construct a very
modest uh addition of approximately 168 square ft to use um the addition as an expanded laundry room, powder room and expansion to the pantry. The uh variance is for a front
yard setback where 75 ft is required. Currently 68.67 67 ft is existing and 68.2 feet is proposed in the area of the addition. Uh so the variance is for about 6.8 ft. Currently about 6.3 ft
exists along that front yard setback. Um the house itself has been existing since 1966. It's conforming in all other respects. Just to get an idea of how modest of an expansion this is, uh the R1 zone permits a floor area ratio of 15%.
Uh and if approved, this applicant would be at 7.32% which is less than half of what is permitted. Um the permitted impervious coverage in the zone is 30%, the applicant would be at 17.32. I bring that up only to just get an idea of what
we're looking to do. It's a really a very small expansion. sort of squares off the house. So part of the reason for the deviation is that the house is not exactly parallel with the street and the lot line uh along Devonshshire. So the setback line in order to keep the house
to sort of make the house um you know continue the straight line we have to do a slight encroachment on that side of the um of the line where the where the expansion would be. Um again it's very modest. Uh we'll walk
you through it. What we hope to do is ask for uh the relief rather than uh beg for forgiveness after the fact. Hopefully you guys will appreciate that. Um we have a couple witnesses with us tonight. The we have the homeowners uh on behalf of the homeowners, Miss Robin Lewis,
who's just going to give a brief uh statement and then we have our project architect, Corey Fernandez. So unless there's any questions, I'll just Okay. Uh who are we going to have first? Miss Lewis. Yes. All right. Miss Lewis, do you swear to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? So all you got
I do. Okay. Uh, Miss, uh, you are the, uh, homeowner Robin Lewis, correct? All right. Go ahead, council. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Miss Robin, if you could just please just give an overview about who you are, what you're trying to do at the at the house. Absolutely. Um, my husband Bob and I have lived in town for over 30 years. We
lived in in Broadnawn. Um, and as we got older, we decided that it would be a good idea to lose steps from our life. And so, we started looking for a ranch, which, as I'm sure you know, are not easy to find these days. So, it took us over a year. We found a wonderful house on a wonderful piece of
property and we were thrilled because we want to be able to stay in town, age in place, stay in our home and and continue to be in town. Um, the house is wonderful. Um, but there are two things that that sort of make it a little bit difficult for us. The laundry room, as
Mike said, um, it's not really a laundry room. The the washer and dryer are basically in the entrance way from the side from the garage that walk into the house. So, the machines are there, but there's really no room to do anything or to to even hang anything. Um, and then
the other area was that there is no half bath or powder room. Um, and so we wanted to include that in this small addition so that guests would not have to go into the sleeping area, you know, to use the bathrooms of visitors or guests who are there. Um, so it's a
small addition, but it would just help to make our uh, you know, our our home even even more better than it is for our next 30 years. At least we hope. That's That's all I have, Miss Lewis. If you guys have any questions, we're happy to answer them.
Does anyone have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? We're good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Then uh at this time I'll call my my next witness which is Corey Fernandez. Fernandez, do you swear front and tell truth for the zoning board tonight?
I do. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? My name is Corey Fernandez. That's C O R Y F E R N D E Z. Okay. Can we have your qualifications briefly? I'm licensed architect in New Jersey.
Been licensed since 2016. got my education here uh in Newark, NJIT, and I own practice total architecture. Uh presented before other um townships, neighboring communities in New Jersey. Does anyone on the board have any
questions or objections regarding the witness? There being no objection, the witness accepted as expert in architecture. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, if you could just briefly walk us through the plan. Um, and if uh while you're doing that, if you could just maybe just quickly identify some of the uh issues with the
lot line, the the location, the corner lot, etc. Sure. So, uh, the house is on the corner of Devonshshire and Hopson. It's a corner lot, uh, which typically means you have two front setbacks. In this case, there's a side front setback,
which is a little less restrictive than the front setback, but uh, facing Devonshshire, the setback would be 75 ft. uh the existing house is non-conforming. So whereas 75 is required, 68.67 is existing. Our proposal is 68.2.
Uh so uh we're looking for what's essentially 6 in more of an encroachment than exists today on the Devonshshire road. Uh the Hopson side road. Uh no u variance is required. It's within the setback.
Okay. Site plan page down. Let's do it. I swear I use a computer all the time at work. I think it's just architects. We were doing so good. Change the page. We were doing so well.
Uh how do I change the page here? I can do it this way, too. Oh, here we go. Let me just open up your set of plans. He's dressed wrong. That's why he's dressed with a tie and a jacket. Okay. Uh All right. So, here we're
looking at the existing plan. I got this figured out now. Um we're talking This is the existing laundry room uh that um the applicant has discussed. So, very small, not enough room. So, we're looking to expand this corner of the house. Uh so, I'll get into the new
plans. That is the basement plan. So, this addition will be over a crawl space. The extents of the addition are 14 by 12. It's 168 square feet total. This is the proposed addition with the larger
laundry and a half bath. Um, we have some space left over, so we're going to use that as pantry space for the kitchen. And just to back up what the applicant said before, the only other bath that a guest would use is on this side of the house, which is the sleeping quarters of the house, whereas more the
entertainment public side of the house uh is towards the Hopson side of the property. And just real quick before you change um that plan just to for the board's uh understanding the addition protrudes even less than what's existing
there from an orthogonal perspective. Yes. Right. But the the issue is is that the house is set it's not set parallel to the property line. Right. So that's why there's an existing an additional six feet that's being requested. Six inches.
Correct. Uh this is the roof plan. So everything not hatched in there is existing. And then that's the roof of the proposed addition. Uh the top view is a 3D view. So this portion right here is the addition. Um
generally I feel it's keeping with the the character of the existent home. Um, we're matching the materials, uh, the shutters, um, size and shape of the of the of the addition and and the, um, slope of the
roof. So, it ties into the house nicely. And so, it be fair to say that the only change is that the addition goes out an additional six inches. six in what's existing. 6 in closer to the lot line, but as far as looking at it from an aerial, it'll
be it'll stick out less than what's existing right on the other side of the house. Okay. And and Mr. Fernandez, do you see uh once this is built, if it's approved, um would it be something that would be you'd be even be able to tell after the
fact that this was an addition was put on or would it look like it was part of the original plan? It'll look like it's part of the original. there's no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. It's um in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, size and bulk and character of the neighboring homes and
uh the size and character of the existing home as well. So that concludes my testimony. If anyone has any questions, I'll just ask one quick question. You the uh floor area is 7.32% that's based on the 41,000 square feet plus or minus.
So this was if you even calculated if it was a regular size lot for this area, you'd still be way under the hal floor area, right? Not like I got like 8.6%. So it's not even close, right? That's all I got for clarification. Anybody else? Anybody in the public have any
questions? Anybody in the public have any comments? Would you like to make a closing statement? Um I think you know in in my questions it's pretty obvious this is a very modest modest addition. Um, there's really going to be no impact to the neighborhood, no detriments that anybody
could foresee. It's just really going to allow extra utility for the homeowners as they stated. We think this is probably one of the easier ones hopefully, fingers crossed. Um, but I I think this would be a good approval, um, a good addition to the neighborhood and we would just ask that you approve.
Would anybody like to make a mo I'll make a statement? Would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion. I'll second. It's too slow. Mr. Kenny, Mr. Horn, approve. Yes. Mr. Sha, yes. Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. Wiseman,
yes. M. So, yes. Mr. Beer, yes. Motion carries. Regulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Gaining speed. Gaining speed. Gaining speed. Okay.
Good luck. Uh, Cambridge is out. No, Cambridge is out. Next one. Cliff Cliff site block 301
lot 266 cliff cliff site application number 2025-6-V Iconic LLC applicant seek approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 17097
C2 frontier setback 60 ft required 51 ft proposed 9 ft variance requested 17087 7 CC2 habitable floor area ratio 18% allowed 19.5% proposed 1.5% variance
requested. Okay, good to go. You're up. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh Adam Lazarus of Prime to Bell andelli on behalf of the applicant Iconic LLC. Uh since it's almost 10 o'clock, I'll skip my 30-minute intro
and just get straight to it. Uh as you've already mentioned, the address is 6 Cliffside Drive, block 301, lot 26. We are in the R2 zone. This is an application to build a new single family residence on the property. We do have two variances as mentioned. The front yard setback where 60 ft is required. We
are proposing 51. And for the habitable F, we have allowed 18% and proposing 19.5. We have two witnesses. We have the project architect Aean Sedra and our planner Nick Raviano. And with the board's permission, we'll let the architect begin his testimony.
Okay. Miss Cedra, do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. Mry, you're qualified as an architect before this board on many occasions. Yes. Yes. And your uh license to practice in architecture is uh is still valid. Correct. Okay. Chairman,
does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in architecture. Great. Uh so, Mr. Cedra, if you can, let's just jump straight into the proposed floor plans to get this moving. So, this is a single family house. um as
it's known in living, we designed it um kind of like in a similar way uh where we have the living spaces at the first floor um and we have the the sleeping area at the second floor. Um
the basement uh it's just open space where for recreational and also we have a threecar garage at the basement level as as well accessible from the site. Um the total floor area ratio
um is uh uh 4,863. Um the habitable floor area is 19.5. So we're asking for 1.5%.
Uh we put the building at 51 ft um as our uh front yard and that will keep it with the neighboring properties. We did a study for the neighboring properties where we got the average uh front being 50 ft.5.
Um also I would like to mention that the existing structure u was located at 50.3 ft. Um, I would like also to mention that we have an open space at the second floor which is counted twice. This is the
front foyer where we have the stairs. It's counted twice but only used at the first floor. And uh we also as part of the floor area ratio we included the excess of the 450
uh for the garage space which is uh 362 square ft. It was counted toward the floor area ratio. So just to you know kind of go back here a little bit quickly the front yard setback which you mentioned the existing house is at 50.3 feet. You did a study
of the prevailing front yard setback on the streetscape came to 50.5 feet which is why we're proposing the 51 instead of 60. So our house is not out of line with the existing houses on the streets. Is that correct? Yep. And as far as the habitable floor area ratio, you mentioned that we're at 4863 total square feet which is under the
permitted maximum of 4870. So we do meet the compliance for the exist for the square footage maximum. As far as the ratio, you said we're over by 1.5%. Correct. And you mentioned that we do have a basement garage which is a threecar garage which has 362 excess
square feet over the permitted 450 and that 362 makes up the difference of the one and a half% we are seeking tonight. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. Um the the the design of the outside is a colonial style home with
stuckco facade and stones. We have some some stone at the base and the entrance of the house and also it has some modern accent. Um where um you know we have uh casement windows and also um we'll use
the owner likes to use white stucco and um maybe the roof will be a black asphalt shingle roof. Um this is the rest of the exterior here. Yes. So, Aman, just I know it's late, we're going to move things quickly. Just the last question really like to hammer
this home. If in that basement space, instead of providing a threecar garage, we did an additional basement bedroom or wreck room, would we comply with the F requirements? Correct. Yes. If we take this uh extra uh 362 square ft and we used it toward
either storage space or any other space in the basement, wreck room, whatever. Um eventually, yeah, we don't really need that variance, but we felt it was better to provide more. Exactly. Got it. Okay, I'll turn it back to the board then.
Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Uh yes, I do. um the the second the the twotory foyer that you are saying you know it's it's counted twice I mean that's the zoning regulation of living still so I think it should be
counted I don't think that should be ex it is counted right it should not be presented right yes but it should be but it's only used from the first floor because there's no floor above yes and and and that's what Livingston does in terms of the garage um you know again Livingston does
require garage to be attached to the homes or um off street on the property premises uh parking be provided. So I think that is also performance want to make that known. Sure. Anybody else have any questions or
comments please? Yes. Um I don't know if this is the question for you or not but what are the hardship that you are facing on this property and I see that you have a deep lot. Why can't we have the house set back to the setback line? We have a
the planner have Mr. First of all, you're gonna have Mr. Graviano testify. You're beating Mr. Graviano to the punch. He's he's gearing up ready to tell you all of his important information. But also, uh, remember on the front yard, I believe what you had
indicated is that, you know, as it is common in Livingston, there's the average of the homes in uh the area. And I think also Mr. Graviano is going to speak to that uh that on the um averaging of the front yard.
Correct. Nobody else on the board. Any questions? No. Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay, I think we're good. He's better off there. Trust me. Do you do you swear to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? So help you God. I do. All right. Uh, please state and spell
your name for the record. Uh, Nicholas with an H. Graviano. G R A V is in Victor. I A N O. I am a planner and partner with Graviano and Gillis Architects and Planners. And Mr. Graviano's been qualified as a planner before this board on multiple occasions. Mr. Graviano, your license
has not changed since last week. It's still valid. Still valid? Yes. Okay. I don't know if you had any other changes to it. All right. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accepted as an expert in
professional planning. Thank you, board. Always a pleasure being here. I'm going to keep this brief. It's a pretty simple application. Uh the applicants before the board tonight requesting relief for a specific piece of property known as block 301, lot 26. That's a street
address of 6 Cliffside Drive. Uh this is a 25,000 square foot lot. As Mr. shot indicated it it does have some depth to it. However, the depth in that yard when you get into that backyard is a slope. So, the front yard setback variance
relief actually has two purposes. One, it meets the intent of the front yard setback averaging as permitted in the ordinance. I would like to note that the property to the left and the property to the right are set back at 50.7 feet. uh
the applicants coming in here at 51 feet requesting that 9- foot variance. But the second prong of of requesting that variance relief relates to the fact that there is a pretty considerable slope in the backyard. Having the house at that 51 ft setback does allow for the uh home
to have uh a little bit of yard space before you hit that slope. And you'll see that in the plans that were provided before the board this evening. Um, so in ina in in the sense of that variance, the front yard setback variance, I would
say that relief could be granted under both the C1 and C2 criteria. Whereas relating to the C1 criteria, there is uh an exceptional topographical situation affecting the specific piece of
property. um strict application of the uh zoning ordinance would create a situation where the applicant's backyard was a slope. That also creates problems in terms of drainage with the slope draining straight to the house. So this is a rational design for for the
dwelling. Uh additionally, variance relief can be granted under the C2 criteria where hardship need not be demonstrated. What must be demonstrated that it relates to a specific piece of property? Uh here you have a property with a slope condition and certainly uh
giving that 9- foot front yard setback variance which is the neighborhood norm would certainly promote purpose eye uh promotion of a desirable visual environment, creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. Looking at the other variance that the applicant's requesting
before the board this evening that is a D4 F variance. As the board knows with respect to the F variance, the applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate uh the proposed use uh withstanding the request for the increased F variance. U one of the
positives of this application is that the applicant is increasing the aggregate sideyard setback from 54.6 to 60.5 uh feet. Uh the applicant is below the habitable floor area square footage requirement. Additionally, this zone
permits uh 20.73 uh% building coverage, whereas the applicant is coming in at 11.3%. And then lastly, uh this zone allows a sideyard setback of 15 ft. The applicant has sideyard setbacks of 25.6 and 29 ft.
So, it's certainly a situation where the site can accommodate uh the proposed use without any substantial impairment to the zone plan zoning ordinance or the public good. Additionally, I had a chance to visit the neighborhood on two separate occasions as well as look at
the uh tax records and the square footages of this house is certainly in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood. And just to add on to what you were saying. So as far as the let's work backwards the F variance. We meet all the bulk standards for the
zone. Our house is within the acceptable setbacks height building coverage requirements and the additional F is going to be in the basement underground. Therefore the site can accommodate the additional F ratio without imposing on the streetscape of the neighborhood
scheme. Is that correct? That is correct. I would just like to know we are requesting a front yard variance relief although we are meeting the uh averaging uh requirements of the ordinance. Then going to the front yard setback you just mentioned. Would you agree it's a better planning alternative to meet the prevailing front yard setback stay out
of that rear yard slope than it would be to meet the 60oot requirement. So well I I think it's certainly appropriate in certain conditions to have deviating front yard setbacks. But I think the main concern here is the topography and slope in the rear yard and giving the uh giving the home a
usable rear yard space. Does anyone in the board have any questions for us? Please. Yeah. Um so Livingston allows the front porch only six feet of the front porch and steps to encroach into the uh front
yard setback. Um, the way this is drawn proportionally, it looks like it's more than six feet. So, I would like you to um reconsider the 51 ft and maybe uh look into the 6T um porch
variance that that Livingston allows. How many feet do we encroach into? I'm just looking at it. So, I have exactly six feet. Four foot and then two steps. We're not allowed six feet, right? We can make a decision of approval that
will meet the six foot requirement. Okay. Okay. Any I just ask I would assume you testify that the also in the back you have these large evergreen trees that have been there many many years that I think if you pushed it back it would require
perhaps cutting down some of those trees that we wouldn't want. Is is that correct? Uh the applicant's proposing the house to minimize disturbance on the slope. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? Um
although I guess it's Mr. Cedra. Um the attic is not usable. Correct. Correct. It's uh the attic is it's only have uh pull down stairs and and there is no windows in the attic level anyway. Okay. So, condition approval. That's not
a problem then. Thanks. Okay. Anyone in the uh public have any questions for this witness? Please come up. I'm here for one second. Hey, he he got to do his job. You do you swear for tell truth for the
zoning board tonight. I hope you got it. I firm. Okay. And uh sir, can you please uh state and spell your name? Uh name is Stuart Levich. S T U A R T. Last name L E V I T C H.
And address 60 Brian Drive. I'm here for a different application, but it it may apply to this one. Um, I was just curious. Um, what's the depth
of your basement from ground level if I can answer? You mean the height from the No, I'm talking about for the excavation to put the basement in. Oh, we're going down.
Well, let me let me just say um you don't have to answer that. Um the reason I'm up is uh like Ed, I'm a New Jersey PE here in the state and I have a concern by watching all the construction
going on with these houses that the basement are going in beyond 8 ft and there's no supports. And from what I understand, there's nothing on the plans that references the OSHA regulation for
putting in for excavations. So, let me let me let me let me say this. So, anything with regard to uh OSHA, um you know, building sub code, any of
those pieces, those would all be deal dealt with by the engineering department. and then code enforcement. So, this board doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction over that issue. Okay. Uh other than I'm not saying it's not a
valid issue, obviously. uh it is a valid issue but it's really a valid issue uh at the time at which the applicant provides their as built and more finalized plans for submission to the um
engineering department. So, uh, I think the applicant should take that information to heart, uh, in terms of finalizing their plans, make sure that they're compliant. There is an exception to the regulation and well, yeah, and and I think at the end
of the day that those uh those very valid issues are not jurisdictionally before this board. Okay. because I brought it up because I I read the soil removal permit right article and there's no mention in it to
as far as you know complying with council said supportive excavation stuff like that is not our pur so okay yeah but you can go to the engineering department anytime and I'll have to speak to Janette then yeah okay thank you the applicant submits the construction drawings to the
building department okay Okay, thank you. Any Does anybody else have any questions or comments for this witness? Okay. Okay. Back to you. Uh yeah, just to sum up very quickly, uh you've heard our planning testimony,
architectural testimony. I believe we met the burden of proof both for the G4 F variance as well as the C variance for the setback. The benefits outweigh the detriments as regard to the uh you know the relief being sought. We hope that the board agrees and will grant approval. Does anyone in the board want to make a
statement? I'll just say one one one thing. Um I just wanted to say that um even if you took out the front yard setback out of the equation, the you know that the house then you're just talking about a the footprint would fit
that you would be allowed to build on the site. Um you're then just down to a one you know 1.5% uh floor area ratio in reality. Um the other thing as you pointed out um is that a the garage yes gets counted but
in theory that third car garage could have been just basement space since it's on the basement level and uh wouldn't be counted. That's about 220 some odd square feet and now you're down to about a 6% above the you know for the ratio. So, um, you know, with that being said,
um, I would make a motion to approve subject to the condition for the attic won't be habitable living space. Seconded. Way to go, guys. Mr. Sherman, yes. Mr. Horn,
yes. Okay. Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, yes. All right, Mr. Wiseman. Yes. Okay. Misso, yes. Okay, Mr. Beer. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Block 2800, lot 66.01,423
South Livingston Avenue. Application number 2025-53-V, George Reinhardt. Applicant seeks approval to construction new single family house in violation of the following section 170-9
C4 rar setback 35 ft required 22.28 28 ft proposed with that existing 12 12.72 ft variance requested. Wait, wait, hold on a second.
Hold on. Hold on one sec. You made fun of me when I stood up. I'm just trying to circle the wagons. They're coming up further on us. I'm sorry, Mad. I know you're all amped up, ready to go. You know it. He actually finished already.
Okay. All right. Sorry, Chairman. No, of course, Mr. Pada. My name is All right. uh in connection with this application for a rear yard setback. For once, we are not requesting a ratio or floor area, but just rather a simple
rear yard setback. Reason being is because of the subdivision we had gotten prior. Uh you'll hear from our experts here today that the site itself is pretty tight. But nevertheless, we believe that we're making a vast improvement to what was actually existing there before we took on this project. For tonight, I will
unfortunately or fortunately have three witnesses. I will have an architect, an engineer, and a planner for this robust improvement. If I may, I like to call my first witness, Mr. Peter Serpo, my architect. Okay. Do you swear a friend tell truth for the zoning board tonight, Sophie God?
Yes, I do. Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Peter Serpico Per I Okay. And Mr. Serpico, uh, I think you've been qualified here as an architect. Yes, I have several times. knew I
recognized you. Okay. And your and your license to practice as an architect say New Jersey is up to date. Yes. Check my email. Checked your email. I'm getting good at this. As an architect, he has a permit to wear tie. Yes. Yes. Architects wear ties. Well, eventually we'll get Mr. Graviano to
wear a tie. Good luck. That would that would be very unusual. Yeah. Go ahead. You want a sweaty mess, you know. Can you just remind us of where your education was? uh NGIT graduated in 1986 uh been
practicing for over 28 years uh in the state of New Jersey licensed. Excellent. License of good standing. Yes. Does anyone in the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? There being no objection, the witness accept accepted as an expert in architecture.
Peter, why don't you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight? Sure. Thanks. Uh, okay. This is uh there are actually two houses on this property. This is this the second house. Uh, the other one
has been approved. Um, and I pretty much designed this uh it is a modest home sizewise. I went with uh the diligent work of Casey and Keller uh in terms of the F and uh I I worked off the setbacks
that were uh required for this variance that we're uh trying to achieve this evening. Uh so we start at the um at the uh main floor. The we've been talking about F all night, so let's do it again.
uh each floor basement we're not counting uh first floor uh 958 square ft second floor 958 ft all within the it's the exact maximum number that we're allowed for this property um basically
um entering this home we have a uh North Livingston Avenue is it South Livingston or North South Livingston Avenue uh front entrance side entrance uh garage that's on
Plymouth and the the owner will have a nice little mudroom entrance from the garage and also his main entry from South Livingston Avenue. Um walk walking through the house or let's start at the porch. We have a wraparound porch which
uh does not exceed the limits. Uh we are uh 5'2 on the front both front yards front 5'2 on this front yard. It's a little tight. We have a fireplace that extends out of the great room, but I kept a minimum 3'4 passage uh to to
clear that. Um coming into the house, we have a nice switchback stair uh open to above office, powder room, open floor plan, great room, dining room, and a kitchen. uh pantry for storage and the mud room
that you would access from the garage. Going down to the basement. Um by the way, this is a pre-cast uh northeast pre-cast. We'll be doing this work uh here. 10-in walls, pre-cast walls. We will fur this all out for any of the
space that is living. We have a family room that's a living space, a bath, storage, and a bedroom. mechanical room will most likely not get any furring on the on the walls. The house dimension is 40 foot 11 by 235. Again, a modest size
that I really worked with. I I work with the numbers that were given to me from the site plan that Casey and Keller developed over the last year. Uh second floor, nice three-bedroom home. Real simple. Uh bedroom one would be
considered the master bedroom. walk-in closet, master bath. Uh, bedroom two. Small bedrooms, but 9 10t each by 10, 11 by 11. Uh, washer dryer on this level.
Uh, nice master bath. Uh, in the ensuite, garage roof. Let's go to the uh some of the elevations. Again, real simple. South Livingston Avenue, wraparound porch. Uh you see the
fireplace chimney. The owner does request a a wood burning fireplace. Uh Mr. Reinhardt uh siding. We didn't ex we didn't decide yet, but George Reinhardt has built a few homes in town. Kind of lights going with some decent tardy
plank. We haven't decided on color or or any of that sort at this point yet. Um the right side elevation. This would be the the rear yard kitchen window. This is a dining room window. This whole This is the the staircase. There's still some
talk about adding windows in the staircase. Gets a little tough with the the difference in landing. So, it most likely will not be uh added to this to this design. Uh left side elevation. This is Plymouth, which I think is a nice nice simple elevation with the
wraparound porch. Um twocar garage. little narrow but uh sort of a one and a half 15 foot wide uh by 15 deep. Uh this is the well that was that's the left side rear elevation. This is the side view of the this view of the garage.
Little peek at the uh at the fireplace chimney. And here is the uh the gable roof of the the main house. The attic is not habitable space. There is a pull down and there is a slight cathedral
did a small cathedral design in the second floor bedroom. This this portion here will have a uh a vated ceiling that will take on the roof the roof slope uh from the attic. So this one portion of the attic will not be usable at all for
storage. And the stair is not on this plan but it's it's right at the front entrance here. walk pull up stair. Um, I think that's about it. Again, conformed with all the uh Livingston
zoning R4. Uh, again, worked off of really designed this house from Casey and Keller's uh, work on setting this up for this variance. Just to clarify for the record, you'd originally said that this is the second improvement on this lot. You're getting
confused from the subdivision, correct? This is the only single family home in the lot. Okay. So, you can Thank you. Thank you. I shouldn't have said any of that. No, no, no, no. You're rolling, man. Yep. Thank you. You got it. Does anyone have any questions for this
witness? I can I ask a question? Okay. Please. I just wanted to uh clarify myself. You said that there are two houses on this lot. Matt subdivision. Yeah. Sub it was a subdivision. Okay. And then second questions I have that uh
the setback that you are proposing 12 ft into the uh towards the Livingston Avenue. It's out of proportion with the neighboring house. So do you have any If I may, I'm going to have two other witnesses and they're both going to put testimony in the record regarding that
setback variance relief. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Does anybody in the public have any questions for this? I have another question. Sorry about um the wraparound porch. How high is that off the ground? Uh off the ground.
I'll give you an estimate. I probably don't have a dimension on it, but uh two feet. This is two feet. Yeah. Seven. That was nine. 10 11 ft. Sorry. Like off the Would you say it's approximately two
feet? Two feet off the finish. Finish grade. Off the finish the grade. Yes. Upgrade. Yeah. And uh a 7 foot height to the other side of the beam and then another uh I was just concerned about the the floor where people would be walking because 2
feet is significant height. Are you concerned about them falling? I didn't see any Most likely. I I actually looked at that today. We most likely will have railings on that. Um, the reason why the owner originally wanted to grade this a little higher and have it with a one step drop
where you wouldn't need railings, but I think as it changed, these drawings were already submitted. Uh, but yes, good point. Anything more than two steps would require a 36-in high railing. So, for the record, I think we can say we will have railings on this on this
porch. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else on board? Okay. Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? One dial and two to go. Terrific. I'd like to call my next witness, Mr. Mike Lonzo, as my civil engineer and surveyor.
Thanks, my drawings. Here we go. Oops. Okay. Do you swear? Oh, you got ready. This is a he's a hardcore professional. Do you swear for tell Truth for the zoning board tonight?
I do. My name is Michael Lonzo. That's L an Z A F A M A. I'm a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated, 258 Main Street,
Milbour, New Jersey. I've testified before this board on numerous occasions. Does anyone in this board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accept as expert in civil engineering and survey. Correct.
Yep. Yes. our our office was engaged to prepare the original subdivision plat that went before the planning board in which this lot was a portion of that subdivision. The lot that was created is uh 6389
square ft. It's located in the R4 zone on the southeast corner of South Livingston Avenue and Plymouth Drive. Um the proposal is to construct a new single family two-story home uh on the
uh on the property. Um there will be a onecar garage on the southeasterly side of the structure which projects into the required rear yard uh for the property. Um the building itself will meet all of
the setback requirements with regard to the front yard setback. A side street setback variance was granted as part of the subdivision approval. Um, and we will be maintaining that uh variance setback of 15 ft as it was approved. The
porch does extend into that area, but that is permissible uh under the ordinance. Uh the combined sideyard requirement uh is met. It's uh well over the 30% that's required. It's actually over 53%. Um, the variance we're seeking is the
35- ft rear yard setback that's required. That's the lot line that is opposite South Livingston Avenue. Um, just one uh chairman Sha or planning board member Shaw, zoning board member Shaw mentioned that it's a front yard
variance that we're seeking. It is not. We are fully compliant with regard to the front yard setback requirement uh under the zoning. The building height is compliant as Mr. Pada pointed out. Uh building coverage and habitable floor
area uh and habitable floor area ratio are all compliant. Um the garage, the proposed onecar garage that is located on that southeast side of the building uh extends uh 12.72 ft into the required
setback. And I like to keep in mind the fact that if that garage were a detached garage, it would be located only five feet from that rear setback and be compliant. And that main house itself
would be compliant with regard to front, side, and rear setback. So, by doing this, in our opinion, we believe that we're uh providing you with a C2 alternative to strict compliance with the ordinance. By attaching the garage,
we're actually providing more light air and open space to the adjoining properties. And keep in mind that the adjoining lot is actually a sideyard, which in this zone, the only requirement is 10 feet. So we believe that we have
um a good design here. Yes, we need a variance, but I think it's an appropriate one and I think that the uh metrics of the site with regard to other setbacks and coverage and height are all compliant. So Mr. Lanza, you believe that we can
satisfy both the positive and negative criteria? I believe you can. And you're also a licensed planner as well. I am a licensed planner as well. Yes. Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you. Uh does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness?
Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Two down, one to go. Okay. All right. In the interest of time, um that's my last witness for tonight. Uh I would ask the board to consider voting in the affirmative for this project. And as mentioned by the board commissioner,
uh I believe given the height for the front two steps requires a railing. So, if this board were to find in the affirmative, we would agree to that as a condition of approval to install the railing. Okay. Does anyone in the public want to make any statements?
Do you have any other closing statement? Are you good? Nope. Okay. I'll just say I appreciate the way you positioned it with the garage where it was. I think uh testimony was good on that. um providing um
to provide the relief required. Does anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion with the the condition. I'll second it. Okay. Mr. Kenya, Mr. Sherman, yes. Mr. Horn, yes. Mr. Shaw, yes. Mr. Wiseman,
yes. M So, yes. Mr. Beer, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. The next one, uh, block 102, lot 21, 62
Bryant Drive, application number 2025-61-V, 14 Waterfall Drive, LLC. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section. 170-99
C2 front yard setback 40 ft required 30 ft proposed 10 ft variance requested 170-87 CCC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 33.4% proposed 3.4% Four person variance
requested. Good evening again. Matthew Bava law firm SS Commerson and Gross. I represent the applicant 14 Waterfall Drive LLC. As previously mentioned, that is correct. We are demolishing to propose a new single family home on the subject light uh subject site. What you'll see is that
for the site itself, as you go back, it becomes more pinched in. And because of that irregularity is what's triggering the actual variances here. But you'll see that the proposed improvement although exacerbates the existing front yard setback does eliminate the rear yard setback for the proposed
improvement. In addition, we are requesting the ratio, but we are satisfactory for the actual habitable floor area itself. With that being said, I'd like to introduce my first witness, Jose, our architect. Followed by Jose would be Nick Raviano, our planner.
Okay. Do you swear and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Absolutely. Jose Carbios, C A R B as in boy A L L O. Okay. And let's have uh Mr. Carbio's uh qualifications on briefly.
Absolutely. Graduated from NGIT in 1980, received my license in 1986. I've been in front of many, many boards in uh in New Jersey, and I've been in front of this board many, many times as well. So, u I hope you can accept me as a Does anyone in the board have any
questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert architecture. Great. Jose, did you have an opportunity to visit the subject site? Yes, I have. And were you the architect who prepared these plants? Yes. Why don't you walk us through what you're looking to do here? Absolutely. Um, f first thing I'd like
to do is just walk you through uh the site plan itself and the uh the site uh property is located at sex 62 Brian Drive. Uh it is a trapezoidal site as you can see from what I have on the uh the image the images I have on the screen. Um and because of the
trapezoidal u uh shape of the property the building envelope also became a trapezoidal shape which became uh you know somewhat challenging in in designing this building. Uh as you can see the existing building on the left hand side the the uh the site uh the site plan on the left that building
actually goes beyond uh that building envelope not just on the front but also in the rear. If you look at the um the site plan on the center uh of the sheet, uh you're going to see that um we try to work with uh the setbacks as we had
them. Uh as as well as, you know, try to minimize the the variances. Uh we actually have two variances. Uh one is the front yard setback. We eliminated that existing rear yard setback. Uh that doesn't exist anymore. So it's just the front yard setback as well as the uh
habitable floor area ratio which instead of the three is 334. Uh the building itself is 3154 square ft. Uh taking into account that 42 of those square feet are actually in the garage because we exceeded it by 42
feet beyond the 450. Uh so you can see that it is not a large uh not a large building. Uh let's see. All right. Okay. I know it's here somewhere. Close that out.
Okay. Great. Okay. So, here are the plans. Thank you, by the way. Um, here are the plans. And that's that's a rendering of the building. As you can see, it's a two-story building. Uh, twocar garage. It has a front porch. Uh, no no different than uh most of the properties
that that you've seen tonight. Uh, basically, you have your first floor is your more public areas, your living room, dining room, kitchen, uh, the garage. On the second floor, you have all of the uh, you know, four bedrooms. Um, I'm I'm trying to go a little faster here so I can get you out before
midnight. Uh, so uh the the basement is is wide open basement. It just has the other one uh the one uh office on that side. Uh as far as the elevations, again, you can see that it's a two-story building. Uh all of the sighting is uh well, most of the sighting is a James
Hardy uh board. Uh this portion here is a uh composite uh material that it's it's wood. It looks like wood. So just to break out the building a little bit. Uh height of the building is a little less than 31 square feet. Uh the attic
uh inside is about 6 and 1/2 ft. And and that's at the highest point where the peak is you know as as it goes down obviously it becomes less than that height. So it is not a usable or habitable um attic. Uh it's accessed through a pull down stair which
obviously it's it's just for storage. Uh, aside from that, uh, you know, that it's your typical building. It complies with all of the other, um, you know, bulks and and requirements of the, uh, the regulations. So, um,
again, I think I don't have any more testimony and have any questions that you might want to ask. I have no further questions for this witness. Anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? Sir, can you explain your um rationale about placing the house at 30 feet
rather than 35 ft? So, so again, it was uh as I explained before, I think we're trying to eliminate the rear setback uh to have one less variance. So, uh and because of the shape, the trapezoidal shape of the building envelope, uh that the house just became to a point where we had to
push it forward another five feet. Uh the current house is uh 35 ft. This is at 30 feet. Uh so it it is basically the same uh various the same condition as it was before and and I think Mr. Grianiano is going to get more a little deeper into the
reasons for all those variances right but essentially by uh maybe potentially reducing the width of the house we can comply it is possible to comply with bulk variances. What if if you look at the plan of the house
the house itself is not that large. Uh and if if if we needed to cut a foot 2 feet or or you know um a distance of of that you know that nature uh it would harm the house that it would actually help uh you know the the condition of
the uh uh the variances. So uh I I don't think that a foot or two would help uh in this situation and you know that the house is just it's as small as it can get. I don't I'm not sure that we can squeeze you know too many square you know more square feet out of this. Thank you. You're welcome.
Is any Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Did anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Um, actually, I'm just looking just one question on the setback in the rear. You
say it's 38.9, but it looks like there's a point that's a lot closer. Not to bring up a change in numbers, but um if you look at the right back left corner, that looks like it's right on the rear yard setback. So,
right, it's it's about a foot inside the rear setback line. So, how do we have 38.9 the minimum should be less I think not that it changes it doesn't variance. It doesn't correct, right? Yeah. So, it should be 36 ft.
We'll reflect that. But, but it doesn't create a variance. No, no, no. I just want to make sure records are correct. Sure. Oh. Um, you have a question. Yeah, please. Come up to the mic. Once again, Steuart Levage. I affirm. Um,
address again, Mr. Lev. 60 Bryant Drive. Thank you, sir. On the Jason Neighbor. Um, I had questions. I wish the uh applicants engineer was here, but if I can add something to the record for him, you can statement.
Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Um, as I said, my property is located adjacent to the east and down gradient from the applicant's property. Uh, rain, as it stands now, rain and melted snow run off from his rear yard,
travels from west to east and onto my property and either to the back of my house or down between the houses to Brian Drive. Um any additional runoff from the new larger building footprint would exacerbate this existing condition.
Um I also wanted to point out that there's a storm sewer inlet located on Brian Drive in the middle of the property which should be protected during construction. Um let's see. and question for the board
or for the attorney uh the board attorney. Um if I have uh questions about uh dust control or storm water management or soil removal that should go to the township itself. Right. So anything with regard in terms
of um the um process of construction that would be code right enforcement or engineering. Uh once again, I think as I said in the prior one, there will be these plans are meant for the board. They're not meant as the final plans that are actually submitted
for engineering purposes. Uh but I think that to the extent that you're a neighbor and you wish for the construction to be handled in a way that minimizes the impact on your property is more than reasonable, right? and a and a uh especially when it
comes to the uh soil erosion and sediment control. Well, they they will they will have to um um ensure when it it gets presented to the engineering department, they'll have to pres uh provide us um more
detailed soil erosion plan and uh you know in terms of um maintaining maintaining the property as well as the storm water uh yeah, we're going to be increasing the impervious coverage. So, we're going to have to submit a lot surface drainage permit uh to the engineering department
and whatever the recommendation is of the civil engineer for this municipality, we would have to comply. Okay. Now, the question was would I'd be able to get a hold of those plans once they're submitted. Th those those would be uh any anything
that's submitted to the township as a public record and you would then be able to view them through the engine you go to engineering or code department. They'll they'll Would I be notified that they're there? No. No. No. But you since you're an neighbor, you
more than likely will see something going on and then you can probably Yeah. Okay. Go over and ask them. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I I should just mention that I I was a zoning board engineer for three municipalities,
but this is the first meeting where you get preliminary plans and I'm used to getting the complete set once everything's been submitted and looking at. That's why my I raise these questions to you. Very valid question.
Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Like to call my last witness, my planner, Mr. Nick Graviano. I have no objections to to any of the variances. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Now you can go home. You just approve. I'm finally able to do no good. I didn't pay him. I swear. What a plan. Uh Mr. Graviano, do you swear for Intel Truth for this board tonight? I do. Okay. Mr. Graviano's uh qualifications
are extensive and uh continue to be valid. Correct. As a planner, thank you. Going to keep this brief. You've heard the merits of this application. The applicant is requesting uh front yard setback relief. Uh we've
looked at that in detail as well as habitable floor area ratio relief. Uh requesting 3.4% with this application. Uh, as indicated in the architectural testimony, the 3,154 ft proposed for this dwelling is under
the required 3,220 required for the district. Uh, the applicant's proposal is uh roughly 5% under building coverage. So, this is certainly a house that is appropriate uh for the site on which it is proposed. Uh looking at that
front yard setback variance, I I do believe that due to the uh exceptional shape of this specific piece of property, a strict application of the zoning ordinance would create undue hardship on the uh applicant. Um as you
could see on the plan up there, uh the the corner of the the left corner of the applicant's dwelling pretty much lines up with the neighboring property to the left. This is a street which has curvature to it as I noticed earlier today. Um, additionally I would like to
note that the applicant is eliminating that deficient rear yard setback which presently exists at 27.6 ft whereas uh you just heard that 36 ft is proposed. So you have roughly 8.4t four feet being
added to the backyard while that five feet's being subtracted in the front yard. Given the fact that the applicant has a twocar garage and a twocar driveway, I think that front yard setback variance could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning under ordinance both
under the C1 and C2 criteria and with the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG and I of the municipal land use law. Uh looking at the F variance, the site can certainly accommodate the increased F. Uh the applicants meeting all the side and rear setbacks which
really impact the neighboring property owners and there's no substantial uh impairment to the zone plan zoning ordinance or public good with the granting of the F variance. I have no further questions. Um just a quick question. And so you in your opinion then it's it's better to
have the house a little bit further to the street than back towards the rear yard. Certainly. I think given the context of this neighborhood. It's not a substantial uh deviation from the neighboring property owners. The curvature of the street actually makes
the corner of the house line up with the corner of the house to the left. And additionally, given the extreme shape of that property, pushing the house forward gives it a legitimate backyard. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? Um, yes, I I do. Um, the porch is uh is
allowed to encroach 6 ft into the front yard. Uh, looks like the porch and the steps in uh encroach more than that. So, I believe we'll be looking for a radius which is more than 30 ft. The applicant will comply with with the co zoning code requirement
with the sixoot encroachment with the no more than six feet. Okay. Um, so would you be redoing the steps the elevation like what the the reason you have the portion of steps is because you are elevated
from the ground that you can come from the grade level onto the first floor. So what is it that you are planning to modify? My architecture architectural question across the the bar here. So um yeah, we'll comply with that. I think we're
we're uh a foot foot and a half over. we'll pull it back in. Uh the landing is actually five feet. We'll pull it back to four feet and if we have to push that center of the house back to accommodate that, we'll do that. But yeah, we we're not asking for any relief on that.
Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? And what about the the Do you know the setback of the house to the right? They're both at 35 left and right. Okay. Now,
anybody else on the board? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? We Okay. Does anybody in the Anybody in the public want to make a statement? Anybody in the board want to make a statement? Anybody in the board want to
make a motion? I do. I'll second to approve you. Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. Horn. Yes. Mr. Sha, yes. Mr. Wiseman, yes. Mr.
No. What' you say? No. No. Do we need a reason for that? Yes. The reason the reason is Yeah. One second. Let me let me just make this uh statement. I should have done this before. Anytime when a board member is going to
vote no, please make sure you state on the record the reasons for voting no. Uh if you're voting yes, that's that's perfectly fine. But if you're voting no, we uh we do need um your statement on the record. So just an advisement. Thank
you for reminding me. Uh I just feel that the homes to the left and the right are 35 ft. The existing was at 35 ft. By making it 30 feet um the variance that is requested
can be we can overcome and not request a 35 foot variance that that the applicant is requesting Mr. Beer. Yes. Okay. Motion carries the way it is. Thank you. Y
take care. Okay. This the next. Okay. Block 409 lot 16 33 Mount Haven Drive. Applica application number
2025-66-V Roadak Home Incorporate. Applicant seeks approval to to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 170-9 C2 front yard setback 40 required 52.0 0
ft proposed 12.0 for variance requested 170-87B4 habitable floor area 3220 ft allowed 3998
ft proposed 778 ft variance requested. Okay, before we continue, I just want to uh clear up a jurisdictional issue. It's it's not a jurisdictional issue. What's Let what's Miss Pada was looking at me getting excited for a second. Um, just
just to clear up. So, uh, Miss Pazada put out a notice for this application and the notice included the variance requested. Uh, but I believe that the issue was that the number was not the
same as the number in the plan. Is that correct, Mr. Pada? Yes, that's absolutely correct. So what we had done was we had noticed for a total of 2.04 for variance relief whereby the zone denial was for 12.04. Reason reason why we did 2.04 instead of
12.04 is specifically because when you read the front yard setback definition at the end it says nor need setback more than 50 ft. So because of that and this is 52.04. We did the simple math. It just said 2.04 but nevertheless it's still
noticing for the 52.04. In addition, the public notice itself has the omnivous clause aka the catchall that in the event that the board has a different interpretation, it still gets assumed. And I would agree with Mr. Pada that a
typographical error like this is not uh doesn't uh remove the jurisdiction of the board to hear the application. The front yard setback variance was included in the notice. The numbers uh of 40 and 52.04 were included. just the variance
piece which could either be viewed uh as you know attorneys don't do math very well so perhaps we can put that on Mr. Pada that it's a 12 and not a two but that's that's why he didn't become a CPA uh stole my line so exactly uh so um I
just want to place that on the record uh obviously if there were any interested parties in that application would be here and we would explain that to them but the board uh has jurisdiction And on that note, there is a variance then on the zoning
table. Yes, there is. Okay. Yes. So, so we'll go through that relief. Just want to make sure that's clear. Yes. Okay. Yes. So, so I represent Roach Homes Incorporated in connection with this application uh
that we have here before the board. Uh the benefit of being able to spend the entire evening with the board gave us the opportunity to review our architectural plans a little bit more and really think to ourselves, is the proposed habitable floor area really consistent with the master plan and
zoning ordinance or maybe should we make some tweaks? Considering the fact though that the parcel itself is nearby the R3 and the R4, we thought to ourselves, why don't we come down a little bit? So, in a nutshell, our proposal is going to be modified just a bit where approximately 300 square feet will be removed. So,
instead of it being 3,998, help me out here, uh, board attorney, I believe it's 3,698 roundabout that we'll be proposing here. But don't take my words, take the words of our architect, Mr. uh, Aean Sedra. So, just to be clear, Mr. Pado, what
we're going what the board's going to be seeing tonight is revised from what is part of what's been submitted. Yes, that's absolutely accurate. So, what we're going to do here tonight is we're going to walk the board through our proposed plans and the exact modification that we're looking to do to
reduce the habitable floor area. And we would just ask those four that as a condition of approval, those modifications have to be satisfactory upon submission for resolution compliance. Okay. And that would so if there's a reduction in habital floor area.
We'll have to tell you on the record what that is going to be so that we have the requested relief here tonight. Right. Right. But wait one second. Let's go back one second. So uh so there so the drawings which have been
submitted had shown 3,998 square ft. Correct. There are new drawings which are being presented tonight which is No, but he said talk us through the changes that they're proposing. Is that
okay, Jackie? Mr. Chairman, yeah, I would request that the uh architect submit the um revised architectural plans before the preparation of the resolution. We can absolutely adhere to that if the board would find favorable. So, we know
what we're revising. Okay. So, we don't need to see the plans before we rule on what they're saying. Just as long as we see them before resolution. That's what I was concerned with. I think you were too, right? I could be wrong. There you go. No, no, that's where Okay,
we're off to date. Go ahead. It's getting late, guys. All right. So, Mr. Sedra, I'm sorry. Do do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. Okay. M. Sedra's qualifications been placed on the record as an architect. Uh, chairman Does this board accept them? Uh
yeah, we can accept you as as an expert in architecture. Thank you. Uh Mr. Sedra, why don't you walk us through the modifications we're looking to do and approximately what square footage we'll now be proposing so we understand the relief being requested here tonight? Sure. Um originally this house was uh
3,998. Um that's the habitable floor area and um the variance we're asking for we're asking for a 778 square ft variance. We are proposing to reduce that by 300
square ft. So our final number for the variance will be 478 and that will happen um by reducing or cutting um I believe about 2 feet off the back wall. So I'm
going to shrink that uh 2 feet and also I will cancel the breakfast area and the office above. That will give me the 300 square ft that I'm uh reducing here. Um this is a a
brand new house. Um uh we have all the living spaces at the first floor, the second floor for sleeping and we have a recreational area uh at the basement level. Um
by doing this reduction we only applying for um uh 478 square ft uh habitable floor area ratio. M I'm sorry. Habitable floor area not the
ratio. We're not applying we're not applying for ratio. And just for clarification again Mr. Sedra what we're looking to do here if you could just point to the map I mean to the board behind you so everybody can see what we're looking to do. We're looking to eliminate that breakfast nook and then also bring in the rear building
envelope by two feet. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Why don't you walk us through the proposed plans with those modifications? Um, so uh so that's what's going to happen in the first floor. The second floor we
will cancel the office uh the master bedroom and the bedroom number two will get reduced by 2 ft. But when I say get reduced by two feet, there is also a chance that we I will adjust the spacing the intermediate spaces. Um so the twoft
cut is not coming from the master bedroom completely. Maybe 1 foot from the master and one foot from from the closet closet/master bathroom. Um bedroom number two is very big. So we can cut maybe 2 ft again or
adjust the bedroom now one and two to get this reduction. Um the style of the house it's a colonial style home with some modern accent. We will use dark roofs and um
we will use uh uh Hardy uh Hardy boards uh and board and batton. James Hardy board and batton. We'll use some uh some uh standing seam metal roofs uh at the bay windows. Um also we're using uh a
stone at the base of the building and that's pretty much it. Just for clarification, the attic itself is pull down, correct? It's not walk up. Yeah. Okay. And then again, as far as it goes for the reductions that we're going to
be doing here to reduce it by 300 square feet approximately, we're looking on the first floor uh to bring in that back uh envelope line by 2 ft recess of 2 ft, which would include the removal of the breakfast nook area. And on the second floor, we'll be modifying both the
bedrooms and also the office space as well. Office will get cancelled. Yes. Okay. And this is for uh And you think that the proposed improvement is consistent with the zoning plan? Yes, correct. and also master plan considering the fact that the lot is about 7,000 square ft oversized. Correct.
Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. Also, I would like to mentioned that the attic uh height is 7'3 from the from the attic floor to the ridge beam who is boring the collar tie at 4'8. Does anyone on the board have any
questions for this witness? So, go ahead. If you're reducing, maybe I'm losing it, but if you're reducing the square footage, you're also What's the Is there a new ratio?
No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm looking This is why This is why you shouldn't make you shouldn't make decisions at the bar at 11 or at the zoning board day at 11. I'm moving on. Sorry. Looking at the next one. I'm getting excited. Was moving on to the next one.
No, go ahead, Miss Patada. I apologize. further questions. He's still shot. I apologize. Um, does so when you make the house a little smaller, does that mean the roof's going to be coming down a drop? The roof will come down a little bit. Yes. Okay. I think I think that'll help because I was I was concerned about the
mass of the house from the streetscape um compared to what's out there currently. Mostly much smaller houses and I was a little concerned this takes over the neighborhood. Um, but we can talk more about that, I guess. Does anybody else have any comments?
Yeah. Um, well, not sure if it's for Mr. Cedra or Nick, but um, when it So, the the I'm looking at the setback study. I see the other lots that you did, which are all about 36 to 35.55 to 37. You want to push this house back
to 50, whatever it is, 52 feet. I I I don't understand why, you know, setting this house back that much further than everything else out on the block. Um seems to be out of character by a lot. Um we can have Mr. Sedra just explain
the design itself, but as far as the relief and why the location, Mr. Graviano will testify to that. Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Yes. Okay, come on up. Sorry.
That's all right. Sitting there patiently. Sony 25 harvest lane. We'll swear. And again, do you swear for tell Truth for the zoning board tonight? Yeah, sure. Okay, no worries. All right. And and you you stated you stated and you were kind enough to spell your name the last time
and your address once again. Yeah, sure. Uh, Tarun Sony. T A R U N S O N I. Keep it simple. Okay. and uh address 25 Harvest Lane, Livingston, New Jersey. Good sir. So I'm living like uh pretty
close to this house and all and as Ed mentioned like giving the character of the house and everything given they they can cut like 22 like 39 to 3600 why not they cut 36 to 3200 I want to know what
is the hardship that is driving it was also mentioned that it's a new construction so what entails a new construction such hardship that it is warranting a 3600 3700 square ft² of space that Roach Homes is trying to
build here. I believe this question is more appropriate for the planner who will be my next witness and we'll absolutely address that. Okay, that'll be addressed by the planner. Yep. All right, I call my next witness. Oh, I won't question. Right. So, I fully
appreciate that while it is a zone 4 or R4, sorry, it is, you know, really an R3 from a lot perspective, right? Um, and I appreciate you bringing it down because I would have raised that. You're still above your 36.98 what
an R3 would be. And given you I get the lot is R3 lot in an R4 zone, you know, you're you're still 78. Um I can do math still. Um a square foot
above even a zone three. So I would still say is there a way to bring the house even down a little bit more? So while you're in R4, at least your lot's an R3 lot to kind of conform with R3. Mr. Sedra, is there any other tweaks
that we can make to reduce it while still keeping the character of your proposal? And I think it is I mean I get the point, but is I mean I think a couple of us feel it's a little hard to like you're taking this off, you're moving this wall, you might move it over here for us to kind of approve without seeing
what the new house is going to look like. I can maybe with like 50 square feet help I can maybe go to 350. That's that's without doing I'd like to jump I would jump in on the same thing. The um and I know Nick's
going to talk about the area but this is an R4. The house is an R4 but backs up directly to an R the backyard is an R3. So it's an R4 backed up to an R3. This is R3 basically sized lots within the R3
R4 zone. And yeah, I mean in reality they should be closer to the 3550 that an R3 would be just to be in character with the R3 zone that it backs up to and R4 this size lot within the R4 would make the most sense.
So Mr. I agree on that. I agree on that as well. I think we're looking more like another reduction of about 100 square feet, not 50. Um, yeah, I I suppose we can make that work.
Where though could we make it work? I I will have to cut some square footage from the depths of the building. So, I will have to to shrink it even more. So, what you're saying is that you can reduce it down to 3,598. Is that what you're saying you can get
to? Yeah. 3598. If it's acceptable to this board, we'd like to move forward and then also have our planner put the testimony on the record with the understanding that before resolution could be adopted, we would have to show you guys plans with a capital floor area of 3,598.
I think we are looking for 3520 because that's what's allowed in R3. 35 35 35 I'm looking at the zoning right now. 3520 3520. Sorry. Can I chime in because we're asking questions. So my statement would be I'm
not with the board on the 3520. I'm at the R4. I I've seen the block. I drive down it all the time. Looks like an R4 to me. You know, I I wouldn't that that's not my sentiment. And so I wanted to convey my sentiment is is that it's an R it's an R4, right?
It's 30 3220. I think that would be my sentiment looking at this block. Well, let's let's let's remember this. This is this is in the R4 zone. So the applicant, anything the applicant
proposes is in line with what the standard is for an R4. Correct? So even if the applicant were to make a change that would apply in another district, it doesn't change the fact
that the applicant still needs to obtain a variance. Um the applicant has the opportunity to argue that that alternative size and its applicability in another zone or similar
situated uh lot. They have the opportunity to um make the argument that that's um in their position appropriate. But once again, this is just so everybody on the board's clear, this is, you know,
regardless if it looks like an R3 or looks like an R1, it doesn't change the fact that it's still the standard is R4. Uh, and that's what uh this this applicant would have to have to meet. Um, just so we're all on the same page
with that. If I may request from the board, I think about a handful of the board have now provided their comments. like maybe we can get everybody else's comments and then have this matter carried to the next available hearing date with revised plans. Just a hunch. Yes,
seems probably a way to go. Uh would anybody else like to make a comment? The only other thing I just want to make sure if you're going to come back with plans, I mean I know if Nick's not speaking just to take into account because we didn't hear about the front yard setback. So that's obviously
another issue here that we didn't, you know, really discuss. self is diligently. I am I mean, oh my god. From the monsters,
you can lay right in there. Yeah. from the Adams family. Yeah. Well, he's trying to lay a house right in there. Should have got a job at visit. Okay. Um All right. So, with with that with Keep an eye on me. Uh okay. So, um with
that in mind, Mr. Sada, are you asking for a continuence of this matter for your client to take the commentary from the board and uh determine what amendments, if any, you want to make to
Mr. Cedra's plans and also eventually at the time for Mr. Graviano's assuming Mr. Graviano is going to come back and testify. Yes, that is accurate. request in an adjournment. So, we have an opportunity to reconvene and make the uh recommended revisions that we think would be appropriate pursuing to the board's
comments. And in the interim, we just ask that if this board would allow us to adjurnn it, that they also allow us to carry the notice. Yes, I think that's not a problem. Jackie, when would be the next available date? Anytime this year.
March of 2026. Great. She's looking. Give her a second. Uh, Mr. Chairman, that would be Tuesday, October 28th. Tuesday, October 28th. Thank you, Jackie.
So, you are adjourned until Tuesday, October 28th. No further notice is required. Thank you. Thank you. And last but not least, one more. Now, we're on the air. You got it.
Okay. Block 902, lot 3,24 Northridge Road. Application number 2025-67-V, Roadak Home Incorporate. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family housing violation of the following. Section 170-87
CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed, 35.42 person proposed, 5.42 person variance requested. Good evening again. My name is Matthew Vad. I hope I'm still employed by SS Kus and Gross and I still represent the
applicant Rodak Homes Incorporated. Uh what they're looking to do here tonight is demolish existing improvement and develop a new single family home. The home itself is on a lot that is currently under size. So because of that, we are triging the ratio variance. However, we are keeping with all other
bulk measurements. So the only variance we are seeking here tonight is just the ratio and the ratio itself. I'll have two witnesses. First, an architect, second a planner, and then we'll wrap it up. So, if I may call up my first witness, I like to call up our architect, Aean Cedra.
All right, Miss Cedra, once again, do you swear from Tell Truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. Okay. Miss Cedra is accepted as has been accepted as an architect uh about five minutes ago, and I'm sure that he's still qualified as an architect in the
state of New Jersey. Say great. All right, Mr. Sedra, why don't you walk us through what we're looking to do here tonight? Uh, sure. Yeah, we we're designing here a single family house. Um, we have all the living spaces at the first floor and
also we have a guest bedroom. The area of the first floor is 1,488. [Applause] The garage is 438. Um, the basement is just for recreational. We have playroom, media
room, and uh recreck room. Also, we have a bedroom. The area is 1,488. The second floor uh consists of four four bedrooms and uh uh we also have the
closets and bathrooms. We have a laundry room. The attic is accessible through pull down stairs from the second floor corridor. Uh the second floor area is 1,732
square feet. Um the floor area ratio is 35.42. We're asking for 5.42% uh variance. We meet the requirement for the habitable floor area as our square
footage is 3,220. Um we also have an open uh space open foyer counted twice but only used at the first floor. Uh and this area is 46 square ft.
Um the house design uh again it's a colonial style home with board and batten uh on the vertical walls and then we have uh horizontal um James Hardy boards. We have uh casement windows u
you know dark roofs and standing seam metal roofs above the above the entry and also above portion of the garage. Um the attic uh from the attic floor to the
under side of the ridge beam is 9 ft and we have the collar tie at 6 ft from the attic floor. That's all. Great. I have no further questions for this witness. Does anybody on the board any questions for this witness?
I don't think anyone in the public has any questions. All right. I'd like to call my last witness, Mr. Nick Graviano. Graviano, do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. Okay. Mr. Graviano's been qualified uh
about 10 minutes ago as a planner and uh his license is I guess still good. Thank you. All right, Dick, why don't you discuss the proposed relief requesting here tonight? Yes, the applicant is requesting a 5.42% F variance request. uh the application
meets all the other required yard setbacks. The applicants meeting a front yard, sideyards, aggregate sideyard as well as rear yard setbacks. Uh certainly uh when looking at the F variance, the applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use
withstanding the F variance relief being requested. Certainly, the applicants meeting all the required setbacks as well as all the required off- streetet parking. Uh this proposal certainly advances purposes of zoning a G and I of the municipal land use law. There's no
substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of this variance. The applicant is uh meeting the 3220 uh square feet uh habitable floor area requirement of the R4 district. Um so there's no substantial impairment to the
zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of the F variance. I have no further questions for this witness. Does anybody have any questions for this witness? Sorry, I did see a site survey. Um, do you have a site survey?
I'm sorry. A proposed survey. Yeah, there is a survey. It's part of the package. We got it. It's on site plan. I have it on. See?
[Applause] While she's looking, I'll ask one question. Um, Mr. Gabiano, you uh could you just testify to the the way the house fits in with the neighborhood, the massing of the front of the house?
Certainly. Had a chance to go to the the subject neighborhood as well as look at the tax records of the surrounding properties uh within block 902. Um lots 21, lots are over 3,000 square feet consistent with the applicant's proposal. I I would like to note that
tax records and zoning square footage calculations are different. Tax records square footage calculations are actually lower than the zoning calculations because they don't count things that the zoning count. So I I felt that the proposed dwelling is certainly in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood.
Okay. Thank you. Any uh further questions? Okay. Thank you. And I think we're still good on the public. Agreed. Yeah. Um I'll make a motion to approve unless you want to have a closing statement.
Oh, sorry, Matt. No, thank you. I appreciate the ask. Yeah, you're welcome. I'll still make a motion to approve. I'll still second it. Okay, Mr. Horn. Yes. Mr. Sherman, yes. Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, yes. Okay. Uh, Mr. Wiseman,
yes. Miss Sho, yes. Mr. Beer, yes. Good night. Mo motion to adjourn. Motion agreed. Second. Seconded.
Ajourned.