for can you know for for e I good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston board Livingston Zing Board of adjustment
today is March 25th 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 re reasons for the grant of the variance exists and that variance can be granted without
substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston you should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance you will require an affirmative vote of five members of the seven member Board of adjustment other variances require a majority of four members to grant that
variance if you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board you have a right to appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision and that Court May overturn the decision of this board if you're an objector to any type of variance has
been granted you too May appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision if you do file an appeal I ask that you please provide a copy of your complaint to the planning to our 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 ler and West S6 Tribune and a copy was also posted on the bulon board of the municipal building in addition to having
notice posted notice 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 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 we will now call the role Mr Mr Kenya Kya president okay Mr horn here Mr sha here Mr Sherman here miss Yan here
okay Mr wisman here M so here miss con is not here Mr Beer here thank you okay okay
um Mr Kenya can you call the first application absolutely okay uh block 601 Lot 8 three Hearthstone teris application number 20 24-65 DV prant Kumar and
minaki Shah application seeks approval for the first at second floor addition a violation of following sections 170 D 87 BB2 habitable floor area 4870 squ ft
allowed uh 5199 ft proposed uh 329 ft² variance uh requested 17087 cc2 habitable floor area floor ratio 18% allowed 2.47% proposed
2.47% of varans requested okay and be before we get started I just wanted to make one announcement we have a lot on the the agenda tonight so I'll ask everyone for their brevity and keep it moving please uh without getting into details that we don't need give us the give us the facts
and we'll go from there so that's for everyone not just you thank you on my reputation oh oh boy there we go hi good evening everyone Keith Lin of the law firm English Cino Taylor on behalf of the applicants um this application was originally heard by
the board at the January 28th meeting and carried to tonight to enable us to submit revised plans my partner Derk orth originally presented this application um but has a scheduling conflict tonight so that's why I'm here the plans have been revised to eliminate
the two-story space in the living room and instead now propose a 12 foot high walls with a vaultage ceiling above as a result the new habitable area for the project was reduced from 2001 130 squ ft to
1,374 square ft while variance relief is still required this change results in a reduction of the applicant's habitable floor area and habitable floor ratio as was previously read into the record the revised plans contain the prior zoning
table um so we will update accordingly during resolution compliance should the board uh look favorably and approve our application with me tonight is our architect William Gentile who will discuss our revised plans and uh Mr Jin
I believe was previously sworn and uh yes he was so he remain so is that okay just do belt and Spenders do you swear firm tell Truth for the zoning board tonight yes I do uh and Mr Gentile uh your qualifications were placed on
the record last time uh as a architect licensed in state of New Jersey correct corre and you haven't gotten an email since that time telling you that that license has been revoked send it have not have not okay youve checked lately no you're okay all right thank you so
chairman I would suggest as Mr gtil has been qualified in the past uh to accept him again in the field of architecture yes we can accept him as the field of architecture as expert thank you Mr GTI could you please describe the applicants revised plans to the
board the whole thing was stor Bas of the that down IND is just to show the fronts basally the as the original unun anybody have any
questions anybody in the public have any questions for this Witness I'll just uh make a quick note that really appreciate you coming back and making the change oh I have questions my apologies regarding the height that you have shown is 31 ft or something like
that so did you do the average around the four corners of the house how was the height calc you see all the elevations of the home see it's slight Hill High I me yeah because because looking at the
elevations that you have that height was not considered in the Calculus if that's the case you may need a height variance but I'm not sure looking at the you look at the elevations on page number
A8 kind of hiding the height but do you have the calculations for all the corners anywhere that we can verify I I don't have right now I I would say this Mr sha uh this was not a variance that was called out um
however I would say this that this is something that should there be a uh violation of the height restriction that would be definitely picked up in resolution compliance and they would not be allowed
to get permits and their their plans would not be would not be certified by the building department because their only variances they're asking for with regard to floor area and floor ratio uh you would look at the average height and
I think that's why the there um you know when you have a grade you don't you have to take into consideration that change in the grade affects the height and I think that's what Mr Gentile is trying to explain yeah I don't know if there's going to be more testimony or maybe this
is for the attorney but uh and maybe it was covered prior to the adjournment uh well but let me first make a statement it looks like you did a great job in bringing it down it still looks great um not that that's the relevant the Aesthetics but I think you did a great job my concern is
the uh I'm I'm missing what the the reason is in terms of the land or the particular property Etc to be able to go over so I appreciate your you brought it a lot down so we're only over a little bit but the the regulations have a
particular number uh that's a limit so maybe I'm forgetting from last time like what what is the particular reason why we should Grant the variance even if you have the negative factors covered why should what's the
positive reason that this particular property should have exceed exceed the limit own so we didn't attend to call other Witnesses but we do have the applicants here if you would like testimony in more supportive testimony in terms of their
you you know their family and needs additional living space and we think this is you know especially with the revisions you know doesn't impair the intent of the zoning yeah and um through you chair I'm sorry um but I I believe at the last
meeting they went I don't have those notes in front of me but I do recall they went through that they pres had had a full presentation at that time and I think at that point the um the um applicant attorney indicated that he
wanted to take a step back because there were a number of comments at the time about the amount of the increase uh you got to remember the original increase I think was um and I'm using round numbers
here but I think the the variance on floor area was like a th000 square feet and the and and the original uh floor area ratio was uh around like 5% so
5.4 a good memory 5.4 so um I think that's the the point of why they wanted to come back tonight was to see if they could uh sharpen their proverbial pencils and rely on the prior testimony
but also listen to the board I think they felt they had a number of comments to be fair at the last meeting about what they were presenting not that Mr gentile's designs aren't great uh but I think that they were uh you know I don't
want to put words into council's mouth but I believe that was what the concept was and and that's why we revised the plans to try and come into more conformance with your zoning so that we hope that answers that uh I mean I'm still concerned but
I'm I want to like to hear what the other board members think I I still and and it could be that was covered in the prior testimony I don't recall that I do remember that that was it just wasn't even close but I at the same time close as a factor along
with some other reason that it should go over by a little bit it can't be everything that's if you're close you get a variance that's not how it works I that's not how I believe it should um I got one thing um um I just have a concern I see on the lower level
you have the bedrooms there's a family room and there's obviously a separate access to that space from the exterior well would they do that as a conditional approval that there will not be a rental space or apartment yes we would agree to that as
a condition that's not what's intended this is just a private single family home but it we understand your your concern they just covering bases yep totally get itess does anybody else have any questions comments along these
lines the setup plan that U you submitted dated March 14th 2025 I believe you still haven't updated the proposed zoney analysis data yes you're you're correct correct okay no worries and and should and I covered it
in the the opening but should the bo look favorably we will certainly update that that just be a condition of the approval that we get that update and we would agree to that I I had a similar comment about like the height um because in the zoning table the height is shown
us 30 ft but the elevations is 31.3 just want to the height shown in the Z table on the drawing is 30 ft but in one of the elevations is 31 so you just want to make sure that you capture that that's the allowed yes but I'm
saying in the zoning table that you're representing as the proposed if we can capture that yeah we have to update it good catch now okay thanks thank you anybody else have any questions or comments on the
board does anybody want to make a motion oh actually do you want to close I'm sorry uh no that we just think that you know with the revised plans we you know we're excited about this application and we hope the board agrees and sees the the concessions that we've made to try and come into closer conformance and
reduce the the variances thank you okay and does anybody in the public have any comments about apologize kind of jumped the gun okay now does anybody want to make a motion I'll make a motion subject to the
conditions as discussed around getting the revised plans and the component of that not being um eligible as a rental property motion to approve based on those conditions I'm sorry I'll second
it too late okay Mr horn approved Mr Kenya yes Mr sha yes Mr Sherman yes Miss Jan yes okay we need
one yes okay Mr wisman no abstain Miss K she's not here sorry Mr Beer yes motion carries thank you very much Mr Kenya if you hold the next uh
application please I forgot block 1000 lot 7 7 Locust Place application number 202478 DB Isle Allen I hope I pronounce it
right application seeks approval for the first floor Edition and covered de in violation of the following section 170 d97 C4 rard setback 50 ft required 32.1 ft propos close
17.9 variance requested 17- 97 C3 aggregate site yard set back 30% required 26.6 4 proposed 3.36% wean requested how you
doing U Mr L you plan on testifying okay um we're going to swe in first then we'll take do you Square fir to tell the truth for this plan zoning board tonight so help you God I do okay can you please State and spell your name
for the record Al you got to go by the mic sir you can sit you just say alone you sit sit be comfortable relax it okay so um through you chair yeah please
Mr Lon you're going to be presenting uh your architect tonight yes presenting okay let where you in do you swear for to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight okay you gotta move that mic closer or something because I'm not sure we're getting
you all right just yeah yeah just like outside voice okay can you please um all right uh I'm not sure you did this yet or not but can you please State and spell your name for the record my
name is okay chairman can you just give us your education for the [Music] record zoning boards in New Jersey and your licenses are current in
good standing obviously yes all right does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness there being no objections a witness is accept as expert in architecture the floor is yours thank you good evening members of the zoning
board my name is ridar I'll be going over the project first um I'll first describe the project the subject property is seven Locust Place Livingston New Jersey it's in the R2 Zone lot 7 blocks th000 uh my client purchased this colonial home it's a
single family detached home he bought in n in 2020 it has three bedrooms four bath one office and one car garage we are proposing a side Edition I'll pull up the PDF Side Edition which is 724 Square ft
Edition above the new garage the new garage is about 573 Square ft um the maximum overall height of this addition above the grade would be 26 ft 6.5 5 in and the exterior finishes would match
the existing house which is vinyl siding and board and bad siding and the roof would be asphal shingles I'll go over quickly the two variances that we are requesting it's a ctype variance one is the ril yard setback um as per zoning
regulation 17-9 7c4 the maximum rare setback allowed is 50 ft with our proposed addition in the reil yard we are asking uh for a variance of 17.9 ft uh thereby having a 32.1 ft setback in
the rare the second variance is the aggregate side yard setback as per the zoning regulation 17097 C3 the maximum aggregate side yard setback allowed is 40 ft which is 30% of the site
area um the proposed addition would create an aggregate setback of 35.5 ft which is about 26.6 4% of the site hence we are requesting a variance of 4.5 ft on uh overall accounting for about
3.36% of the site area the two key constraints for which we asking for the variance is the lot shape and the topography uh the property is situated on a shallow lot which is irregularly shaped it has a steep slope it slopes
from the back of the property to the front it's about 15% of the grade and the unique topography it creates hardship that meets the criteria for the njsa 40-55 d70 C1 for a variance based
on the site topography and the site shape um currently the client has only one car garage and hence we are requesting this addition which would have two car garages and it would give him some space to park his second car he
currently Parks it on the asphal driveway and that would be a good thing for him to have for during winter all right um for the negative criteria I we don't see any significant increase in traffic because of this
addition no adverse effect on the property value in fact it would improve at time uh the home Aesthetics would match with the neighboring design no detriment to the public good we don't have won't have the drainage issues we have a civil engineer on board for this
project and he would be taking care of the lot surface drainage plan um before going through the permit approval and um in conclusion I believe that the benefits they outweigh any potential detriments uh there's no
substantial negative impact on the public good um as in fact it promotes the master plan goals for the town I respectfully now request the board to look into this variance and um grant for this modit Edition and I'm happy to answer any questions if you
have is anyone in the board any questions for this witness I have a question well you guys are thinking um what's happening with the existing uh garage the existing is a onecar garage that would stay so this will become a three-car garage this will
yes this uh the two car uh the addition would have the two car on that level yes the existing is really it's really old it's a very small car garage mini car garage is it is it legal is it
legal is it too small is it is it undersized it's not as big but yeah it's hard for him to park and that's what he has and I believe one car garage is like the bare minimum for the zoning to no I was just wondering if there's anything was going to happen to that garage or not if that's going to become part of
the living space or or not or no that would stay the same in fact U because of the three car garages now as the town regulation 450 is what they don't consider in the habitable area we have added that third car garage into the
habitable area because it's it's about 450 yeah so no no problem having that as a condition of approval the garage stays the garage yes okay anybody else have any questions how how wide is that garage
the new garage how wide is that I believe they take out the One 2 I'm sorry how far how how wide the width is 23 23 overall including the you got to stay near the mic you can
swing it around you can take it out 23 Fe 3 in is do it it's on sheet a 1.0 anybody else any questions on the board through you chair I just wanted to um one of the things that uh the architect noted was that there would be
an engineer who would U properly Design This and build it in accordance with current standards for storm water control you'd agree with that as a condition of approval that the engineer will conform with all local state federal regulations with the to St cor
control correct in fact uh his uh preliminary drawings are as part of the whole set in the zoning but he is going to yeah to have the drawings for the surface drainage lot surface drainage thank you does anybody in the public have any
uh questions for this witness is anybody in the board want to make any statements anybody the public want to make any statements does anybody on board want to make any motions I'll make a motion to approve I'll second it okay missan one Mr Sherman to Mr
Kenya yes oop sorry did the wrong one hang on one second sorry about it out pressure I'll get fired one day okay Mr Mr Kenya yes Mr horn yes Mr sha
yes I got Mr Sherman Miss Yan already Mr Weissman yes uh optional not available to the Mr be yes motion carries okay thank you thank you so much
for your time thank you block uh 1511 lot 11 for Maplewood Drive application number 202- 6-3 Road act Builder LLC application six approval to construct a new single family residence
in violation of the following sections 1 70-99 C2 front year setb 40 ft required 33 ft proposed seven paid variant requested 17887 cc4 habitable floor area
30% allowed 35.99 proposed and 5.99% variance requested thank good evening Mr chairman ladies and gentlemen of the board John Barbara on behalf of the applicant I have uh Aman for the architect to be
sworn by Council and we will be brief and direct that's a lot lot of promises John I got the memo for the color tie but I can't I can't do one of those John after the meeting we we'll have a seminar on bow tie teaching well I got a good one
on that right do you swear fir to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do okay can you please uh oh chairman sorry qualifications yes hey could you please your job it's okay Aman you have been previously swarmed by this board as a licensed architect in
the state of New Jersey yes and your license is still good since the last month we were here is that correct that's corre you also didn't get any memos or anything that says that you didn't pay your dues yeah I didn't get anything yet so I'd like you to direct your attention to uh two things that the
board is always very concerned about there is no staircase access to the uh itic in this particular site is that correct yes that's correct the only stair we have pulled down the stair from from the second floor to the attic area and um we are applying for a floor
area ratio uh variance uh where our number is 3,129 which is 35.99% as opposed to 30% and um also I would like to mention that U the foyer we have a 90 Square fet
counted twice in the foyer but it's only used once at the first floor because it's a two story open foer uh this is a typical single family house where we have the Living Spaces at the first floor with the guest bedroom um the
basement is completely open with another bedroom and the second floor hosts the all the bedrooms and bathrooms and closets okay and because Livingston requires you to count the voled ceiling that's where we get the extra 90 feet as part of what we're asking for correct
yes yes correct uh since you've all had a plenty of opportunity to review these plans and we've had seen his plans on many times before I think those are the areas that you would like to hear if I O open his testimony for Mr SRA to answer any other questions you may have in
reference to these plans I have one question sure on the basement floor plan in the rec room there's four square boxes with an o in the middle of them uh these are steel columns for the structure
support so they're going through that rep room okay yeah thank you not really does anybody else have any questions for this witness does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness please
come forward yeah right there oh right here yes hi Barbara dracul 27 fellswood Drive Livingston my questions have to do with I wonder
what the reasons were for the set back from the uh to move closer to the road that's not this witness but uh if she wants to come back when we have the Planner yeah the plan the plan will testify to that okay so just just what
he testified to which is the house the style of the house and stuff like that and then when the plan goes he'll describe the lot and everything else okay thank you then I will sit down until the planner comes you we'll invite you back so if you want to sit right there you certainly you're more than
welcome to ask the next witness questions does anybody else have any questions for this witness okay and with your permission Mr chairman I'd like to have my planner scor all right do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do
okay Mr graviano uh qualifications yes yes my name is Nicholas graviano I'm a planner and partner with graviano and Gillis Architects and planners with a business address of 101 Crawford's Corner Road in home Del New Jersey and your license is still in good
standing correct yes it is you have been uh retained to have to review this property and to look at the positive and negative criteria you also have just heard a particular member of the public wanted to talk about the front yard variants uh although it's called out as a
uh could you give an explanation of how Livingston treats that certainly I'll just uh get right into the testimony address the two variances that the applicant's requesting this evening the applicant is before the board for a specific piece of property known as block 1511 lot 11 that's a street
address of four Maplewood Drive the applicant is requesting relief from two separate sections of the Township's code this evening the first being for the habitable floor area ratio whereas 30% is required and the applicant is at
35.99% uh the applicant is also requesting the front yard setback variance although I think if you read the letter of the law of the ordinance it's not really a variance that's required but it is interpreted that way uh here within the township uh the applicant is requesting 33 feet whereas
uh 40 feet is required um the applicants request for the front yard setback uh when you go for the allotment in the R4 District it allows you to average the Lots within 200 ft in this scenario Lots 11 12 13
and 14 average 32.5 six feet uh so that is why the applicant is proposing 33 feet because it's within the zoning uh ordinance allowance for a reduced front yard setback so the applicant is actually within compliance for the front
yard setback that's being uh accommodated this evening I I would like to note that this is an under size lot uh the subject property contains slightly under 8700 Square ft whereas the Zone District requires 9,375 Square ft so essentially the lot
size is 7.3% smaller than what's required by ordinance however the applicant is only requesting an increased habitable floor area ratio of 5.99% so the ratio between the decreased lot size and the F request is actually
uh on the conservative side I would also like to note that the proposed dwelling is under the maximum habitable floor area whereas 3,220 square foot is permitted the applicant is at 3129 so it's 100 square
ft less and when you look at the 90 square feet that was uh described uh in the architectural testimony it's essentially 190 square foot less than the uh maximum habitable floor area uh looking at the F variants as the board
knows uh the F variant is akin to a conditional use variance and that the applicant must demonstrate uh that the site can accommodate the proposed dwelling given the increased habitable floor area ratio request in this case the applicant is
meeting all applicable yard setback standard that's front yards side yards and rear yards additionally the applicant is adding a stormw management system to a site that doesn't presently have one today and the applicant's proposal when you look at the before and
after condition is only adding 5% impervious coverage to the site and is adding that increased storm order management system so this site can certainly accommodate uh the proposed dwelling with the increased F uh looking at the positive criteria this proposal
certainly meets purpose a promotion of public health safety morals and general welfare that's done through building a new dwelling uh conforming to Modern construction and Engineering codes additionally promotes purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential
uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens and then the impeccably designed building and site promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangements uh looking at the negative criteria there's no substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance the proposed
dwelling is under the maximum habitable floor area requirement and it provides the storm water management system uh looking at the requested front yard SE step back uh request it certainly uh could be granted uh under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning
Agni as given in the F variance requests with no substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance submit the testimony and I just to reinstate zoning always PS out the front yard variants but you our
testimony shows that the other Lots as specified that this isn't keeping and I just wanted to point that out and no problem for the person to come back and I'll ask these questions this is the person he she should ask the
um exhibit that's on the screen I believe was not submitted uh before tonight so we're going to call that exhibit A1 for the record and if somebody can then please provide that to miss Hollis um tomorrow uh through an
email okay okay we exhibit A1 uh rendering does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness um the site plan that's submitted uh shows a covered porch going from the left side of the house to the
stairs uh but that was not reflected in the rendering the porch is here yes the the entry porch yeah I have another document which shows the porch the cover porch is is covered with kind of like a balcony on
top okay so what so the the 33 setback is to the facade of the house the facade not then you're able you're you can violate up to 6 ft from the facade into the front yard what is that distance that you're violating the steps I have
six feet so the six feet is within the you have six feet for the porch or porch and steps the porch to the porch not without the steps so the porch itself is 6 feet
going out from the from the housewall I believe it's porch and steps right should be six feet we can clarify that the steps is not covered correct but I think the steps can violate the entire thing has to be six feet if we
can clarify that with the okay if I could chime in on the plans here you're showing 33 ft before to to the house excluding the porch is what I'm seeing on the plans I think that's different than you're saying now is that correct
correct what I'm trying to say is that the facade is at 33 ft and okay he's acknowledging the porch is porch is encroaching six but the steps are beyond the porch so the the allowed zoning um
setback is only six feet it's if it's more than six feet I think we we should just double check what that ordinance requirement I'll double check it and if it's not that way I'll bring it back I'll sure I'll send it back thank you we'll stipulate that for the
record we'll check it if it if it has to be pulled back we can pull it back with the there so Mr barbula this you're saying for condition of approval you're saying for a condition of approval the applicant will comply with the with the
municipal ordinance because you're allowed 6 feet if it's 6 feet not counting his steps then it's okay not as the member said then he has to pull it back to get rid of those steps so it'll have to be brought in we agree to
that because I don't I don't particularly know that I haven't looked at that ordinance so I don't want to make a commitment the architect does this all the time and we can since the member brought it up we will double check and if it requires it we can modify an
issue right it's not actually part there's no living space above it it's just an appendage that can be that's why most municipalities have the can add that and you see this particularly in in Shore communities your setback is that of facade and then
they allow you to put steps out especially under the change with the height when everything had to go up because the same so see that all over this Southern but we would we go comply as a condition anybody else on the board have
any questions ma'am would you like to come back forward of course my name is Barbara is it right should I can I address what her question was or maybe her question has changed so
let's hear what Barbara's got the young lady has say the fir the first one was addressed by our planner the other all have hous exactly the same fair enough fair enough never
stop question so that's your second question okay my second question actually comes from a concern that I have about persistent flooding behind uh for Maplewood that is meets my backyard on
27 Bellwood the flooding happens after hard R snowfalls and it pools actually more on for Maplewood and 29 my part My Neighbor
Next to Me pools for several days uh after hard rains so now I'm hearing that you are installing a storm management water management system and I'm wondering was was that the reason for
that to ameliorate that flooding that does stay for several days behind on the back of the property I can address that this way the municipality in the development ordinances concerns itself
devel has toed so dra wasn't of a certain aspect it's it's a it's a city Citywide or in this ordinates but what we're doing here is positive drainage so that this condition
will be addressed by our engineer and it's part of this site this particular house that being taken down nothing there that's why you probably problem that what you should know is that the municipality is looking out for for your neighbors and yourself by requiring
anybody that does this kind of work address and may I ask where where will that exit what what at what that I don't have the expertise and that is controlled by the engineering department of Livingston so that you'd have to wait
until plans actually get building plans and site plans and then that would be determined that's a couple months from now at least okay when that's not something that we havec of the when I spoke to engineering about the the
problem and they recommended that I come tonight uh and if I had any photos to show what's happening I did bring a photo board that shows those flooding instances and they said it should exit to the street that I should make sure
that well the only thing is I don't know why they told that this board is not does not hear that as only engineering so I can tell you that this is a very responsible Builder and they will regulations for I should have
prefaced my comments that to say I'm delighted that something is going to be done with the property I hope we always like people from the public to end that way so we may have been even more
pleasure to see hear you talk started it but I always like thank you thank you thank you so much for your comments thank you very much thank you Mr chairman that's our application we have nothing else okay does any any anybody else in the uh public have any
questions does anybody on the board want to make any statements does anybody in the public want to make any statements does anybody in the board want to make a motion I'll make a motion second motion to approve that is motion
to approve yes with with the conditions that were stated the resolution yes Mr Sherman yes Mr H yes Mr KY yes Mr R sha
yes Miss Yan yes Mr wisman yes okay Mr Beer yes motion carries Mr chairman can actually put down a lawyer told you the truth short that's true what what time is it
and what day time I'll come with a different really everyone have a great take care the next application block 1409 lot two 53 North Livingston Avenue application number 202 24- 69-
V uh pardon my pronunciation is uh Fu Mohammad Salim uh application applicant seeks approval for an addition in violation of the following section 17099 C3 site yard set back 10 ft
required 8.5 ft proposed 1.5 areas requested 17087 cc4 habitable floor area habitable floor ratios pardon me 30% allowed
31 person proposed one person various requested okay welcome yeah thank you Mr Saleem I'm just going to swear you in do you swear firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight yeah okay I
you take see you look a little like deer in the headlights it's going to be okay don't worry about it okay and you have your architect with you tonight yes why are we okay while we deal with that Prof let's get you sworn in all right do you
swear do you swear if for tell the truth for the Z board tonight I do okay can you please State and spell your name for the record my first name is afan AF s h an last name is vendel v a n d a
l My office address is 239 New Road forp New Jersey I have a bachelor's degree in architecture I have a master's degree in architecture I was in front of this board uh in the January meeting and I've been in front of quite
a many boards around New Jersey and you two have not received any emails correct no emails good we don't like those um does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness there being no objections the witness is accepted as expert in
architecture thank you let me bring up my pans okay okay so um we are here for uh two variances um habal floor area ratio uh
required is 30 and we are at 31 we're requesting uh uh W for 1% and uh s set back and uh required is 10 uh we are at about 8.5 we requesting um
1.5 fet v um I'm going to go over um the uh the the the design of the U um you know the expansion uh basically I was hired to add a much needed the uh the
the owner is going to actually explain a bit more on that later that they required a bedroom on the main floor uh due to many reasons family situations and all and uh the second uh requirement I'm just going to go over really quick
um uh to to my to the design the mouse doesn't work very fast okay so basically the existing first floor did not have a powder room much needed all always uh it uh it had a
really small um um not small but um um uh the the kitchen was kind of not big enough for the homeowner and no family room existing um living room has been used as a family room and and they did
require like a little uh family area other than the formal living area but the main request by the home owner was they wanted to add um um a bedroom and and that was that they explained to me
that they have family situation where where they maybe they they have their parents visiting very often and and um the lady of the house her mother is already with them at this point so so
they are expecting them to be needing a bedroom currently they are having trouble going going up and down however they're still in good health it's not they're not there yet but they are anticipating that they would you know require a bedroom on the first floor in
a in a few years so they are they they want to go ahead and construct it at this time um and and then since we don't have a powder room there we we added a powder room and we added a full bathroom with the guest room um and and we just
relocated in order to provide the uh family room we relocated the kitchen and and as everyone wanted there was no island and and everyone would agree that all all new houses or expansions they
want an island there so so so that those one of the reasons they just wanted to relocate the kitchen on a side so that's it's away from the mainstream and they get a little more entertainment area they have a a big you know family and friends in town to to have uh space for
them to you know for the uh holidays and to get together um and then the the laundry is in the B uh in the basement and they want to relocate that because that was really also causing problem
going from the second floor to the basement and then up and the second floor we are not changing at all um and there's like no room at all for on the second floor to have a laundry so so we uh I proposed a laundry for them off the
like next to the um kitchen and off the dining area now um the reason we have the two variances we have a couple of hardships at this point uh which I'm going to go over um the lot area is much smaller
than the required lot area in this Zone and and and uh lot uh configuration is uh uh varies it's really narrow in the front and wider at the back and and and uh and and the
third um condition that actually generated the side yard setback uh was that the existing house is very close to the right side if you're looking towards the house to the right side uh property line and and uh um the design we didn't
want to like really uh squish it so uh we just wanted to the the homeowner and and I suggested that the new expansion should be uh you know just an uh align with the existing house on the right side and then expand towards the back of
it um however um the sidey yard setback since the property line on the right side is skewed on an angle we get that bottleneck only for about 10 to 12 12 ft and as soon as we clear that 10 to 12 ft
we get the required 10t uh side yard setback um and and uh the the 1% overage I would attribute that to the smaller size uh of the lot
and and uh you know reducing that 1% was going to really make a lot of difference to the to the size of the kitchen size of the bedroom and actually the bathroom and then powder room and the required closet that they because they have a
side entrance they wanted another closet next to uh that entrance so that dictates that the depth of 15 ft that we are going towards the back of the house and and that is creating like a 1 foot uh overage on the um for the floor area
ratio had the lot of course had the lot being of a regular size this none of these variances would have been there uh and that's about it okay any questions for this
witness so you basically you're saying these are just some di di Minimus minimum yes overages 1% here yes and your uh square footage is still way under the allowable let me add one more thing to this um the front of the house
does not change at all so when you are driving um you know on the street you don't even get to know that if it there is any impact of this expansion to the street or to the neighborhood or to the neighboring um you know uh
properties okay thank you does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness please come forward I'm the neighbor of Saleem I live in 51 North Livingston Avenue the joining house also I own the property 47 North
which is also another house on the same line have a question for the witness here uh could you explain or elaborate on the house uh the line the sidey yard you were saying it's already skewed can you explain what is the skewing yes let me just show you let me just uh um
enlarge the uh site plan see this uh side property line uh the the property is actually narrow on the street side and and and and it it is wider on the back so this this particular property line on towards the
right side is going on an angle so that is actually if it wasn't if this was a regular rectangular lot we wouldn't have that problem and if if the house was not not built that close to that property line we wouldn't have that side side
yard uh setback problem since the um the actual house was built way too close whatever time they allowed it at that time but whenever it was built it was very close to the property line however the the skew is actually working in our
favor as we go back towards the house and and as within even uh before the main expansion starts we have that 10t clearance right so how much is the skewing what is the distance between the houses before and it forther see the
original we we didn't change the property line the property line is there proper line we we didn't change the house location the house is there we just aligning the expansion with the existing house so so if we look at right in the
front the the the front part of the house is is only 6 foot 6 feet and 9 6.9 ft away from the property line so so this is an existing condition that we could not really
change 6.5 ft 6.9 6.9 so so that's an existing condition that is determining where the you know where the expansion is going to be and that is causing um this minor I would say very minor um uh
side yard setback uh variance yeah so my my I don't have a concern in that the concern is will it still look even more congested than what it is it's on the Main Street the the the the the side setback currently is more congested so
so even before we we go to the actual expansion if you see this 10 foot uh Dimension we we get the required setback at that point so so so so that actual expansion of the house does not have
that problem of the side yard setback and it's on the side of 55 North Livingston yes where the skewing is right yes we talked about yes okay so I just want to make sure there is no further skewing we still are in the LA we can't skew the property line not the
property lines but and we are not encroach encroaching into uh the existing side yard setback any further yeah and did you consider building over the house or just this we the requirement was that they needed a bedroom on the first floor so so it
would defy the purpose of the expansion if we had done it on the on the second floor okay thank you thank you does anybody else in the public have any questions for this on please come forward good evening board I so I am their neighbor I am in the back of their
house and I am the owner of uh the property which is five your name sakshi agat can you spell that yes s a k Shi a g a r w a l thank you continue uh so I have a
question and basically trying to understand how this ex exension of the house that you're requesting has there been any study done with how this will impact the property values of the houses around because that area you know there
are just houses are very closed and with the extension of this property which is of course outside the zoning law which maintains the balance and the Aesthetics of the neighborhood I'm just curious if there's been any study that's done which shows how this extension could affect
the property values for the neighboring houses so I'm I'm going to intercede on that one because that's not a a factor before the zoning board the zoning board only applies the zoning ordinance so anything with regard to taxation
property values uh even even though we talk about Aesthetics Aesthetics aren't a determining Factor so they're not required to do that uh part to uh do any type of study with regard to uh property
value so um just to you know let you know what the board's jurisdiction is so that's why they don't have to provide it not because they don't want to it's because they don't have to and it's not requ not not a factor before the zoning
board got you just one more question and yeah just one more question is this extension in any ways going to lead to this property being used for any rental use in the future or this is just for the personal family
use okay okay so yeah so as long as yeah there's no Ambitions to rent it out because it's pretty crowded area already and it can lead to more overcrowding and street parking issues okay perect thank you board and
thank you Witnesses thank you so much anybody else have any questions for this witness okay do you want to add anything at this time or you're good okay does anybody on the board want to make any statements I want to make a state
statement um given that you have a a smaller lot than the um standard lot I appreciate the effort that you put in the design by keeping the existing um side set back at don't encroaching in
the existing one also by keeping the 10 foot at where your main expansion starts thank you thank you anybody else want to make any comments anybody in the public want to make any comments does anybody want to
make a motion I'll make a motion I'll second a motion to approve Mr horn yes Mr sha yes Mr Sherman yes Miss
Mr wisman yes M Mr Beer yes motion carries congratulations thank you board okay block 2101 lot 15 12 Orchid Lane application number 20247 1-v Lewis and
Susie Fernandez appc applicant seeks approval for the first floor Edition in violation of the following sections 17098 C2 front yard set back 50 50 ft uh required 40.6 proposed 9 9.99 fet
variance request 17087 d87 BB3 habitable floor area 3520 squ ft allowed 3654 ft proposed 134 ft variance requested 17-
87 CC three habitable floor floor ratio 21% allowed 23% proposed two person variance requested hi there hi good evening all right so M Fernandez right yes okay you swear firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do okay fernz can we
please have your uh name State and spell your name for the record yes Susie Fernandez f e r n a n zes i can sit okay yeah relax s with an S at the end not a z okay uh and uh you're the homeowner correct correct all right and you are
presenting your architect tonight yes Jose Jano okay so what's swear in your architect you swear firm to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do okay can you please State and spell your name for the record sure Jose Janero e n n a r o and and I'm a licensed architect and
planner in the state of New Jersey both of my license are current um I've been doing this for over 30 years now so I testify in front of several other boards I don't remember this one but you know several like
Westfield Union Hillside Mountain Side L Hill and if you just give us your um your will you get your education sure I I have a a Bachelor's of architecture from NJIT and I have my license for about 30
years now architecture license does anyone board have any questions objections regarding this witness there be no objections the witness accepted as expert in architecture thank you it's all yours okay so I'm going to start by uh sheet
pre three of three which shows the floor plans uh my client uh lived in in this house for several years years uh it's a split level uh style home so we have three levels on the house we have the lowest level which contains the garage
and office and the family room uh and laundry room and then we have the second level which is four bedrooms and two bathrooms and then we have the living level which is the area that we're proposing in addition for that has
currently has a living room a kitchen uh and a kitchen and dining room combined so um she has everything in this house except for a separate formal dining room the way it is now it's just one big kitchen with a table that it's a
little tight so we're proposing an addition of a a dining room next to the living room and we open it up to it uh there's also an existing fireplace which are we're proposing to make a two-face fireplace so they can see it at from the
dining room and the living room and then uh next to the kitchen we're proposing a walk-in uh uh pantry and a Butler's Pantry to serve that new dining room the variances that we're uh
requesting are the um uh floor area ratio and the uh uh habital floor area unfortunately we with doing this we went over we were pretty close to the max so we went into the uh over the uh o
area uh also as far as the front setback we are uh asking for a front setback but we have the uh 40 ft required and we're not changing that front setback with the addition we're staying within the same line which is 40. uh six I believe
Mr Fernandez uh sorry Mr Mr Janeiro yes uh you indicated that you're you're also uh a licensed planner right okay so in your um capacity as a planner and as for checked your email your license is still good New Jersey as a as a planner
correct yes that's correct uh in Your Capacity as a planner um do you have an opinion with regard to the variances requested by the Fernandez's on the uh F
and the um and the floor area right you have a uh on that about you know negative positive criteria okay uh I wasn't too prepared for that but I can do it uh it's basically the where the
addition is going it's on the left side of the house which has the the most land we still have in fact uh I'm trying to enlarge this I'm not that good at this maybe maybe I look look at this okay so um we have uh the habital
maximum floor habital floor area is 3520 we're proposing 3,654 which is only about 130 uh square feet in that end and then the habital floor area ratio we're about 2% higher at
3,654 when uh it's it's 3,281 is what's allowed so going back to the addition on the the left side we are we're lining up the house we continue the same line of the house same materials match uh and we
still have 24 feet and a half from the the addition to the side property line so we feel that this doesn't affect as not detriment than any of the neighborhood um we feel that it's an enhance enhancement to to the house um
and we tried as very hard to try to make it as part of the house and that as an addition and um so uh I'm not seeing a negative criteria uh it's going to provide a a
space that uh my client is looking for and it needs in this house so um you know Mr Jano the the the additions I think identified the additions are uh a dining room yes a
pantry um and um besides the uh Butler's Pantry call Butler's Pantry right right right next to the dining room so so none of those involve um um bedroom spaces or or bathrooms no
so there's no there's no expansion of the property that would result in expansion of uh number of of persons at the site the number of bedrooms Remains the Same that's correct yes yes like
iess say it's just an extra uh she really wants to have a formal dining room where people can gather and not in the kitchen and Mr J do you know if um uh the the lot size for this particular lot
is um yes you're you're you meet the you meet the current lot area correct uh yes it's 15,625 and 15,000 square ft is the required we're a little bit over the the
minimum anybody have any questions I have one question in the again you're talking about bathrooms right you see there's no bathrooms is there any additional Plumbing in the butler's pantry is that going to have Plumbing or is that dry no dry no Plumbing so there's no Plumbing changes
to the home as done not you agree to that as a condition for approval okay thank you no problem can I ask a question please I just wanted to know what are the constraints for this variance that you
are applying for what are the variances constraints why are you applying for this variance what are the well because we are very close right now with the uh floor area ratio uh so by adding this dining room it brought it in into you
know 2% higher than what what it's required and also the floor the habital floor area according to our calculations you know that's what we are and as I said we keeping all the the rear setback the front setback the side
we still in compliance uh and you know so those are the only two factors that we have the the areas so to piggyback on Mr on Mr Shaw's question and just I want to understand
just want to understand you correctly Mr Janelle you're saying currently the property un with it with in its current condition right is what is it in terms of the habital
floor area ratio without the addition okay uh habital floor area right now is 3,236 336 Square F feet Yes and allowed is 3,520 and then uh do you have on there and I I
apologize for not looking at your zoning table but um the if I'm looking at your zoning analysis correctly it indicates that your existing habital floor area ratio without the addition is 21% that is
correct yes okay so it's at the current ma the current maximum allowed correct so so any any would it be fair to say that any addition to the property would generate the variance for the floor area
ratio that is that's yes that's Point yes so regardless of the underage I think Mr Shaw's question I don't want to put words into his mouth but I believe that Mr Shaw's question was what is the current condition versus the
the where you're ending up so on the one with the habitable floor area you're under but with the habital floor ratio you're at we're right at the the maximum Mr Char does that help you answer the
question and we came up with the 14 by 18 uh size that would fit for furniture and all that for the dining room you know I mean we try to make it you know as tight as we can you know because we we realized that we were over does anybody else have any
questions on the board does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness anybody on board want to make any statements make similar to the last I just I have a problem with there not being positive CR
criteria on this I realize it's close and I want the work to be done but uh that that would be my concern I'd like to hear from anybody else on the board if they have the same concerns or different
anybody very quiet tonight all right does anyone want to make a motion I'll make the motion to approve subject to the condition of the butler's pantry and no additional no additional Plumbing is required for the addition well we're going to say no go
did that the the representations made at the board that this is going to be um as indicated dining room Pantry but the butler's Pantry but no bedrooms or bathrooms are presented
okay a second okay Mr horn yes Miss Yan yes Mr Cana yes Mr sha yes Mr Sherman yes Mr wisman
abstained yes pencil y uh Mr Beer yes I guess have motion Carri to
approve okay the next one block 3903 lo11 12.05 15 Cornerstone way application number 2025 D3 D3 oan Wang and Z
one uh application seek approval for 20 by 20 deck on in violation of the following section uh 17098 C4 various setback 45 required 20
proposed 20 variance requested evening all right let's uh get your SW do you swear firm to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight yes I do okay you got to get closer to the mic and just uh State and spell your name for the record
yep first name h a o t i n last name hang h u a n g okay and um you're going to present PL yep so even you're the you're the homeowner I'm the homeowner yeah okay
go for it yep good evening um my name is H hang I'm homeon 15 Corner Stoneway so I'm here today today for the we plan back the setback wance application um our house right now has a 40 ft uh RAR yard setback which is the required
minimum by code um we currently have a 10 ft deck which is extended into the ril yard um we want to rebuild the um the whole deck and make it larger um for a few reasons um we want more space for our kids um We
Are Family four and we just welcome a second baby um he should be one one month more tomorrow um we are moving from Jersey City to Livingston next month so um right now we are doing some inovation the second reason which is the main reason is our backy is a slope so
it makes it harder to use the space so making a bigger deck actually will help us better utilize the the the whole area and then we also think um our backyard is only connect to our neighbor's backyard so we don't think a bigger deck
will actually impact our neighbors will or other space so right now we are we are actually requesting a 20 20 ft variance to the backyard to the r set back we have um we have a a 10 right now
and the required minimum was 40 so yeah B basically that's it um it's we hope um the board can grant the variance and I believe the big de will be very beneficial to our family okay thank you and this new deck
is going to does it sort of align with the decks and the other properties adjacent to you yes so you're not sticking really any further out into the backyard than your neighbors okay um does anybody have any questions for this Witness
is anybody in the oh I'm sorry I keep on missing you way down I'm hiding here at the end the guy down there um so looking at the the land the the the land behind directly behind your house it looks from the Landscaping like that land belongs
to the house all the way on Northfield is that correct um you know so we we only have a 40 ft set back and then behind that was the backyard of of the the neighbor which is on Northfield the Northfield
neighbor right just want to confirm that do you have any other questions no I'd point out to you because having visited it that there is right next door there's like a retaining wall Etc that comes out to about where his proposed deck is yeah
yep anybody else on the board have any questions anybody in the public have any questions would anybody in the board like to make any statements anybody in the public like to make any statements would anybody like to make a motion I'll make a motion to approve
I'll second it thank you okay Mr horn yes Mr Sherman yes Mr Kenya yes Mr sha yes Miss Yan yes Mr wisman yes and I point out for the record that this lot is is a shallow
it's a irregular shev block for this thank you okay Mr Beer yes motion Carri good thank you welcome to Livingston good luck with the
baby block 3811 lot 2198 Amelia Avenue application number 20255 DV Ricardo ATA applicant seeks approval for the second floor Edition in violation of the following section 17-9 99 C2 front yard
set back 40 ft required 34.3 proposed 5.97 ft variance requested hi there how are you good okay uh ma'am do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board
tonight okay and can you please State and spell your name for the record and you're the property owner okay and you have uh tonight with you your architect Builder Builder okay yeah I should I couldn't last that long in
school so well some some would say some of those guys end up as attorneys so uh all right do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight yes uh can you can you please State and spell your
name for the record Anthony PDA and t h o n y p e r r o TTA all right and even though you're not an architect or an engineer you're the Builder but wanted to just give us a little bit about your background and then you can tell us
about the project through you chairman um I'm a custom builder from rosand uh we predominantly do additions and this is my first uh zoning appearance I've never done this before I usually let the homeowners fend for
themselves um so yeah this is my first time we'll try to be gentle yeah yeah luckily this is I I was like I I thought I didn't even need to come to this I thought this was pretty easy um so basically the existing front setback is 37 feet uh from the front yard setback
and I think the um the zone is supposed to be 40 so we're already non-conforming the home has been there for for quite time and we are proposing a 2 foot 6 in can of lever over the first story which is now increasing our front set back uh
to about 35 ft instead of 40 and that uh Second Story Canon lever is still um not projecting past the roof of the Portico and that's all I got to say short short and sweet tell you the
end of the day right end of the day you're essentially building straight up except for the overhang you're overhanging 2 feet you get a little bit more room but you're trying you're going straight up you are not going at any over on the side no side's flush uh rear
is uh rear is not protruding past because the first floor goes past um it's got a bage ceiling so we're not going past the rear setback second floor on the right side's flush and on the front aesthetically pleasing gain two feet can of Levering over the first
floor uh but the Portico roof is still projecting past our uh new plan by I think a foot and the attic is not a usable attic correct uh correct it's going to be used for Mechanicals for the new addition
okay um does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness quick question um so you're cering about 30 in um how comfortable are you that with
that structurally because you know 24 is where we would like to see typically it's so I believe it's 2 foot 6 inch from the inside of the wall so it is two it's from the interior face and not the extr yeah and and the
new walls are um two uh 2x six walls the new five and a half with dry wall 6 in yes but that was on Arch that that did that anybody else have any questions for
this witness anybody in the public have any questions for this witness does anybody the board want to make any statements yeah I'll just note that this is an undersized lot pretty small compared to the minimum thank you and the only other
thing that I'll add is the the addition or just add some architectual detail that'll actually instead of the boxy nature of the house that is now so it'll be more aesthetically pleased then what was there yes I I agree thank you I hope so you're paying for
it anybody in the public want to make any statements does anybody in the board want to make a motion I'll make a motion approve I'll second it second Dr Sherman you should come more often I
might to the point M Mr Kya yes Mr horn yes Mr shot yes Mr chairman Miss Yan yes Mr wisman yes okay Mr Beer yes okay I got a yes from Mr Weissman
that was good thank you I noticed I was here the whole [Music] time good all right okay one for one block 4100 lot 40115 Hillside Avenue application number 2025
d2v Robert guso applicant seeks approval for the second floor addition in violation of the following section 17- 98 C2 front yard set back 50 ft required 40.7 proposed 9.3 variants requested
17087 I uh one uh garage then is required to be converted back into garage space there we go do you swear fir tell the truth for zoning board tonight yes I swear to tell the truth and uh please State and spell your name for the record
Robert Jano g i a n d o all right Mr juso you're the owner the property correct yes okay uh through you chair sure you're up all right I mean we're just requesting a variance of 4.7 ft for a
front yard setback it's a pre-existing condition in a non-conforming lot we are not changing the setback we're just leaving where it is I mean that's really all we're keeping it nice and short for you guys we're doing a second floor there
and that's it I me that's and and so you're you're also asking to you're converting the den back to a garage yes yes cuz we're doing the family room and then the den is going to
be back to a garage the family room is being moved okay so at one point in the past there was a garage correct yes yeah it's just you rock in TV it's nothing major you know it's easy to put back are there any um are there when it was
converted from a garage to a den did you place any uh ballards or any anything structurally to prevent cars from driving into it yeah well it was there when we moved there so it was just the garage door is there but there's like a piece of shoe Rod over it so we need to
convert it back okay so was when you you bought it without the garage right okay I think the your question was going to the interior space is completely open though there's no additional supports that would yeah the drive through the sheetrock and
you're good yeah yeah you could put it by tomorrow if you really wanted to drive open the garage door and the garage is still there and the exterior just yeah the door is still there interior just has a piece of shck caro we're going to make it professional and otherwise you're adding
the second floor correct and we're building behind the setback actually it's just that where the existing bump out of my house is doesn't conform so so it's weird Okay does anybody on the board have any
questions for this witness does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness anybody in the board H want to make a statement does anybody in the public want to make a
statement anybody want to make a motion I make a motion to approve I'll second it all right new people right it Miss Young yes Mr cha yes Mr Kenya yes Mr
horn we haven't finished voting yet wait wait there suspend yeah she's catching up to Builder go Builder man oh man I heard a few yeses I was like right anybody's changing their mind let me know Mr
shman Mr well yes well yes Mr wisman here your chance yes okay Mr Beer yes motion of absolutely carries okay now get out of here block 4904 lot 2960 Hobart Gap Road
application number 202 25-20 DV 60 Hobart Gap Road LLC applicant 6 approval to construct a new single family house in the violation of the following sections 17099 C4 ril yard setback 35 fee required 20 proposed 15 variant
requested 17087 bb4 habitable floor area 3220 Square fet allowed 3414 ft proposed 194 Square ft variance requested 17-8 7 cc4 habitable floor area 30% allowed
38.5 proposed 8.5 variance request to good good evening everyone Hi there Mr chers how you nice to see you and I thank you that you recognize me uh for the records purpose my name is Steven shepis I'm the applicants attorney may I be seated okay oh please be comfortable
since there's no objection I'll say okay well uh as the uh as it was appropriately read into the record I represent the applicant entity which is the property own owner uh we're seeking variance relief and furtherance of construction of a new single family dwelling on the subject property I would
note that there are three non-conforming conditions which will be eliminated as a result of this proposal presently there is excessive building coverage on the property the building itself violates the front yard setback we're proposing a conforming front yard setback it's about 17 ft too close to the front property
line and we're proposing a conforming setback of um 40 ft and also the house that's on the property presently violates a sidey yard combined so we're eliminating uh that those three non-conforming conditions and those conditions will be brought into uh compliance with the ordinance the
property is in undersized irregularly shaped lot the benefit of this particular property is that it immediately to the north and to the east is municipally owned open space uh which helps offset the deviations that were proposing this evening so without further Ado I'm going to introduce the
project architect John babula Mr babula prepared the plan I'd asked to be sworn and then briefly State his credentials on a record swear for to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do okay can you please State and spell your name for the record it's uh Jonathan babula j
o n a t h an uh babula b a b Ula all right very good Mr babul I stated that you were an architect uh could you briefly State your credentials on the record as as far as your licenses and your education as an architect uh I graduated from uh NJIT in 2004 with a
bachelor's of architecture uh I received my license in 2015 I have been practicing for about 20 years now and I've had my own firm since 2015 and my license is in a good standing and current okay I offer Mr babula as a
licensed architect thank you does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness there being no objection the WT witness is accepted as an expert in architecture very good Mr babul are you prepared the plans that are subject to tonight's proceeding is that fair to say yes and were your plans based on a
current current survey yes they were and what was the date of the survey or when approximately was it prepared uh in March of this year okay why don't you briefly describe for the board in the public the improvements that are on the property as relates to um zoning compliance as it presently exists and what's proposed and Zoning compliance as
far as the proposal is concerned sure um existing right now is a two-story dwelling uh with a on story Side Edition on the right side uh the uh and a detached two-car garage towards the rear uh the the there are violations with the existing house uh it is non-conforming
in the front yard setback and in the right yard setback um and it is also uh over the allowable building coverage okay and those are noted on your Zone table yes okay very good so as part of this proposal is a fair to say that all of the improvements that are on the
property today would be demolished and removed correct so let's talk about what's proposed and what uh various what variances are required in order to effectuate the proposed uh we are proposing a a new two-story dwelling with a two-car garage uh is a
more uh modern kind of colonial style house uh the variances that are we we are seeking is a rear yard setback and um the habitable floor area and the habitable floor area ratio so do you have a rendering that shows what this
house would look like yes uh on the last sheet uh page a 4.0 707 uh this is a 3D pers perspective of what the uh new dwelling would look like okay so let's talk about the structure itself presently the property
doesn't comport with the building coverage will this proposal comport with the building coverage requirement of the ordinance yes it does okay now let's talk about the height will this proposal comport with the height both in stories and feet Yes okay so let's talk about the internal layout briefly if you can tell us what's inside the house and how
the um the home uh would be suitable for this property and or compliant with what's out there in the neighborhood uh starting with the first floor plan on sheet a 33.1 um which is 507 uh we have
a you walk in the front door you have a two-story foyer to the right is a guest bedroom suite with its own bathroom behind that we have a powder room uh to the left of the foer we have a two-car garage and as you move to the rear we have an open concept for an open kitchen
into a family room and then behind that there is a um formal dining room and a more formal living room okay now you have extra lines on there which basically show the dimensions is that fair to say yes so the house itself is just a dark perimeter that we see here uh that's kind of like a rectangle with
a l bump out on the front correct okay A little about the second floor uh the second floor uh as you come up the stairs again to the the right side we have um a smaller bedroom suite with its own bathroom uh to the left we have a primary bedroom suite with a walk-in
closet and its own bathroom uh laundry room to the right and then there's two um normal bedrooms uh with a Jack and Joe bathroom to the rear now Mr babula can you tell us in order to make this compliant with these coverage requirements as far as habitable floor air and habitable floor air ratio how
much of the house would have to be eliminated uh about 10 feet from the back across the back which would be about 300 square feet and what would what rooms would you lose as a result uh we would lose the dining room the formal living room and about two bedrooms upstairs okay now now have you been out
to the neighborhood to see what other type of homes have recently been built in the neighborhood yes and uh how recently were you out there uh this week okay and could you tell us based on what you see here on your rendering and this floor plan have you seen other homes of this nature like in the same Zone within
a block or so of this house yes the two side streets uh Meadow and Crescent there are newer homes there that um are very much in line with this new house here now how does this house fit into like the square footage that you would see on a uh home uh being built here in the in the zone that you see out there
presently uh those newer homes that I looked at look to be about comparable to this this this square footage here for this okay I don't have anything further Mr babula and we do have a planner okay yeah so he'll address all the other issues anybody on the uh board any
questions for this witness please so so the uh the new drawings will have the uh garage built in and everything right because the old old one had the garage out sorry correct the uh it was a detach garage but from the first floor plan yes it is an attached two-car garage okay
thanks and Mr bab so everybody's clear that very large Garage in the back is being eliminated and it's going to become long yes and that's how you get the increase the decrease coverage yes that's right excellent and the um attic
is accessible by a stair it'll just be a pull down stair mainly for storage and HVAC it won't be used for any any any use there's no walk upstairs to that to the ACT no problem cousin it yeah we can add that to the uh resolution yes sir
please thank you okay any please uh and and well not necessarily relevant but for context is this a builder mine or an existing Livingston resident I can't even ask oh for
background never mind never mind it's wrong does anybody else have any questions yeah just to be on a record what is the clear height for the etic space um it's to the peak it might be about 10 feet 8 to 10 feet I don't have it with
me but um it is a tall attic up there but again there's no there's going to be no set of stairs to access it besides a pull down stair Mr yeah just just so everybody's clear you did that in order to add architectural flavor to the building rather than
having it to be suitable for occupancy yes any other questions from the board anybody in the public want to ask any questions okay your next witness okay thank you Mr Baba your testimony is concluded all right our next witness is
Peter St Mr St as a licensed professional planner I'm going to ask Mr St come up and um be sit down sure why not uh be sworn and then briefly St State his credentials on the record do you swear firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight I do okay can you
please State and spell your name for the record uh my name is Peter G St s c k and uh do you chair qualifications uh yes uh by education I have a bachelor's in civil engineering a
Masters in City and Regional planning I was licensed in New Jersey 1976 and I still hold that license okay have you ever testified before this board as a licensed professional planner I have very good I offer Mr stack as a licensed
professional planner thank you does anyone on the board have any questions objections regarding this witness did he check his email um there be no objections except for checking of email the witness is accepted as expert in professional planning thank you now Mr stack I see you're tromping at the bit you have an
exhibit it in your hand is that fair to say uh yeah I'm an old school guy so I have paper here paper is okay I think for now we'll call this A1 yes so Mr St I'm going to ask you to hand out and then we'll uh have it subject to connection
you have an exhibit this evening we're going to identify it as exhibit A1 and perhaps you can tell us how many pages uh is uh consists of page of A1 and what we see maybe can walk us through yes um what I'll do is just
identify A1 and then when I testify I'll refer to the different pages and uh this was prepared by me and it's dated yesterday and is are we short one or does everyone okay very good okay so the the
first page uh I have a portion of the zoning map on the left hand side and a 2020 aerial photograph on the right hand side where I've outlined the subject property in yellow uh the next three pages uh have
photographs that were taken by me on March 23rd of this year and I believe they accurately depict the existing conditions so on uh the second page you see uh the subject property uh looking
across um West Hobart Gap Road uh below that is a uh a drone photo to give you a little better perspective perspective of what's on the property today uh the next page is kind of the surrounding area so on the third page if
you're standing on the property looking West uh that twostory building is the closest dwelling uh on the opposite side across a 50ft paper street is a smaller dwelling and then on the right hand side
I just show the site distance from the front of the property looking uh East and West respectively uh the fourth page uh I show the garage that will be demolished on the right hand side as well as the
back of the existing dwelling and I'll I'll talk a little bit about the diagram on the left uh page five is a an analysis of the neighborhood and as you know uh this is in an R4
Zone that requires a minimum of 9 1,375 Square ft within 125 uh fet so colored in pink are the lots that are technically substandard
from the R4 Zone um it's a little bit apples and oranges but I looked at the tax assessment records to estimate what floor area ratios are and on the ones that exceeded the3 standard I lab AED
where those were um on on the property at the back end of metal Brook Road Lots 38.1 and 38.0 2 was a a recent subdivision uh dividing a 100 foot wide lot into two identical lots and they're
kind of sister houses that are proposed there and then uh on the last page I'll spend some time uh with it where I kind of analyze the variances that are being sought so um this property uh is an interior lot
as you can see it's highly irregular in shape uh it has a substandard uh square footage and uh to the rear uh is a open space property that Livingston
owns uh and it's on the uh what they call the Rossy list the state list so you can't get rid of it easily it's going to stay open space uh adjacent to that is a a a paper street right away that's
completely unimproved that goes back to where the recreation facilities are so that on two sides to this property there's essentially uh municipally owned property uh that will not be built upon
um so it it's a natural buffer for um what what's going on um there are existing non-conform Nores as I mentioned right now uh the lot size is
8,879 square ft uh Which is less than the 9,375 uh the front yard is 22.44% [Music] on the east side is 2.96 Ft um so that's an existing
nonconformity um the total of both Sid yards is slightly non-conforming at the moment uh we have conforming height rear yard at the moment um and we have a a building
coverage which exceeds the maximum so uh best way to kind of um look at this I think I'll concentrate on the last page P6 uh that kind of colored uh table uh right now I in the existing you
can see I colored in pink the existing non-conforming attributes of this property and on the right hand side uh where there was no change I didn't color it uh where there is a green color we're improving things uh but the three
variances that are triggered by this is the rear yard setback and you can see on the left hand side of P6 I superimposed in uh blue line where the uh minimum setbacks
are uh so as you can see uh we have a setback of 20.3 Ft Which is less than the 35 ft uh minimum uh and we do uh exceed the habitable floor area and the habitable floor area ratio
um and depending upon what indic you pick the the denial letter um said that as you know regardless of the size of the property the maximum is 3,220 square ft uh and we're proposing
3,414 U so that we're 194 Square ft uh short on that um I want to focus on the variances but really in two categories oh before I go there I I did look at your master
plan uh it's dated uh 2018 and there was a later amend Amendment but it was just on the issue of uh cannabis locations but uh uh your master plan as a goal recognizes
that this is a primarily residential community and it wanted to preserve and enhance the the character of it uh one of the objectives was to encourage an aesthetically pleasing environment which dub tales with one of the municipal land
use law purposes and uh one of the principles is to encourage development at in locations at density is compatible with the existing um your master plan recommended this to be an R4 Zone and it made a couple
observations uh it recognized that a fair amount of variances were needed uh due to the smaller lot size in the R4 Zone uh and it recommended an adjustment to the requirements to better reflect
the existing zoning pattern uh and there was a recommendation potentially to uh rezone the area in order to reduce the need for variances so there are two types of variances here we have um the rear yard
setback and uh this is a simple dimensional variance and I believe it was is Comfortably justified by a C1 hardship and practical difficulties o owing excuse me to the irregular shape of the
property um when you look at the property and I'm concentrating on the diagram on the left hand side of P6 when you look at the property from the front this is now a totally conforming property it's at the right setback back it's got 11 ft on each side
so it it's conforming from what you can see and on the left or west side at least on that wall um it is conforming it fits within the setback um it has a minimum more than the 10-ft minimum but
as you can see in the diagram uh it does punch through the rear and again I think it's plain looking at it that one of the issues is simply it's an irregular lot uh and the back line starts coming
closer and closer uh to the road Frontage uh of significance in terms of evaluating the rear setback uh is the fact that behind this is publicly owned land it's going to be open space as far
as I'm along around uh because it's it's on the state Rossy list and very hard to remove uh this land from the other variances have to do with your definitions of uh floor area and floor
area ratio and the building is uh larger in square footage um than is permitted um my understanding is the board treats this as a d uh variance requiring five
affirmative votes and uh a little background in justifying this is that um normally when Flor variances were developed that they were never used initially for residential they were
mostly for offices industrial uses and the reason is they accurately measure intensity if if you have an office building that has twice the floor area than permitted you're going to have twice the amount of traffic twice the amount of people etc etc um with single
family dwellings uh it's not twice or it's not proportionately more than the floor area um it's still 10.1 trips per day according to the rsis what I'm getting to is that when
you apply a floor area ratio to a single family dwelling the real issue in my mind is one of Aesthetics and blocking light air in open space you know does it violate uh the setback requirements because it's so big um How would how are
the aesthetic in terms of fitting this in with the neighborhood and I would suggest to you that uh although this has more floor area than permitted um it is common that with new
construction uh household uh needs are different uh you need more closets than you had in an older house and I believe this house was in the 20s if I remember the date of uh the dwelling uh clearly
does doesn't meet modern living standards um and so I think the way to address this is while it's going to require five votes and this is under the Coventry case I have to address what problems arise from having more square
footage than the floor area ratios permit and in my view the problems potentially might be ones of setback and Aesthetics but in this case uh we're violating the setback only in the rear
of the property uh which is remote from other houses and again it abuts the open space um when you look at this property from the front it is purely conforming it has the right setbacks it has the right height uh in fact there's a a
benefit now with the driveway because right now in the driveway you have to back out into um cobart Gap Road and this will allow you to do a k turn which the county certainly likes uh so you don't have to uh back out into the road
and from the closest AB buding owner on the west at least on that facade of the house it is uh an acceptable depth it has an acceptable height acceptable setback um so with that in
mind um I think there are several so this is U one of the D variances because it's a floor ratio and in my opinion there are um several purposes of the man Municipal land use law that are Advanced um I'll talk about
purpose uh A and G which are related a is talking about encouraging Municipal action to guide the appropriate use and development of all lands in the State uh clearly single family house in a single family Zone but a substantial upgrade uh
to meet modern living standards uh g talks about providing sufficient space in an appropriate location and again although they VI we violate the rear yard setback we're next to guaranteed open space so there is essentially no
negative to that we also in my opinion because we're pushing the house back and that is the most visible part to the public we are providing adequate light air and open space and again we're reducing uh the impervious coverage on the property um one of the purp is the
municipal land use law that dovetails with your uh ordinance master plan goals is to promote a desirable visual environment uh as you can see from the rendering uh this is a handsome house I think it reflects some of the newer
houses that are built in the area uh it it again has more square footage than is permitted but in my opinion because of the unique situation here where we about open space uh a paper Street anyone riding down the street is not not going to know that there's a 50ft RightWay
next to us it's going to look as part of this property uh it both insulates other properties and again I think it compens can I interrupt sorry I think we got the gist of it so if you if you don't mind we can understand what you're applying
for so thank you uh the end the end okay does anyone on the board any questions for this witness I do oh um you did the study thanks for doing that the of the uh the ratios in the
neighborhood did you also look into the square footage of these neighboring houses that are um I I did one of the problems I had is that I didn't I only looked at the total square footage from the the internet on the on the assessor
survey uh I did not have a diagram to show you know did they include the garage or not incl include the garage there's um let me pull out my notes um there are um some houses that that are um
there's some heavy larger floor are ratios again partly because they're smaller Lots there's some houses that hit uh I'll say the low 3,000 square ft um uh as you know almost without
exception uh the newer houses are all larger they're in the high 200s some of them break through 3,000 square feet in floor area um this is slightly larger but in my my opinion because of the unique
circumstances being insulated by open space um that's going to be imperceptible it's as indicated by the architect it's like chopping off the back 10 feet of the house and again that in my opinion doesn't really offend
anybody from a land use point of view I have a question so um I visit the site looks like the house will be a turn torn down because you're moving the the new house to the back to both yeah both the garage and the house will be completely what's the reason um is there any reason that
prevents you to stay like um within the um uh fa uh HFA like what's the reason that you have to go beyond the 30220 it's well um it's beyond the 3220
by I think uh 194 Square F feet if I recall from the denial letter um it's possible obviously physically to do that but in my opinion um this you know this applicant and
through his architect wants to meet modern living standards um the strongest argument I can tell you is if you use the Coventry standard you know the the issue
is what are the negatives that arise from that 194 Square F feet and because of the unique circumstances here I see Zero negative impact there is no house behind us there's no house to the side
um they're going to appear as right away to the side of us is going to appear as part of our property so it'll make our property look larger um the the applicant can obviously shrink uh the house but in my opinion just to
accommodate modern living and the fact that in this instance when you look at the house from the front and from the other side with the left side where there is another house it looks to be 100% conforming so the strongest
argument I can offer you is that there are no negatives at all from approving this and and I think that addresses the Coventry standard because that's that's what the test is you look at the overage of square footage and you decide is
there some um you have to address the negatives that arise from that extra square footage I don't see any in this instance I have a I got a few questions um all right first question um Fisher
Drive I understand it's a paper Street um can't see how long it is and I understand it borders the to Township Rossy land properties correct that's correct um has anybody approached the town to ask about vacating that street considering most of it would stay as
Rossy and the front would obviously half would go to this lot and the other half would go to lot 26 I have not I'm not aware of that but what I would suggest is that um while uh I guess potentially
it could be uh vacated uh because it's part of Sandwich between two Rossy properties I think it's especially valuable because of that yeah just from my experience dealing with the
rossing in other places um I don't know how this was submitted but I'm pretty sure that as Mr stack uh was saying that because it's sandwiched between two identified Rossy lot
that more than likely even though it's listed there as a as a as a paper Street it wouldn't be allowed to be vacated because more than likely on the rosi it would show as being uh Exempted okay so
even though in essence even though they never did it officially by vacating the street by virtue of putting it on the rosi it served to basically take that street away it it's there but the rosi effectively makes it a nullity okay so
there's nothing to really vacate and I think the town would have difficulty with the D and that's not the people you want difficulty with okay that's one question um so the lot I I understand what you're saying about the to the
right you have the obviously the street that the vacated well the street that doesn't exist you have the rosi property behind but the size of this house looking at from the front compared to the adjacent lots to the left would
definitely be a larger size house compared to the other three neighboring houses correct it it would because the lot at the setback gets wider and wider but the my point is that it's substandard
today and it will be conforming um and again we're we're taking advantage by pushing the house Back 40 feet but to me there is a significant benefit that comes from that in terms of car maneuverability on a
fairly busy street and the last thing that I have is I know you say I think what was it 194 square feet right above the above the 3220 above the the max 3,200 but in reality you know yes but you're also because of the ratio you're
going from what would be allowed which would be 2664 or let's say it is definitely larger although again visually because you were splitting it between two stories you you cut that in half but you you know uh
there's no getting around it we exceed the maximum but again what I think is unique here is where this property is situated plus the irregular shape I don't see any negatives that would arise from this and it's a fairly unique
situation uh in in my opinion Mr St I'm going to ask you a question before tonight's proceeding you and I were discussing the appell division holding in Pullin versus planning board of South planfield Township and how the appell division
found that uh a board could justify variances of this nature uh based upon the overall improvements uh presented by the project could you just touch on that briefly and maybe just highlight for the board the benefits associated with the deviations that we're proposing and the
Redevelopment of the property in its totality yeah the focus Again part of the justification for the uh floor area ratio is the fact that there are other variances that are being diminished or
eliminated and what what that case said that uh Mr sheepers interrupted our dinner with um is that you look at all of the benefits that arise from it not just from the floor area ratio you look at what benefits arise and having a new
house uh again a vote of confidence in the neighborhood one that's in a a visual setting uhit busy road you know Woods across the street if you I think if you look at the whole picture it's it it comfortably meets the Coventry
standard now Mr St you have some pictures of what's there on the property which page is that on those pictures well I have the overhead view on the first page but on pages 2 three and four um I show the character of the
surrounding area so in that photographs on page two you show the house which is 17 ft from the front property line the oversized garage and a couple of accessory structures sitting out there and uh based on what you've proposed or what's proposed to here this evening can
you tell us whether in your professional planning opinion that what's presented in the way of the uh new uh house would represent an improvement from a planning standpoint as compared to what's lawfully existing today uh I I think it would again it's a highly visible
location and I'll just repeat when when you look at it from the street as being proposed it's 100% conforming and when you look at it from the closest uh dwelling on the west it is conforming there also and again the
the concern would normally be where I'm intruding on the rear uh lot but the answer is that's guaranteed open space so is it fair to say that this is a very unique situation in which the board can utilize or rely on the fact that this
property has dedicated open space both to the East and to the north that would amarate any concerns as to quote unquote overdevelopment so any variance you again can't can't be generic you want to look for something specific uh this is
not only has specific attributes but I suspect there's no other property Livingston that has this constellation of factors does anybody else have any questions for this witness um and when I I would agree that it's Unique
um but what I'm trying to Grapple with it's and I and I think probably most on this board would agree a nice new home like this and it looks very nice and this would be a great addition but we do have this maximum limit as you pointed out very very well the master plan even
recommended that we increase it but to my knowledge the master plan didn't say what they wanted to do but they they what the master plan said is we know that our R4 Zone doesn't quite align with the existing pattern of uses and we ought to take a look at it so all what
I'm saying is that it's while the master plan didn't say you know increased the floor are ratio it recognized that there's kind of a misfit between the existing pattern and the standards and I think that suggests that this application can be approved without
substantial impairment of the master plan and putting aside the substantial impairment because I'm trying to find the positive factor what my concern is especially when we're we're which is great that they're getting rid of we' all seen it getting rid of the the structures that are there and putting a
brand new structure which is great but how if we approve this how do we justify that anybody any new house that goes up in an R4 how how would we ever you know reject
that that new house if they are if if if they also go over by a little bit right so let me just put Let me just put that into context yeah we we judge applications on on each application as they come but if I can just yeah yeah
twist that question a little bit What would if I can Mr St and I think he kind of said this but if you can give us the the Cuda gr on this what would be the unique factors for this site to convince
this board that the habital floor area ratio and habital floor area more the ratio uh is is um that the site conditions here are such condition that
that variance can be granted I think that's where Mr Weissman is going here is what what about this more so than another hypothetical site out there what makes this make you render your opinion
so uh several factors number one is as I show this is in a neighborhood where the vast majority of lots are substandard in area so that kind of aligns with what the master plan observed that there's a kind of a
misfit uh here are the factors that are unique to this usually uh when you're studying a variance application properties tend to connect across the street you know how does it look because that's where people connect across the
street there are wetlands and open space there'll never be a house there number one so it's a one-sided Street uh number two this is in irregular shape uh that's clearly addresses I think the rear yard
issue um but um a unique factor is that we AB but guaranteed open space that you're not going to know where the lot line is but visually that paper street is going to look like part of this
property and you I think you take into consideration the variances that were improving we're eliminating a non-conforming sidey guard we're lessening the impervious coverage um we're pushing the building
back so it'll be conforming in the new location I think if you take those all together this is truly a unique piece of property it's hornbook planning to say there are no precedence in this game every every property is unique but that
constellation of factors in my opinion suggests that there isn't anyone that's going to come in and say me too I just have one just just one question um I know the fact that the property borders
on the open space on both sides I I understand that and nothing will be there and it looks like it's their space and there's the woods and whatever the one thing that I one of the concerns that I have is that the house where it was before as crappy as it was was 17
and a half to 18 about 17 and A2 ft away now you're moving at 10t to that to the to to the one neighbor I I get wanting to keep the lot conforming but with all those arguments wouldn't it make more sense to then say that due to the open
space that the house should be almost pushed all the way to the side Lot line so that way because nothing could be developed there and and move it away from the neighboring house so it's not so close um well it's not close to the neighboring house it's it meet it's the
minimum setback is 10 and we're doing 11 and and the the other thing is that you you want a house to have a yard that you could use also and there is a benefit to pushing it back because now you have some
maneuvering uh area for the driveway so I I would interrupt and make this one statement this was a a thought that we had earlier and I actually had discussed this with my client and should the board prefer to see a greater Separation on the western side of the
property it would require some variance relief as you can note uh the lot line is not perpendicular to the road so it is skewed so you have 20 feet in the back corner and 11 ft in the front so if we did Slide the house over to some degree uh we could potentially increase
the sidey yard setback on the west uh so that is a possib ility should the board find that desirable I would imagine that we could accomplish at least 4T and bring that set back to 15 ft and uh decrease that on the uh side to the east
thereby providing greater separation so if that would be desirable we could certainly accomplish that that'll decrease your backyard though cles the backyard I mean the backyard doesn't matter there's just there's woods behind it you're not you're not impacting
anybody that's that's my point I I just think it just looks very congested than on the left side we could we could accommodate that if you want to slide at four feet we'll make that 15 ft and then reduce the other side I mean you know what that's probably why the house was originally
cited uh 2.96 ft from the eastern most property line in order to provide for greater separation so it's not as though that that's a condition that's uh uh known to this property so we'd still be providing a
greater separation than exists today yeah it would lessen the rear setback but it would open up more of the rear yard toward the northwest corner so if the board prefers we can agree to slide the house over to the uh
East providing for a 15ot side yard setback on the Westerly property line wait so wait wait yeah this is okay this is what I want to clear up so if that you know once again this is why I should
have paid attention in school and then I could remember these numbers but if you slide the house um I'm looking at um Mr St page six so we're all looking at the same thing if you slide that
house um over from the left by four feet so now it's a 15 foot setback on the left I think we would agree that the front
right corner of the house would now be past the setback line to the side and now you would have a left side from the Street left side uh right
no right side excuse me right side variance of or feet corre we you agree and in your in your notice I assume that you did oh yeah I
knew you would you you you included any any other variances correct I also note that the plans could be modif modified during the course of the public hearing without further notes and look the fact that it's Municipal prop prop next door to me it's a no-brainer in light of fact there's no
negative impact right and as I said before the fact that the I think I think if the board there is a paper Street there but I think the proper way for the board to consider that property next to it is that it's dedicated open space
it's not going to be uh developed ever uh once you're on the rosi you can't get off the Rossy um or at least it's incredibly difficult uh from my recollection so
um if the board were to go that way just I just want everybody to understand you're creating a new variance where one where none exists at this point and you're not
eliminating any variances by moving it over just I understand Mr German is is saying but I just want everybody to be clear that by moving the house over you're creating
variant and you're not eliminating a variance although from the existing condition it is still an improvement because the existing condition is that yeah I like the bordered up house it's
got a certain aesthetic 13 13 Mocking Bird Lanes yes no no Steve no one gets that anymore I use I use I I use that at my office nobody gets it they don't even they don't even understand what cursive is at
my office um all right so all right just just for clarity here Mr Sherman has made that request about Shifting the house over um is it the applicants
representation that they would um that that that they would amend their plans accordingly by Shifting the house over to the right by four feet and are now requesting a right
side setback Varian of four feet on top of the other variances that we already have well rear yeah well rear yard is already violated rear rear yard will be different it right it's going to reduce
the rare yard setback a little more because it's skewed right but it it it will it will still be there right so the actual number for the rear yard setback will be less it would be approximately 15 feet rather than 20 there you
go but then again it's backed up to open space if there's a tree line or anything you will not be able to cut the trees to increase the depth of your perceivable back rear yard so you would be
restricted with the 15 ft or so yes ma'am yes yeah I think it's a good idea whatever my opinions were anybody else have any opinions plus or minus I take no exception way I would
yeah I would leave it the way it shown rather than shift the house we are violating uh anyway and then why increase and other variant yeah I I agree I agree we can just keep it the way it is great was a good ide that just goes to
show you what do I know the main reason they they're conforming on the left side anyway so understood and the right side so I guess you could shift it over about a foot and still not violate exactly instead of 11 ft you make a 12 we a
little more right yes 10% yeah but even the way so we'll move it move it over so you hit 10 foot on the right side wherever that lands it won't be exactly a foot but okay but that would I believe decrease the rear yard set back by maybe drop right is that good for everybody
yep got as long as that does not just be clear there that that that by by moving it over there is not going to be a right side variance
triggered and you're not that you're not asking for that relief tonight correct the but the Rara would go down because no no no that's fine that's fine that's fine I just want to I'm just yeah I'm just trying to clear up the one I I just
need to clear up the one side we just keep we can just keep it the way it is it's even s on 11 11 on both Sid it looks better it's more conforming we could do that too you got the exact even space on both s but anyway that's my
opinion take the foot take theot leave it to the discretion of the board let's set in the middle take six [Laughter] in all right right down the line preference leave it or move it a foot
go leave it I say take it leave it move it leave it leave it I say leave it but I still have issues with the size okay it's not moving all right that was exhausting okay um
anybody want to make any comments besides the position of the house I do yes um I appreciate that you correct the uh the bulk um standards by you know keeping an even
separation and move the house back to meet the front yard where um a step back and then I recognize the rosy land behind will have no negative impact um I mean will be not will not be negatively impacted by reducing the rail yard
setback but I still feel that um for a brand new house to go up you I respect your professional opinion about the no negative but I still I'm not convinced that um this new house has to be um
exceeding both um area and floor ratio that's my opinion anybody else yeah I I can concur with that opinion even though I think that the improvements are great and I acknowledge that I just feel like those exact same improvements could be
accomplished and be great with the 3220t house in that location that's just my opinion anybody else you have opinion anybody else have an opinion okay um would like to make a closing statement yeah I'll be brief uh
first I want to thank everybody for their time and consideration and this was a thoughtful exchange and uh you know the reason I brought up the polling case with Mr uh St is that the Appel division specifically found that the positive criteria for these type of variances is justified by the vast
Improvement that one would have now you may say to yourself well why can't you make a comply well there are factors involved with regard to this type of Redevelopment I mean this doesn't happen because my client enjoys buying tired old houses and then transforming them
into these uh new homes that people in the neighborhood could be proud of as they pass by and they see this so when you ask yourself well what's the positives associated with this you have to take a look at page P two and then P3 and imagine what's there now
compared to what's proposed now this evening I drove through the neighborhood and I went up uh the side street Meadow and then um um Crescent and I noticed that there is a pattern of older houses being removed and newer houses
comparable to this being built and you may ask yourself well why doesn't the Builder just put something in there that's smaller or why doesn't somebody build something that comports with the ordinance and I think what you have to really ask yourself is is the overall Improvement that this particular applicant is submitting for your
consideration because this is just the this is the proposal it's either yes or a no on this proposal and I would submit to you that when you examine this proposal and you say to yourself I'm looking at what's there now and I am considering what is proposed in this
application I would suggest to you that the very purpose of the state Municipal land use law are being furthered because you're enhancing the desirable visual environment you're creating a situation where you're eliminating three non-conformities building coverage uh the front yard setback and likewise a uh
sidey yard combined and you know and I was speaking to Mr St before the meeting he and I were discussing as you're driving down uh the street which what strikes you most as you're driving down the street when you look at a house number one is the setback because the more the closer it is to the front line
the more imposing it is secondly is the height both in stories and feet so as you pass this house should the board approve it and it gets constructed you would see what appears to be a house that fully conforms nobody's going to be able to look at this and say this house looks bigger than anything else or it
looks bigger than what would be otherwise the lot lines you'll never be able to see the lot lines plus the setback Improvement the building coverage deduction now we're going from a non-conforming building coverage to a conforming building coverage and the overall aesthetic enhancement of the site I believe is a benefit to the
neighborhood and I use a personal standard when I judge these applications and my personal standard is this if I lived on this block how would I feel about this and I would submit to you the fact that really nobody's here to say I don't like it I
don't want it is an indication that it represents a substantial Improvement and I would also suggest to you that on this block this Improvement of eliminating this flat house that's been there for many years it has this oversized garage
that's really kind of obnoxious and actually is almost as big as the house is a vast Improvement so as the Appel division stated in the Poland versus planning board of South planfield Township case that you could rely on those enhancements to justify the
positive criteria under the statute and that being said when you look at the negative criteria how is this so imposing on the neighborhood that the purposes of the ordinance to avoid quote unquote mcmansions is being uh Justified well clearly because of this very unique
situation where you're surrounded by Woods on either side nobody's going to be able to perceive the deviation from the ordinance the board granted what the public will be able to perceive is the vest aesthetic Improvement of this uh property and the benefit and you know
while I appreciate the fact that there are older homes on this block but you could see like the one immediately to the east that's scheduled for the for the demo because clearly that's already been vacated it looks like it's ready to come down and then when you go around the sides and you see the new houses being built they're all comparable to
this two-car garage and uh you know multiple bedrooms and the like so I would submit to you that this is an area that uh is um in the midst of transition and you're going to see more and more of these enhancements and ultimately I believe it represents a vast Improvement
to the neighborhood so as I apply my standard if I lived on this block I would like to see this go forward because I think it really adds to the neighborhood and it would enhance the property values of the people on the street so that's our closing thank you thank you I forgot to ask the public if
they have any comments questions or there's no one out there so it doesn't really matter um but I wanted to throw it on the record you're working um can I just add um I understand the attic is approximately
10t tall can we um um ask that you do not make it a habitable space that's agreed yeah I think we agree to that yep okay does anybody else want to make a statement I think that's it anybody want to make a motion I'll make it I'll
second it to approve it motion to motion to approve with conditions with the conditions of that you know okay Mr K Mr horn yes Mr sha yes Mr
Sharman yes okay Miss Yan yes yes Mr wisman no okay Mr Beer yes motion carries okay well thank you for your
consideration your time and we appreciate the exchange I think it was very helpful even though we didn't change anything I think it was very helpful call the next one please call because okay block 244 L 44 42 Westmont Drive
application number 2024 57- V Justin silver applicant 6 approval for convert attic into habitable space in violation of the following section 17096 C2 front you can just yeah that's really good
reading I I didn't want just stop but I'm going to I'm going to stop you uh I believe this one has uh is this one uh Miss H is this the one that's been withdrawn or is this the one that's being adjourned it's just being adjourned right so I think we received
uh to the board through you chairman we uh Miss H received communication uh from the applicant asking for an adjournment of this uh matter um also through you chair uh based upon information I received from m
Hollis uh this matter has been listed a few times uh and uh there's always the question of uh re notice while there is nobody here tonight uh nevertheless uh based upon my uh opinion
with regard to this and it's the board's desire but I believe as this applicant has been sitting in the queue uh there is a requirement for this applicant to Ren notice uh this has been normally
if you're being adjourned one two meetings that's one thing you can announce from the chair but because of the number of times it's going to be my suggestion that the board uh if they uh allow the adjournment but require a Reen
notice I agree with that does anyone in the board object to that there being no objections I the applicant needs to Ren notice and then okay block 3400 lot one 68 Springbrook Road application number 2024
58-3 Ram jti Anda inuri through you chair uh it's come to my attention through uh Miss Hollis that this applicant is withdraw so there's no action take the applicant
is withdrawn okay so if the applicant's going to come back they got to resubmit no action needs to be taken on that one motion to adjourn approve there you go done