Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the zoning board lens zoning board of adjustment. Today is February 26, 2026. If you're an applicant for a D or use variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons for
the grant of that variance exists and the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. Excuse me. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require affirmative vote of five members of the seven member board
of adjustment. Other variances may require a a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applica applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have the right to appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of
decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're an objector to any type of variance that has been granted, you too may appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of
your complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, also known as the Sunshine Law, adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the Star Ledger West Essex Tribune, and a copy was also posted on the Bolden Board of the Municipal
Building. In addition to having notice posted, notice of this meeting was placed on the township's website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you 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. To the members of the public, I would like to remind everyone that this board exists for the sole purpose of making adjustments to township zoning rules. The rules are developed and
affirmed by the town council. As a board, we listen to the testimony presented for each application and make our decision based on the township rules, state guidelines, as well as rulings issued by the New Jersey courts. We are very happy when the public comes forward and ask questions and or make
statements. In fact, this board always encourages it. However, as a board, we are not going to discuss how we reached our conclusion and how or why we voted for or against an application further than was further than what is required by law. Additionally, over the past
month or so, members of this board have received emails from the public to both our work and home emails, and one member received a phone call to at their home. We are volunteers, and these actions are inappropriate, improper, and intrusion on our personal lives. Going forward they were reported to the proper
authorities as harassment. Thank you for your understanding. We will now call the role. Mr. Kenya Mr. Kenya here. Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Sha >> here. >> Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Young >> here. >> Mr. Wiseman
>> here. >> Mr. Rati >> here. >> Miss Khan >> here. >> Mr. Bear >> here. We have a quorum. Excellent. Um, if you are here for 40 Bernardet
Street, application number 2025-110-V, that application has been adjourned to March 24th. Mr. Kenya, will you call the first application? >> Okay. Block 4403, lot 17, 11, Berkeley
Place. Application number 2025-105-V. Dimmitri Canankin. I hope I pronounced it right. Okay. Applicant seeks approval for addition in violation of the following section 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft
required 39.6 ft proposed 0.4 Four feet variance requested 17087 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 34.9% proposed uh 4.9 person are requested
>> welcome to help out the homeowner and the architect get things going. I'm not an attorney on the planner. >> Um, >> even though you dress like an attorney, Alex, that's that's okay. That's that's >> He doesn't have a bow tie. >> Yeah. Well, you know, we we'll see about
Alex upping his game. And the and the AR you always tell the architects, the architects don't ever have ties on anymore. Uh, they're all very comfortable. Uh, all right. But you, uh, sir, the person seated, you're you're the property owner, correct? >> My name is Deine.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Um, so uh All right. So, you're self-represented and uh so we're going to swear in uh Alex, are you gonna go first or you gonna have the architect? >> So, I'm going to go last. We're going to do the architect uh then myself and
we'll preserve any questions or comments for the homeowner, Mr. Demitri, if if the board sees a fit. Uh but we'll bring the architects up, walk you through the plans, what we're here for, and then we'll talk about the variances that we're here to discuss. >> Great, Alex. Thanks. All right. Well, uh architect gets over there.
Okay. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Uh, just speak loudly into the mic and say, please state and spell your name for the record. >> Sure. Uh, my first name is Imad. It's E
M A D. Last name is Bulis. B O U L E S. >> Okay. And uh, sir, you're the architect on this project, correct? >> That's correct, sir. I'm a licensed architect in state of New Jersey. My license currently active. >> Okay. And uh education. >> I have a bachelor degree of architecture
from University of Fine Arts in Egypt. >> Okay. And have you been qualified before other uh land use boards? >> Um yes, but not in Livingston and many other um and many other uh boards. >> Does anyone on the board have any
questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in architecture. >> Okay. So, um, Mr. Architect, uh, why don't you proceed to explain the project? >> Sure. Thank Thank you for having me. Um,
again, my name is Imad Bulis. I'm here on, uh, behalf of, uh, the property owner, uh, Mr. Ken. Uh, for the property located at 11 Brickley, uh, place. It's also known as lot 17, block 4403 in the
R4 residential zone. Um, the lot, um, the property is 8,250 ft. It's developed with uh an existing ble single family house. Um the surrounding neighborhood is fully residential in character and consist
primaryly of one and twotory single family homes with similar architecture scale and design. The and its property is located in R4 zone uh where u where the maximum permitted habitable floor area ratio is 30%.
Uh the existing structure um is a B level single family house. Uh and I'm I'm proposing uh to improve the residence by converting it into two-story single family house with a finished basement. Um the use will rem uh the use will
remain as a single family house. Uh there will be no change on the use. Um I would uh I would like to reference to the architecture uh sheets A01 I don't know if this is something I should display.
>> I can open it. I'm sorry. So, I'm referencing here to sheet uh A01, the architecture sheet A-01. Uh that shows the basement and the first floor plans. The basement plan will have an indoor recreation room, gym, one
bedroom, and one full bathroom. Uh for the first floor, it will have twocar garages, which is 441 square ft, kitchen, dining, and family area, living room, bedroom, and a full bathroom. What we're looking at here is uh architecture
drawings A-01. Going to sheet a uh architecture sheet A-02 uh it shows the second floor which is a four bedrooms, two full bathroom and a laundry room. Uh also in the sheet AO2 and uh the next sheet A-3 you'll find
the exterior elevations. Uh it will be all upgraded with a stock finish and the stone water table. The roof will also remain as a gable roof. Uh I'm looking here at sheet 8-02 and also in sheet 8-03.
The proposed maximum building height is 27 feet 6 and 1/2 in which complies with the height requirement for R4 zone. Um the proposed floor area for um the first floor is for 1413 square ft and
for the second floor it's 1,426 square ft. Therefore the total habitable floor area is 2,880 square ft. This is a result um it's the proposed floor area ratio of 34.91
where um 30% is permitted uh in the R4 zone. Therefore, I'm uh I'm here tonight requesting the board approval to grant a bulk variance relief to permit a habitable floor area ratio of 34.91%.
And uh also I um the existing front yard and uh sit back at is at 39.6 ft. It's in a pre-existing nonconforming condition which uh will not is not going to be increased. All other zoning
requirement uh are satisfied. Um the proposed improvement will maintain a single family residential use. It will comply with the maximum height requirement. It will not exceed the permitted lot coverage and will will maintain appropriate architecture scale and character consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Architect, let me just clarify something. The front yard setback you're you're are you staying within the uh existing footprint? >> Yes, sir. It's >> so that front yard setback already
exists. >> That's correct. And it's just the quote unquote violation is because now you're adding to the to the second level. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, it's a >> in the air rather than on the ground. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. I'm I'm slightly confused. So, looking at the chart, it says the existing setback is 32.4 ft. >> Yeah. But they're taking the >> Hold on. Hold on. >> This is exact. >> Got it. And the proposed 39.6. You're actually pushing the house. >> We're pushing the garage into 39.6 six
to align with the existing structure >> making it better. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, so I guess the part I'm a little confused on is this is
stated here. It's an addition, right? It's a renovation in addition, but it kind of looks like I can't understand what part of the house that is there today remains, >> right? cuz you're not tearing it down and putting up a whole new house. You're doing a renovation in addition to the
current house. >> It's mostly the basement floors. Uh all the footing walls will remain in place. >> Okay. >> Uh it's going to be some addition um uh to the which is I'm talking about the second floor but all the entire perimeter of the basement is going to
remain. >> Okay. >> That's what we call that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, chair, any questions from the board there? >> All right. Uh, does anyone in board have
any uh questions for this uh witness? No. Does uh anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? No. Okay. Um, back to you. >> All right. So, uh, we're going to proceed with that. All right. Uh, do you
swear from and tell the truth to this, uh, zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Starty, just take a seat. Please state and spell your name for the record. >> Alexander Dowardy, do you gy professional planner, address 136 routine.
>> All right. And, uh, Mr. uh, you are, uh, a licensed, uh, professional planner in state, New Jersey. Correct. >> Correct. My license are good and current. I've testified before this board. I'm a member of APA New Jersey, professional development officer. I present the League Municipality State Redevelopment Conference. I'm also the
in-house town planner for Dover out of Morris County. >> Anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in professional planning. >> Thank you. U so in a nutshell, this
application, yes, is a substantial renovation, I guess we can call it. We're really going to try to keep the building footprint and square it off as the architectural designs kind of indicate some jogs there. As the architect also illust uh indicated, we're we're in conformance and compatibility, if you will, with the the
neighborhood streetscape and and scale of these homes. We are here for two variances. One we discussed is really kind of an existing condition that we're we're really just squaring off, but yes, we are uh you know encroaching, but it's by 4 in of that front yard setback from
a planning perspective. When we talk about the front yard setback, we want consistency, continuity in neighborhood, you know, a consistent predictable development pattern. That 4 in is imperceivable from the public eye, especially as you're walking or driving down the street. You're not going to pick it up. I see no substantial
detriment and and and erosion of the intent of the ordinance and why we have front yard setbacks. again existing condition um of four inches. I would really argue it's a dimminimous variance and we're really trying to square off and and align the the front facade. Um
what we're really here for to discuss in my opinion is the habital floor area ratio. We are in um a situation here at 11 Berkeley Place block 443 lot 12. Um when we look at this um zone, the R4
zone, it allows for 30% um which really of the lot area of 93,75 square ft get you a building of approximately 28 um 12 2812 ft if I did
my math correct. Um we're at 40 34.9% but if you look at the building size it's 28 uh 2880 ft. So, what I'm going to articulate here is our lot is undersized. We have a lot of 8,250 ft. That floor area ratio
is related to the square footage of the property. If we had that, we wouldn't be here for that variance. Um, but nonetheless, we are we're here for the variance. And the intent of a floor area ratio, particularly from a residential standpoint and a planning standpoint, is we want to make sure the homes uh is
another tool to measure and and kind of box in scale and massing. We're compliant with the building coverage, the sideyard and rear yard setbacks. And um you know, we have a buildable envelope, but we don't want a home that's not really fitting with the character, especially mid block and in a
smaller, quiet uh street. But for this purpose here, we're we're not violating that scale, size, and massing. The house is compatible. If we had a conforming lot, this this rat, this variance lives on paper. It's imperceivable. This house is not out of character. One of the balancing of of the intent of F is can
the site accommodate this additional square footage. We have an existing home built in 1960s. We're going to modernize it. We have a growing family. We have in-laws moving in. Uh we have, you know, kids at the house. Applicants been here for 15 years. Want to stay here. We want to modernize the house to consumer
expectations. You know, 1960s living arrangements are different than 2026 and going forward. Um, substantial investment in site, substantial investment in the neighborhood and that of of Livingston Township as a whole. This F, the scale size is compatible. I
think um, when we look at it, we have a residential house in a residential neighborhood that is really compatible as far as the scale and and continuity here. Again, if we had that existing uh square footage for lot area, we we would be here on a balance. I know we have
habitable floor area, which the board is typically here, you know, hearing, but we that allows in the R4 zone 32 uh,20 ft. So, on a balance, we're under we're under half floor area. We're over on ratio and that's related to the
undersized nature of the lot. Um, with that, I do not see any negative detriments. This is going to be a modern house built to all applicable codes, all applicable engineering codes. Again, our sideyard, our rear yard setback, building coverage is all in compliance here. This variance really just lives on paper. We advance many purposes of mis
land use law. Purpose A particularly purpose I desirable visual environment. I would also say purpose C um purpose M um as well to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with the view of lessening the cost of such development and more efficient use
of land. we we are modernizing the home, making efficient use of the site, um and being in scale and character. So I I think we can advance many purposes of miscellaneous law. We don't erode the intent of the R4 zone. It's a residential house in a residential zone. It's really compatible in scale and size
and we're certainly um you know advancing the goals of the master plan by bringing this residential home, modernizing, turning over that aging housing stock and bringing Livingston forward. Um so with that, I'll conclude. I see positives with this application. I see really no no negative detriment to
the zone, the master plan or to the neighborhood buildout. This variance lives on paper. >> Thank you. Just one quick correction. You said it was 4 in >> short. It's point4. I apologize. Five and a half just for the record. So, I'm
an engineer. Sorry. Um, >> does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Please step up if you have a question. Come up to the mic.
>> Statements are after. Okay. Smart man. He knows the the rules. Um you want to make a statement about statements. >> I think we say that's why I asked you. >> So uh when the public uh makes
statements, there is uh a uh time limit we place on it. uh with reasonable flexibility. Uh and obviously we want uh the public to feel free to make comments that are appropriate to the application
before the board. The board is deciding this application at this site. Uh so uh please um keep your uh comments uh to uh that site because this is a record that is developed uh for the board and for
the applicant as well. Uh when you come up, you please have to state your name and your address when you're providing comments and you will be sworn in before your uh statement begins. >> Would anyone like to make a statement?
>> You're up. >> Of course. We're trying to help everyone. >> Uh do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. My name is John Burkhart, B U R K H A R T, and my address is 14 Amherst
Place. My property borders 11 Berkeley to the back. Um, I will make this very quick. Very excited about these plans. Sounds great and h would be happy to have a family living back there. Uh, just wanted to state concerns and observations that neighbors of that
property have had. Um, as people in that neighborhood may know, sewer lines run through the middle of the property line there. And we've had issues with those sewer lines leaking into properties when being overflowed because of past owners not clearing or other issues that just come with sewer lines of this nature
degrading over time, which we are very understanding of. We just like things like this to be considered and taken into account, as well as draining issues just from GR. So, we've just had other experiences with other builders having lots of drainage and water enter into our property. So, I think just myself
and other neighbors are just concerned and want to make sure that the builders who we sure have great intentions to do all the things in the correct way address that as well as large trees and other things. That's all. >> Thank you. >> And just just for just for your information, um you know, this is the
first stop for this applicant. the applicant then uh if if if it's approved, any application has to go to the building department and there's a series of permits and requirements that they have to meet in order to maintain
site safety and in order to ensure that the site is uh not causing harm or detriments to others. So, it's the building department's role to play that oversight and obviously the applicant uh or the ultimate builder here uh will
have that obligation. But, uh so it you know what I'm saying to you is that uh there's more that goes on beyond the board. Uh and just something to be aware of. >> Awesome. >> And I'll I'll just add drainage generally is not in our purview. Uh but
the the engineering department requires that no additional water goes off the property. So however many gallons per raintorm go off, it can't exceed that. It has to be reduced. If you have any problems, please, they're willing to talk to you, of course. And as a project
goes, feel free to swing by and speak with them. So thank you. >> Good, good, good points. >> Thank you very much. >> Would anybody else like to make a statement? Okay. Um do you want to have any closing? >> No, I I think I said it all. Um you
know, we hope you can look upon this application favorably and again this variance is due to the nature of the undersized lot. >> Okay. Does anybody in the board want to make any statements? >> Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second it.
>> Daniel, >> wait, wait, wait. You motion to approve. Motion to approve. >> Please say that. >> Okay. Your Sherman talked over you. >> I know he he likes to. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Horn.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Have a good day. Please call the next application.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh block 6 60 60001 lot 71 42 Walnut Street application number 2025-108-V Timothy Politovic applicant seeks approval for the rare
extension to the rear of the house and replace existing front porch in violation of the following section 170-97 C2 frontier setback 60 ft required 20.3 ft proposed which is existing 39.7
ft variance requested 170 97 C3 right set sideyard setback 15 ft required 7.7 ft proposed that's existing 7.3 ft variance requested 1708-87E
accessory building 6 ft from any other accessory building or structure required 0.7 ft proposed which is existing 5.3 fit variance requested. All right. So uh yeah you're making a lot of noise there chairman. Okay. Uh so
are you uh Timothy Pleditch? >> Okay. Well I I was somewhere I was somewhere close. You have to hit the green button. Okay. So you're you're the owner of the property. Correct, sir. >> Correct. >> All right. And you brought somebody with you. Who did you bring with you? >> Uh, it's my architect.
>> Your architect and wearing a tie. Wow. Okay. Okay. Well, you know, not for nothing to my fellow other fellow architects out there. And not that I'm looking at you, >> but okay. We have >> He could be dating himself. >> That's I'm not that far behind you.
>> Hey, it's okay. All right. So, Mr. Architect, uh, you will be the only person testifying, correct? >> I believe so. Yeah. >> Okay. So, um why don't we have you uh you want do there for or from the podium? >> Yeah. Um I I we'll talk about the plans
up here. Um >> all right. So, why don't we get you up at the podium? We'll swear you in. >> I wanted to see if you got the last name. >> Uh well, why don't you why why don't you say and then I'll I'll disagree with you. Okay. Uh Mr. Architect. See, that's
an easy one. >> Yeah. >> That's where you >> Mr. Architect. I like that. >> Yeah. Do you swear for Until Truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. It's Keith Jinopoulos. G I A N A K
O P O U L O S. >> That sounded right to me. Okay. So, Mr. Gopo, it's pretty close. Um, >> can you give us the benefit briefly of your qualifications as an architect? >> Sure. I'm a registered architect in the
state of New Jersey. Uh 30 years now. I got my license in uh 96. Uh I was educated at Pratt University and I hold a bachelor's of architecture at Pratt. >> Okay. And you're licensed to practice architecture and say New Jersey is up to
date. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. >> Coming due in a couple months. >> All right. Put the date on your calendar. >> Chair. >> Got to take the ethics of course, too. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness
is accepted as expert in architecture. >> Thank you. >> All yours. Okay. So, um, yeah. So, we we have uh it's hard for me to to see this, but we have um an undersized
lot at 20,458 square feet where the zone R2 that we're in calls for 25,000 square ft. We have also an undersized width where 100 ft is a requirement. Uh we have 75
ft. Um both these factors contribute to the requirement for the sideyard front yard setbacks and the existing condition at the garage which has a shed point uh
seven I think feet from the other structure the garage. So, our F confirm uh conforms to the uh requirements and our um our overall area complies as
well. If you want, I can run you through the floor plans and show you how we came up with our addition. >> Sure. Quick question. Do we have a colorized copy? >> We do. Okay. Because ours is black and white. Okay. Go ahead. Want to make sure.
>> Okay. So the addition is to the rear of the structure and we have a pinch point on the right side which is at 7 uh seven square uh uh linear feet and
with our addition we stepped it in as a the lot is not exactly uh 90 degrees straight. So we stepped it in to keep the addition that same 7.7 feet from the lot line. So our addition is essentially
taking the place of the existing deck and then a little bit more. So the addition itself is about 500 square ft, but we're only adding 377 square ft in building coverage. Uh but
we still conform to the overall maximums. Um our impervious coverage when you do the math and add the additions and subtract out the front uh port the
front. We'll get to the front next, but we're taking out the front and we're adding in a a porch and we come up with an 898 addition in uh impervious. But again, we're still under all of our requirements and that comes into play.
Um, jump quickly to the engineers report where they they mentioned that the increase would require uh drywalls and I believe we meet the exception and I know that would get handled once we submit
for the building permits. Um, I can run you through here on the floor plans. Let's go down. >> Well, let me just let me let me just clarify something. So, when you when you look at those floor plans, when the the the ex the the addition extension to the
home, you you're following the current home's >> uh uh set back. >> You're just continuing it further back, >> right? >> The front yard slight jog. >> The front there's a slight jog, right? To to maintain that same
>> not a marathon. It's just a jog, >> right? >> Okay. Um, but the front yard is is over the setback line. Actually, the front yard setback, if we go back to the previous sheet, the front yard setback is way back here in the behind the
house. So, the the 60 foot front yard setback actually occurs in the backyard. So, well, the the intent was to just uh create the addition in the place of the existing deck and still keep it at the
same setback from the side. Ju just to be clear, right, the work that you're doing on the house does not create any new variances. It's just the existing variances or existing conditions remain. >> That's correct. Okay.
So on the first floor we have um main living space not changing kitchen not changing much but reconfiguring the uh the entrance to the master bedroom to get a little more privacy and enlarging the main living area which was a little
cramped and adding in a mudroom transitional area from the backyard into the kitchen but not directly into the kitchen. kind of taking it in on the side here. And then there's a covered
porch in the back and a new covered porch in the front which is 6 ft from the front of the house. As I understand it, that's the allowed um distance for a front porch.
>> So, it' be fair to say that that the as Mr. Horn indicated these are in essence pre-existing uh conditions and that are all caused by the unique uh size and shape of the lot. So it would fall within the parameters of a C1 uh
hardship variance. Would you agree on that, Mr. >> Architect? Yes, it would. Thank you. >> I I I I couldn't I was going to try again, but I decided to just call you Mr. Architect. >> I like Mr. Architect. Um, so there was a prior application um in 2021
that was approved and um this is a scaled down version of it. The the 2021 version was a twotory edition. Um here we're not we're not touching the second floor other than shifting some windows
so that our roof lines work in the back. So, our structure, our addition, the roof lines when we get to the elevations, you'll see come up and we had to shift the windows and change the shape a little bit to make them work. Okay. So, here you'll see the front
elevation which has the new front porch. And what we also added was if you look at the at the elevations. They're little triangles, dark triangles. I don't know if I'm allowed to say this,
but the the roof type that exists on the house right now is called a jerkin head roof, and it's it's sloped a little bit like a hip roof on the ends. So, we're filling those in and squaring off all the gable ends to make them a little more modern and look a little more up
to-date. >> Okay. But I think I think the board has the information it needs. >> Okay, great. >> Um, quick question. There's no livable space over that second floor though, right? That's
>> it's it's just a one-story addition, >> right? Okay. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Please. Yeah, I'm I'm curious because even though it's the same, you know, keeping with the same setback, uh, it
does go back. You know, usually we see a few feet like an extension. Here you're going almost double back. So, and I and I did look at the house, but I didn't go back there. I'm just curious in terms of your neighbor, what you know, because you're sort of
encroaching that that back portion of the house. What's there on your neighbor's property across from the addition that's going to be built? >> Um, they have a detach >> that's where that's where you answer. Do you swear affirm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Go ahead. Answer the question. >> Um, they have a detached uh onecar
garage. It's really used for storage. And I think in between that detached garage and our fence, they have a it's like a kennel area. It's just a, you know, um, chain link fence kennel thing. They don't have a dog, but other than that,
there's nothing in the backyard um on either our lot or theirs. >> So, if you if you uh I zoomed this in a little bit, you can see here on the survey u on the left side, we have the house structure here and a detached
structure there. On the other side, we have the house going back of maybe 10 feet shy of our addition and then another uh detach structure in the back. So, it shows up on the survey what uh
where what the structures are on the other side. Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement as per his rules?
Is anybody on the uh Do you have anything else in closing? >> I think that's it. I I'll leave you with a little pretty picture of the of the house and Okay. And that's it. >> Do we have that in color? >> Okay. Did anybody in the board want to make a
statement? >> Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Charman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha.
>> Yes. >> Miss Jan. >> Yes. >> M. Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. >> Lot 5100 lot 2425
Winchwood Road. Application number 2025-109-3. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Mark Hersburg. Applicant seeks approval for the front sight and rear edition in violation of the following section 170-98C3
aggregate sideyard setback 33 ft required 28.3 ft proposed 4.7 ft variance requested 170-87CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 21.16
per person per uh percentage proposed 0.1 16 person variance requested. >> Okay. So, um, >> welcome. >> You have just do me a favor. Hit the button. Very good. So, I am going to make a couple of guesses. You are the
owners of the property, Hersburg. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, and you have uh your architect here to explain the project. I can tell he's an architect because he's trying to look like uh you know >> Steve Jobs >> or or Marcel Moro. I don't know. He may
be going for like a French Renaissance look. >> Clearly that's how you definitely know he's an architect. Not even a jacket. Not a jacket, but that's okay. Um All right. So, we'll swear Bellen.
>> Okay. >> Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Can you do us a favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? >> Uh yes. Daniel Dubinette. Uh, D A N I A Last name Dubanet D U B I N E T.
>> Okay. And so, Mr. Dubanette, can you just briefly give us your qualifications? You've been accepted as a an architect before this board on many occasions. Uh, but just brief. >> Uh, yeah. Short story is undergraduate uh Syracuse University.
uh graduate degree, master's degree uh NGIT 1995, received my license uh 2021 2001 2001 so it's been about 25 years uh practicing residential primarily
architecture in our hood in our neighborhood and I've appeared before this board before and the license is still good. >> Very good chair. >> We can accept you as an expert in architecture. >> Thank you. And if if I may, I think uh I don't know if we did we swear the
client's name. >> Oh, okay. I didn't know if they if you might as well just >> No. >> Well, you I'll know you're raising your hand. Uh do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. If >> Yeah, we just need your name, ma'am.
>> Stacy. S T A C Y >> H I R S C H B E R G. >> Okay. Good evening and thank you for taking the time to consider our application. My name is Stacy and my husband Mark and I are longtime Livingston residents, LHS,
class of 94. Our intention with this project is simple, to remain in our home and continue being part of this community for the long term. Mark owns and operates a local CPA firm here in town and Livingston is where both of our both our personal and professional lives
are rooted. remaining here rather than relocating elsewhere is very important to us. The proposed addition is not about not just about expanding beyond the sorry the proposed addition is not about expanding beyond the character of the neighborhood but about making our existing home functional and handicap
accessible. I have a permanent progressive medical condition that creates significant mobility challenges. The cast on my arm and the crutches for my leg are permanent. My condition is deteriorative and I may eventually end up in a wheelchair. We need to make the home handicap accessible so that I can
safely live there now and in the future. Working closely with our architect, the design has been carefully planned to minimize visual impact, remain consistent with surrounding homes, and comply with all zoning requirements except where the variance is requested.
The goal is not excess, but practicality, allowing me to navigate my home safely and maintain my independence. We are committed to be thoughtful neighbors and responsible homeowners and we respectfully ask for your consideration and approval so that we may continue living on our home and
community in a safe way accessible and sustainable. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Hburger. So we're going to we're going to start with Mr. Dubanet to >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. And I forgot to mention that I was uh 1986 graduate
Livingston High School. 40 years. >> Did not know that either. >> Uh reunion coming up. >> Um thank you. So yes, there's uh two variances associated with this application. The first one is the
aggregate sideyard setback. Um we'll be seeking about 4.7 ft. Um one of the things that makes this property a little unique is it's very wide. It's 110 and I think 100's the minimum. So, the width of the property exacerbates the combined
sideyard uh requirement and it's a split level home. So, as we talk about expanding and where we're going to expand, we needed to be on the left turn side um for the expansion and there's a garage uh project. So, that's the first
variance is the aggregate sideyard setback. The second variance we need is habitable floor area ratio. So, we'll be under the allowable 352. Um, our numbers are
uh for the habitable floor area ratio, we're at we'll be we'll be asking for 3,513. Uh we're 21% is also uh the max allowed. We'll be at 21.16%.
So it turns out to be a 27 square foot violation. And of course the first thing I thought of is well where could we cut? Um we there obviously places to cut but if we didn't have to we prefer the 27 square f feet. And because we are here
uh what drove it mostly was the combined sideyard setback. So we figured let's let's ask uh so let me briefly take you through the project. It's I think there's three three components to this addition. There's the master
bedroom expansion that'll happen in the rear. So, let me take you through that. I think this site plan will be good. Um, so on the left side, hidden by that
block. There it is. Okay. On the left side of the property behind the house. So the currently the house is a four bedroomedroom two bath house. At the end result we're going to have a three bedroomedroom three bath home. So we've opted to u expand the bedroom
level which is up a half a flight of stairs and that's the shaded area in the back. Um and that'll allow us a a large bedroom closets. We're going to bring the laundry upstairs and we've increased the size of the bathroom. We're trying
to make everything kind of uh wheelchair accessible. And one of the the second part of the project is we're going to expand the living space on the split level. Um, one thing I might add is part of the
F, which I don't know if it's a C1 hardship, but it's certainly a hardship, is that about 850 square feet of the lower level of the split level, which is 7 and 1/2 ft tall, counts towards F. So, it's kind of like our basement, but
we're also uh being charged for the F. So, uh, in my opinion, that is felt like a hardship, architecturally a hardship. So, the areas in pink are the areas that we're expanding. Um, so currently on the upper level,
there was three bedrooms. We're going to just turn that into two. And it'll afforded us the pink area in the back is the master bedroom. We've got some closets. We got the laundry room. And we've got a a larger bathroom. the front of the house which does not
need a variance but the front of the house we it was a very interesting challenge and I sorry to b bore you with this but one of the things that uh came into play was the kind of restrictive nature of the of
the foyer so when you get greeted at the front door it's very tight and of course you're right into the living room so one idea that we're presenting is that we move the foyer We move the foyer and we steal part of
the garage for a nice entrance to the house, a uh a foyer. And then behind that we'll be able to have a powder room. There's no powder room on the first floor as as as of today. Um and then we want to expand the garage. Right
now it's a sidefacing twocar garage. We'd like to make it a front-facing twocar garage. So, those are the pieces of the puzzle uh that we're to be able to expand the house. So, one of the nice things is we're working with the structure of the split level and we've
added some a front porch for um well function but also aesthetics. So, I think that's enhances the streetscape and certainly increases and updates and modernize the house. And so, for that reason, I didn't feel like the F
although small wasn't an issue. I think the property can handle the additional massing. And what's interesting to note about the sideyard sepex is although we need the aggregate, we're still way over the 10 feet. So 10 ft is the minimum. And on the left side we'll have
third, no, I'm sorry, the left side will be 14.6 ft of sideyard setback and on the right side it'll be 13.6. So I didn't feel like I was encroaching on the open light and airspace to the neighbors. and I had the quick opportunity to
study the neighbors and what's the situation. So there's no negative impact to the neighbors. And I'd like to add this as an exhibit because this is in addition to what you have. I >> call it exhibit A. >> A. >> All right. And we'll make sure that we get it to Katherine.
>> So I took some uh well this is Google Earth image. So this sheet is uh basically uh Google Earth image from 2024 which shows the uh proximity of of the adjacent homes and I had a chance to measure it. So the neighbor on the left
facing the house which is I believe 23 which would the uh aggregate or the open space between the two after the project's done would still be 35.6 6 feet between the two houses. And on the right, which I believe that's number 27,
after the project's completed, there'll be 33.7 ft between the two houses. So, I felt comfortable that we weren't encroaching on anybody's light, air, and open space. And then just real quickly, this is number 23 from the back. So, they have very few windows. Um, so
again, not imposition to them. And the neighbor on the left similar. There's there's no windows. So, um that's my case. >> Mr. Let me >> Yeah, >> let me just uh make sure we're clear on
the record. Exhibit A1 is a single page submission which includes an aerial image, Google aerial image and two photographs of the neighboring properties. Is that correct? That's correct.
>> Okay. And Mr. Dubette, can you just I thought I wrote this down correctly. You you converted that.16% variance. You said that that was that equated to 27 square ft.
>> Yes. Well, if you take the uh the 21% Let's see if my math is correct. So, 21% of his lot size, which he's got a large lot. He's 16,000 plus. So 21% of his lot equals 3,046
and we're seeking to be at 3513. So that differential was 27 square ft. >> So Mr. Dubanet in your experience as an architect that 27 square ft that is represented a.16 variance. Uh that would
be uh the the lot would be able to handle that >> that whole 27 square feet. I do feel like we could uh >> All right. >> It would be dimminimous and of course uh no negative impacts.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And you feel that the uh there's plenty of room on either side as you were testifying to? >> Yeah. >> Plenty of airent neighbors. >> And then one other thing that I did not mention is obviously the height doesn't change. So the currently the house is at 23 and 1/2 ft and we're not
>> So it's a nice low profile and everything else >> low profile. I think to again keep the uh original architecture vibe and feeling but add and update modernize. Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements? Do you guys want to make any sort of closing statement? >> Thank you for >> taking the time.
Um, anybody on the board want to make a statement? >> I'll just make a quick statement. I I appreciate what you've done. Having had a a mom who was in a wheelchair for the last 26 years of her life, right? Looking at the plans that you did, right? I think those will help um make your ability to stay in the house. I
think they're thoughtful, conserved neighborhood and hopefully gives you the flexibility and the ease in your home. So, thank you. >> Um, best of luck to you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.
>> Mr. Horn second. >> Okay. Mr. Mr. Horn second. Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weisman. >> Yes. Yes. We had an agreement.
>> Yes. Then yes. >> Okay. >> I'm not very I'm doing my job right. You're doing a great job. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carried. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Best of luck. Good health.
>> Okay. Block 5100, lot 5223 North Drive. Application number 2025-114-V. >> Yes, Arun and Swapnabat. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family resident in violation of the following section 170- 87 CC3 habitable
area floor ratio 21% allowed 24.6 person proposed 3.6 person variance requested Good evening chair board Alex planner going to move this along. We don't have an attorney. It's a
homeowner application. >> So for kind of how we did the other one we're going to let the architect go first please. >> Okay. And uh sir or can I just have your name for the record? >> My name is Yeshuan. I'm the owner of 23
Nroid. >> Fantastic. Okay. All right. Uh am architect ready? >> Yes, sir. >> Swear friend tell truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay. Uh we just got your qualifications
on before and uh qualified in the field of architecture. Uh chairman, >> we can accept him as an expert in architecture. >> Thank you. >> Um so this uh this property is located at 23 North Drive. It's uh lot number
52, block 5100 in the R3 uh residential zone. >> Um the property is uh 14,322 square ft. Uh it's developed currently with um >> why don't you change change the video?
>> I changed the change the image >> on the screen. >> Yeah, we got we're done with wedgewood. I did. It's uh showing the floor plans here. >> Here we go. >> Perfect. Go ahead. Sorry.
>> Um the property is 14,322 square ft. It's currently developed uh with one level uh single family home. Uh the surrounding neighborhood uh is a fully residential consist primary of one and twotory single family homes of a
seminal architecture and skilled um architecture scale and design. Uh currently the property is located in R3 zone uh which where the maximum permitted habitable floor area ratio is 21%.
Uh the existing condition um the structure is one level single family home. I'm proposing to convert the single one family home into twotory a single family home as well. They're going to remain as a single family residential home and there will be no
change of use. Uh the proposed improvement I'm going to refer to sheet the architecture sheet 8-01. Uh it shows the basement of level and the first floor. The basement floor will have an indoor recreation room, playroom, media room, mechanical room,
one bedroom and full bathroom. The first floor will have twocar garage. Uh it's 441 square ft. Kitchen, dining and family area, living room, prayer room, bedroom, and a bathroom. Uh I'm going to get uh flip into
architecture sheet A-02 which shows the second floor and the exterior elevation. The second floor will have a four bedrooms, four full bathrooms, laundry room, and I'm showing the exterior on sheet A-2 and 8-03.
The exterior the exterior uh of the home will be upgraded with a gym's hardy panels and a stone water uh base. Uh and the roof will remain as a gable roof design. Uh the proposed maximum height is 32 feet and 1 in which complies with
the height requirement in the R3 zone. Um, the proposed area for the first floor, if I go back to the floor plan to sheet 8-01, the first floor is going to be 1,585
square ft. The second floor will be 1,934 square ft. The total pro the total proposed habitable floor area is 3,519 square ft. This is result in the proposed habitable floor area ratio of
24.6 where 21% is permitted in the R3 zone. Uh I'm requesting a bulk a bulk variance relief to permit a habit a habitable floor area ratio of 24.6. Uh also there is uh the existing lot
area is 4 14,322 ft which is required is 15,000 square ft. The existing lot depth is 138.8 ft which is required is 150 ft. All other zoning requirements are satisfied.
Uh this variances uh the request variance will represent a deviation of approximately 3.6 above the permitted ratio. Uh the proposed improvement will maintain a single family resident uh residential use. It will comply with the
maximum height requirement. It will maintain appropriate architectural scale and character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Uh it's an old structure. It's going to get uh modernized. It's going to look much better. Uh and it's going to be in code
compliance. Thank you. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I have a question quick I have a quick question. Um are you the
architect of the plan on the record? >> Uh I'm working with AS Architecture. My name is Imad Bis. Uh the architect on record. He's going to his name is Aman Sedra. I'm working with him. He's an as architecture group LLC out of Rosland New Jersey. So sometimes when just for
the board's edification some you know when architect architects or engineers prepare certain plans well the the name of the architect or the engineer who prepared the plans signed and sealed them may not be available that time for the hearing and as long as it's an
architect in or an engineer in that same firm who is familiar with the plans uh and is a member of that same entity usually is the one that you know can come and testify as long as they're licensed >> to practice architecture in say New Jersey.
>> Yes, sir. >> Once in a while. >> Okay. Um, does anyone No one in the public had any questions? Okay. Next. >> I recognize I'm still under oath. Uh, >> right. So, what let's just brief. So,
we're in uh square for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Darity, uh just state your name for the record, please. >> Alexander Dowardy. D O U G H E R T Y. Professional planner. >> Okay. Mr. Darity was just uh qualified an expert in the field professional planning. Uh
>> we can accept him as a expert in professional planning. >> Uh so before the board this evening um at 23 North uh Drive, we are in the R3 zone. This is block 5,100, lot 52. As
the architect indicated, um the requirement for the R3 is 15,000 foot lot. We're slightly below that. We're at 14,322. Um we are here for a floor error ratio.
Uh 21% allowed. Um plans indicate 24.6 uh 3.6% deviation. Um, I would like to tell the board if we had a conforming lot, this variance wouldn't exist. I will again reiterate, I'm a planner. I'm not an engineer. Um, I do my best with
numbers. Um, I still think we would be slightly over the requirement. Um, but on paper, the the number looks larger. It's related to the undersized nature of the lot. Um, the plans indicate we are in compliance with habitable floor area. uh as the
building um is um just one square foot shy of that per the zoning chart. So when we on a balance here the ratio is high a little bit over slightly my math would be 2.7% over um if we had a conforming lot but we are asking for 3.9
but on a balance if um the habitable floor area is is in play here we have our checks the R3 um requires like I said before 30 3,520 the size of the home habitable floor area is indicated to be uh 3519
so on a balance. The home isn't is compatible with the zone, the built environment, that neighborhood. This is not the biggest home in the neighborhood. Nowhere near that. Um, this house, um, my records, what I pulled was built in 1957, so substantial older home. This is tear
down and rebuild. Um, I know the board would like to see on a new build, you know, compliance. Um, the way this is designed and talking with the applicant, we have a growing family. Um, we've been here for, you know, a little over going on 10 years. Um, in-laws are moving in.
Um, you know, we we have an older home, I believe, uh, talking with the applicant in the architectural plan. It's a three-bedroom house today. Um, so we're going to try to modernize this to consumer expectations and and and in and living standards um, you know, for the foreseeable future on what the housing
demand looks like. Um, we are asking for a little bit, but again on a balance that habitable floor area is our check and I think we're right in compliance. This house is not going to be out of character with this tear down rebuild. As I stated prior, it has an opportunity
to bring best engineering practices and storm water managements to a site, you know, that aren't there today. Older homes, the leaders just run out to the yard. There's no drywalls and that likes. We have an opportunity to bring that on site. newer modern building code um compliance and best engineering
practices um again uh arrangements. I would argue that um we have a compatible house in the zone. We meet the intent of the R3 zone. Uh we would advance many purposes of municipal land use law. We do have those existing variances by lot
area and lot depth. We can't cure those deficiencies, but as far as the uh sideyards, we are in compliant. The uh um building height is in complant. the building area is compliant, front yard setbacks are compliant. You know, when we look at this from a a perspective uh
we can advance purpose A to uh guide appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner which promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. By virtue, we are giving a a newer home applicable building codes and and in best engineering practices. Um, we can
advance purpose C because we're compliant with our our bulk standards for adequate light, air, and open space. Um, I would argue advancing purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through good creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. We have an opportunity to,
you know, continue forward with turning over Livingston's housing stock and and and bringing that um good civic design and and architectural arrangement to the to the neighborhood and to the community at large. I would also argue that we can advance purpose M to um encourage the
coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping the land development with the view of lessing the cost of the development and more efficient use of land. I would argue that we're doing that because we can keep a home here, make more efficient use of it, bring a few more bedrooms online, have that, you know, in-law suite if you will, a
growing family, keep it here. um nothing that we're doing to this house proposed plans I think would alter um use of this of the of the home we can convert these to home offices you know and the likes of that but we can park it we have adequate water sewer and utility
connection here um the balance when we talk about floor area ratio is the scale size and massing of the homes uh and structures um again we are you know in neighborhood conformity and continuity here we we are right on scale here this varian I would argue lives on paper.
There's no visual detriment here. The site is going to be modernized best engineering practices and building codes and the likes. Um I don't believe this going to erode the intent of the R3 zone as well as the uh Livingston master plan. It's a residential house in a residential neighborhood. I would ask that the board look upon this
application favorably. I am a planner. I rely on my my counterparts. I don't see any negative detriment here. I understand newer homes have to comply with engineering and building codes. Um, we comply with setbacks. I do not see any negative here. The house is conforming by visual environment and I
would ask that the board look upon this application favorably. >> Okay. I got just one or two quick comments. Um, you're actually going down in a lot coverage by squaring off the house it looks like. >> Yeah. >> So, you're reducing that looks like by 200
300 feet 250 whatever something like that. I'm It's late. 3 three >> I try to stay away from math. >> Yeah. 3 I I don't uh 334 it looks like. Uh plus or minus. So okay that's And then you're also um you're eliminating
the front yard setback, right? >> Yes. There there are positives here but the variance is is the FA obviously. >> Yeah. Okay. And then I actually have one question just from a paperwork point of view. The site plan I don't know if you can answer this. The site plan says the
owner applicant is ROAC builders and it's Mr. Arun looks like the owner or applicant. So I'm trying to understand why that >> I I I don't have an answer for that. My my suggestion is he or logical explanation is ROAC would be the
contractor, but he owns the property. He's living here. He's going to live here. >> Okay. Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement?
Do you want to make any closing statement, sir? Uh, I would just ask that the board look upon its application favorably. I see no negative detriments here. >> Does anyone in the board want to make a statement? >> Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I'll second it.
>> You okay, Miss Khan? >> Yes, >> Mr. Sha. >> Okay, Mr. Kenya. Yes, Mr. Horn. >> Yes, >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yes, >> Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Beer. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Block 3301, lot 612 Deal Lane. Application number 2025-104- Samantha and Samuel Rubin. Applicant seeks approval for twostory addition and one-story attached garage in violation
of the following section. 170-87B3 habitable floor area 3520 square ft allowed 39 ft proposed 380 ft variance requested 170-87
BB3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 23.6% proposed 2.6% six person answer the question. >> Okay. So, uh we have I'm going to guess this is Samantha and Samuel Rubin. Correct. You're the you have to hit the
hit the button. >> Yes. >> Okay. You're the owners of the property. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh are you going to be testifying at all tonight or are you just going to rely on your architect? >> And you can tell I'm an architect because I have a tie. >> No tie. Yeah. I figured I >> I'll be doing most of the testifying unless something comes up.
>> All right. So, why don't we why don't we uh swear in your architect and we can start. Okay, Mr. Architect. Uh, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Corey. C O R E Y Buck Holds. B U C H O L
Z. >> Okay. And uh briefly your qualifications. >> I graduated from NGIT uh with a degree in architecture back in 2008. I got my license in 2021. I've been in front of probably a dozen or so boards since then. Uh not this town yet. uh and my
license is current uh with the state. >> Does anyone on the board have any uh objections, questions, objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, a witness is accepted as expert in architecture. >> All yours. >> All right. Thank you very much.
So, we are here tonight for a addition alteration to the existing house at 12 Lane. Uh we are here for the variances that were mentioned which are the floor area ratio where 21% is allowed. We're asking for 23.6 with a variance of
2.6 as well as capital floor area uh 3520 ft is allowed. 3900 is proposed with a 380t variance. Uh the rest of the bulk for the site is conforming lot area, lot width, lot
depth, front yard setback, uh and the sideyard setbacks all are currently conforming and we're not increasing those to out of conformity. Uh we are increasing the sideyards for the addition slightly, but they are still within the variance limits. Uh the rear
yard setback, there is no change. building height. We are going because the addition is a the existing house is a split level. So, the addition is mainly on the higher side of that. So, the addition is raising the house up uh from 21.75 for the building height to
31.8 where the town allows for 35 ft. So, we're still within the variance limits for that as well. Uh so the my clients uh are seeking to modernize
the house is a 1950s house uh that serves well for that time but for modern homes uh they work from home both of them telecommuting not home business uh so having that additional space for a home office on the second floor uh they've Samantha's lived in town I
all most of your life. >> Hi, Samantha Rubin. I grew up in town. Um, and it's really special that now we can raise our family in town as well, around the corner from my family, some of which is back there. Um, so we love our street. We love our neighbors and
our home and are just looking to increase its practicality for our growing family. Um, also for accommodating our aging parents who come in from out of state for extended stays. Um, and to our architect's point, the our home office is
>> so the nature of it. Thank you, >> Samantha. What we're a little belated, but >> every hit the green button. >> Everything you said, you swore a firm, tell the truth for the zoning board, right? >> Everything you just said was >> 09. >> All right. No worries. >> Chime in before.
>> Thank you, Samantha. I'm sorry, Mr. Tech. >> No, no problem. Uh so the house is a split level so the amassing of it lends itself to what we're trying to do. It's not a big box like like some houses can be not judging any anybody else that was in front of the board now or other uh
but compared to other houses in the develop in the area uh modernizing this house to be more in line with uh the new houses that have gone up or the alterations that have taken place. uh the floor area ratio that we're asking
for is 2.6 which is dimminimous compared to what is uh to what we could have been asking for. So the reason we're asking for that is for that more modern house with right now it's uh three very small
bedrooms uh with uh their family coming from out of town from Colorado uh people stay over uh working from home uh that extra space is very useful for them. Uh and the third car garage while also asked that F the third car garage is
allowed in the zone. Uh we're also that is also critical to them for both vehicle storage and for storage of kid play things because you already have a daughter I believe. Uh so having the third car garage is also useful for keeping the street streetcape clean of
stuff. Uh having two kids my own I know very well that it just grows all over the place. So would it um so Mr. uh Bukultz's uh >> I did I get close probably >> close enough close enough for for for the purpose of this application. So, uh
would with regard to the um the floor ratio, uh would the lot allow uh would that lot be suitable for that overage? >> Yes. So, the lot is a little bit larger
than the the minimum that is required. Uh so, the the lot and the landscape and the surrounding area lends itself to that small overage that we're asking for. Uh and it does not violate the neighborhood itself. uh and is cohesive with it. >> Does anyone in the board have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public want to make any statements? >> Do you guys have anything else to add? >> Oh.
>> Oh, okay. >> Oh, see he was listening. Do you swear do do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. Sam Ruben. >> We are the Sam Rubins. >> We are the Sam Ruben. >> Um I just want to say like as my my wife
uh said earlier, we we love our neighborhood. My wife loves the area which she grew up. I'm a Long Island boy, but uh you know, she she brought me over to uh to Livingston Town. Um, but you know, we
really want to keep the aesthetic of a neighborhood. Split level is like the entire neighborhood of Broadmont is all splits. Um, it's both uh beautiful but also stressful at the same time with trying to make it work with your active and growing lifestyle. So, you know, we
feel that our plans um still represent the nature of uh of the neighborhood and the split design. >> I actually had a question. And I just realized um the attic is not going to be used for usable space.
>> No, I don't think so. We don't. >> No, I don't think there's any plans for that at all. >> So, make that a stipulation of approval if you have one. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Okay. Did anyone make a motion? >> I'll make >> I'll make a statement. I'm sorry. >> Anyone make a statement? No. Anyone make
a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve >> with the condition. with the condition of the attic. >> Trust me, I spend a lot of time in this neighborhood trying to find my son who's usually scootering over there. So, I I know I know your neighborhood well.
>> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn. Yes. >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Khan. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Sorry.
>> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Okay, let's go. Let's go for the record. >> Okay. Block 6900 lot 26184 East
Northfield Road. Application number 2026-12-V Pedro Gomez. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new S single family residence in violation of the following section. 170-98
C2 front yard setback 50 ft required not to exceed 60 ft 121.8 ft proposed 61.8 8 ft variance requested 170-98C1 building height 35 ft allowed 38.5 ft
proposed 3.35 ft variance requested 170-87 BBB3 habitable floor area 3520 ft allowed 67 ft proposed 31 square ft 3180
ft variance requested 170-887 I1 garage Three gar threecar garage allowed. Fourcar garage proposed. One garage variance requested. 170-87E1F3
accessory structure shed 500 square ft allowed 875 ft proposed 375t variance requested. 170-96A88F swimming pool setback 20 ft required 14.4t proposed 5.6 Six foot variance
requested. >> Good evening. I'm I'm Matthew Jarm. I'm the architect for the applicant. My client is stepped out for a moment. He's about to enter, but if you're okay, we can we can begin. >> Right. Are you you going to start, Mr. D? >> Yes. Yes, I can. So, why don't I start? If it's okay, will you swear me in?
>> All right. Do you swear to tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Dural, can you please give us briefly your experience? >> I'd be very pleased to. Thank you. I hold a bachelor of architectural degree from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I also have an MBA, masters
in business administration with a concentration in real estate development and urban land use from Ruckers University. Um, I've been a registered architect in New Jersey since 1994. All total I have 37 licenses throughout the country. I have testified, no
exaggeration, hundreds of times before municipal planning and zoning boards throughout the state, superior court. It's been a long time, but I've testified in uh in this uh zoning board as well as a Livingston planning board uh and resident of Livingston, although
not an expert since I was two years old. The young lady that was here before, I think she said she was class of 2006. I was nine. I was 1985. All right. Does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There be no objections. The witness is
accepted as expert in architecture. >> Great. Thank you. If I may, I'm going to >> Please. So, Our exhibits typically up here already. >> Close the desktop. The last time you were here, we didn't have the technology.
Messed you up. >> And by the way, I'm going to state for the record that Mr. Jarl actually thought enough to wear a tie to this hearing. So, you know, not for nothing. >> Thank you. This is uh Pedro Gomes, my client who's
just arrived. So with me tonight is is Mr. Gomes. Uh Mr. Gomes has been a resident of Livingston for 15 years. uh he lives on the subject property for approximately nine years uh in the in the home that's there that was built in the early n early 20th century I think
19 12 so it's been there quite quite some time um initially he had plans to apply for a subdivision and it was in discussions uh with the town some members of the planning board about building four homes here that would uh
more or less comply with the R3 zoning uh but it's a beautiful piece a property as we'll talk to you about this evening. It's almost 2.6 acres in area. It's uh wooded uh adjacent to the orange um water reserve all the way around and it
has a as you may know a stream that runs in front of the property on the uh I guess the northern side along along Northfield. You can barely see the existing house now. Uh and actually if you were headed east on Northfield, you would pass the Kowanas Fairgrounds and
the water reserves. You uh you know several hundred yards of woods. It's the very f the very first home. The property is located in a split zone. Uh approximately 70% of the property is located in the R1 zone. That's the rear of the property. And the remaining 30%
approximately uh fronts that fronts northfield is in the is in the R3 zone. There are there are several variances that we're requesting. Um, in talking to our client and reviewing them, I can tell you right off the bat, uh, that we will adjust the height of the building
to comply with the 35 ft that's allowed in the zone. Um, one of the reasons, by the way, although it's irrelevant because we're going to comply, is that part of the property is in the flood hazard zone. The the house had to be raised up out of it, but we'll reduce the floor to floor heights to make that work. Um, candidly, we missed the fact
that fourc car garage is not allowed and client is willing to reduce it to three uh to three cars and keep the other portion of the garage for storage. So, um, other variances and we have Mr. Dowy, Alex, I think, uh, this will be
his third hearing tonight to testify on the variances. Um, so I won't go into detail other than mention them. There's a front yard variance. We're we're actually set back too far from the street. Uh it's a very very deep lot which you'll see. Uh in addition to that
there is a uh I'm sorry there's also a swimming pool variance. We're too close to the property line. We looked at that. We're going to eliminate that variance as well. So we're eliminating three of the variances height garage and sideyard with the swimming pool. And that leaves
us with a habitable floor area variance which Mr. Dowy will talk about. Um and the front yard variance I believe. >> Mr. Durl, let me just >> make sure we have the record clear. >> Yes. Okay.
>> So with so of the um variances that were originally requested as part of the packet, three of them are going to be eliminated by virtue of revised if the board were to uh look favorably on the project. uh
your office and uh the other professionals would submit revised plans that would show the um structure height to be compliant with the 35 foot standard. >> Correct.
>> To remove the fourth uh garage. >> Correct. >> Correct. And uh the plans would also be revised to show the swimming pool is now um compliant. It's moved further away
uh from the um the sideyard. Is that a sideyard? >> Yes, that that that is correct. There's one additional variance that I didn't mention. I apologize. There's a pre-existing nonconformity with the size and area of the sheds. I believe you're allowed a total of 500 square feet.
There's actually two existing sheds on the building that Mr. Gomes proposes to keep and I believe they're about 800 square f feet combined. >> So the uh variance requested for the accessory structure at 875 square ft
that's actually pre-existing. >> That is correct. >> It's not those are not being moved. They're not being touched in any way, shape or form. >> They they are not the plan the plan does show one of them being moved by the pool but in discussions we said we would leave it where it is. >> Okay. So that so that is a variance
request but is pre-existing. >> That is correct. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that the board is up to date as to which variances are actually being uh requested. So we still have the front yard,
the habitable floor area and >> the shed. >> Technically the shed, but the shed is a pre-existing >> pre-existing pre-existing. Does that mean variance in any way if it's not being touched? >> It's it it would technically they have
to ask for it because of the other changes that are being made on the property >> but it's pre-existing so it's a technicality >> and just real >> they wouldn't have to request it if they >> One of those sheds is in the woods kind of looks like
>> that is correct. Yeah. So one of them is very far buried. Yeah. Kind of kind of >> I just wanted to make sure I was saying that correct. Yeah. So, so the the drawing I just put up which is uh drawing CP200 which was submitted to you and I'll just kind of show you really quickly. This is only we cut the site.
So the site is cut here. It continues to go on for several hundred feet. It's very very deep. It's a beautiful piece of property. The the dark dotted line you see is the zone line. So, um, it's located the to the left of this zone, which is to south on the property, is a
R1 zone, and to the right is is the R R3. Um, the existing home uh would be demolished, obviously. I don't know if that's obvious, but the existing home will be demolished upon completion of the new home. Uh, so the the helm is set back a little bit from that existing
home, which causes sort of the front yard variance, why it's so deep. And in addition, as you may be familiar with, a lot of homes on this side of of Northfield on the southern side of Northfield or the eastbound lane, there's a stream and many of them have bridges that cross the stream. So, as a
result of that stream, we're also setting back. We're keeping the bridge and the driveway exactly as is, but we're proposing a circular driveway which would allow cars to easily turn around visitors and then exit uh nose first so they don't have to back out onto Northfield, which would cause uh
potentially cause a traffic hazard. Would definitely cause a traffic hazard. Um the home we propose is is a luxury home. It's proposed to be um modern in in look and style. Uh it it's and I can show you some of the floor plans, but here's a rendering that we prepared of
it. You can see that the um grading is done in such a way so that the lower level where the garages are where you see four and this store will go away so that you only see three is actually sunken down. Interesting thing which Mr. Dowy may talk about is I the way you
measure habitable floor area. Uh the first portion of your garage is free and then I think everything after that but the garages are technically in the basement. this cal, you know, and basements don't count towards eyeball floor area. Just lay a little foundation for Mr. Darity when he talks about that
a little bit. It's uh so there's a lower level, there's a main level living and an upper and again the house is sort of elevated because part of the property is in the flood hazard zone. Just show you the floor plans really quickly.
the main entry to the home. Uh the lower part of plan south here, which is which is actually to the north, faces Northfield. You come in, it's a large open floor plan. Uh it'll have a study, great room, living room, kitchen, and
dining room. Open stairs that take you to the second floor. And on the second floor, there are four bedrooms, uh and a series of bathrooms. There's a master bath and then one Jack and Jill bath that's shared between uh two of two of
the bedrooms and and Mweller and then in the basement. So this was the threecar garage. This store will go away. This area of the garage will be used for storage. There's a small area of the basement that has an entertainment center, a theater, and sort of a wellness center that includes
a a cold plunge, a sauna, and a steam room. And then the balance of the basement is used for fitness. There'll be a gym room and that gym room will have things like cardio equipment, possibly a treadmill and elliptical uh as well as as weight equipment. And then there's a sports area where where
because of the grading of the site, we can have a relatively high ceiling. Uh Mr. Gome's son is an upand cominging soccer star. He's already a star, but he's a young man and is don't even think he's 13 yet, but he he plays for his school and he plays in many leagues. Uh
so he's this will allow him to practice uh in and do indoor. With that I've kind of described uh the process and I've completed my testimony. I'd be pleased to take any questions the board of or the public has of me. I will
note that uh we have Mr. Facino from my office who's a civil engineer here if you need any testimony on engineering and grading or storm water. But I can tell you that we're improving the storm water conditions. We're installing dry wells. Uh, and the at the if this
project's approved and constructed, the runoff will be significantly better and and more detained than it is now. So, if you like, we can bring him up. Otherwise, Mr. Doward is available. >> I think you can just uh clarify that without him coming up. You have the drywalls there which is taking the
runoff from the roof and then everything looks like it's grading away to the unall allowed the west. I couldn't come up with a direction. Right. So everything's grading >> not to the the unused side >> right to the to the southwest which is
the >> is it east orange or east orange uh I guess or orange water orange water reserve right? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so one of the beautiful things about this property very few neighbors only only to the east and they're they're separated by woods.
House already is very hard to see from Northfield because there's tremendous mature growth in be, you know, on both sides of the stream and then we're even proposing the house further back than the existing house. So, it'll really be hidden back there and then there's this beautiful uh backyard.
>> Uh does anybody on the board have any questions for this? Please. >> Yeah. So, just for my clarity in uh in drawing A1 uh you're reducing the fourc car garage to three you said. >> Yeah. So, so
>> the north one the north side the piece will go away. >> The door will go away. We use the space for storage. >> Okay. >> So, you can only park three cars inside.
And the reasoning for that uh >> well I think it would have to be >> the the the when they submitted the plan they didn't realize that there was the Livingston ordinance only allows a three bay
garage. They put in four and it was they were reminded by the township that four requires a variance. And what they're what Mr. Jal is explaining is that they're eliminating the fourth garage in order to bring the
property into compliance with that particular um provision. So the garage is eliminated but that space becomes uh extra basement space, storage space. >> Correct. Yes. I I think I hope that answers the question.
>> Does anybody else on the board have any questions? Please, Peter. >> Uh yeah, I'm confused on what we're looking at in terms of uh the square footage. So, what you're calling 600 ft of garage, is that referring to the whole
floor less 450 square feet? I'm confused. What's above grade, below grade? What we're What's the final numbers? >> So, yeah. So, so referring to drawing A1. Okay. So, based on your definition of what's considered habitable floor
area, it it's the first floor and the second floor, which are each 3,50 square ft, and it's the first um it's anything in the garage beyond 450 square feet. Okay? So, the first 450 square feet of a
garage, whether it's one, two, or three cars, is we'll say free area. And then anything larger than that is considered part of habitable floor area. >> Can I back back up because I let me I think maybe I'm helping you. >> Okay. >> To define this because I think you might
have collapsed two concepts. You you get anything that's below grade, right, would be considered the basement space. We're not going to count that at all. Right. >> Except for the the garage is an outlier because the garage is garbage.
So, so you're you're excluding you're excluding the the whole the ground floor, we'll call it the on the plans, right? >> And the first 450 ft of >> Oh, and the first floor and then you're including the the rest of the garage that's not 450 ft. Is that
>> right? The or Yeah, the ordinance has the ordinance is >> the the garage the garage stands alone. So regardless of where the garage is, >> below, >> whether it's below, above, if somehow you put it on a ramp and put it on the
second floor, it doesn't matter. Garage >> is garage minus 450, no matter where it's located. >> And it's the the rest of it, the rest of it in that ground floor area. Um, Mr. JL
is indicating that that's all um the garage is counted and then the rest is basement. >> That becomes I want to be clear on that too because I wasn't clear. All that is below grade. >> Yeah. The well it it it complies with the definition of a basement. It doesn't have to be 100% below grade. It has to
there's calculations with average >> average. So it's it's basically a walkout basement at the garage. But if you imagine this, if there weren't garage doors there and there were windows there, none of that area would count based on the way the way the ordinances.
>> And just to piggyback on on Mr. Weissman's point, because you're um you're eliminating that fourth garage,
you're actually adding more basement. >> That is correct. So, you're actually lowering >> by >> by about 300 square feet. >> By about 300 square feet, you're lowering uh the actual >> habitable area. Yeah. >> Habitable area. I'm I'm blanking out on
>> I was saving that for Mr. Darity, but yes. >> Yeah. Well, you know, don't don't make Mr. Darity do too much work. >> So, so he did say while he testified in the last application, he wasn't very good at math. I heard him say that twice, but I don't believe that. All kidding all kidding aside, so we're
at we're allowed 6,200. We're at 6,700. By eliminating that one garage and recclassifying it as storage, we we we lose about 300 square feet. So, it brings us down to 6,400 where 6,200 is allowed. And I'm going to be very
careful here in the R1 zone. And keep keep in mind, we're in two zones. Um and if you use the R1 zone criteria there there's a sort of a double criteria where one is the maximum hable floor area which is 6200 square feet and I
believe the other is you have an F a floor ratio which I think is allowed to go up to 15%. We're only at about 2 and a half% of the over lot area because this lot is so large. >> So Oh go ahead.
>> Yeah. So the Yeah, because I I saw that. So you're m and I just want to know if there's any legal support or prior precedent or something that you're referring to that we should examine this as an R1 because I see that you show in
the plans that the R1 is the the backside. >> Um and I I think that probably would be more relevant had they I don't know if if you asked them if if you if you did do a driveway and built four homes, I think that might be relevant. And then I cuz I believe that the the reason it's
cut is because that back part abuts all of the uh Chestnut Hill. >> That's correct. So >> So it's really >> we're probably we're probably Yeah, we're probably really now we're really stealing Mr. Dh's thunder because
and technically I don't have the right license to testify on that. So although I have the knowledge >> it's only because we brought it up now but I I think you're right to Mr. D is going to cover that piece. >> I hope. >> Do you have a question? >> No my question was really along the same
lines but I think we can cover it. I just wanted to I mean maybe we can just think about this. I just want is any portion of this house going to be in the R It's okay. Is any portion of the house going to be in the R1 district? >> Mr. JL's the
>> So So no. >> Okay. >> Right. and and and there's a lot there's a there's flood hazard issues and and had we put it further back, we would further exag exabate exaggerate >> exacerbate. >> Thank you.
>> Um it's late. I'm sorry. It was my second hearing this week. Um the the setback variance, the front yard variance, too. >> Can you just explain again? Can you just explain again the front yard setback because I'm a little confused about that. >> All right. So,
um I can. So, you you have a requirement that your front yard setback is 50 ft but not to exceed 60 ft and we are I think somewhere >> 120
120 feet. >> Okay. >> Right. Now, you know, I I I think the ordinance doesn't take into consideration lots of this size and overall area and and depth and and I think Mr. Dowy will give you more detail on that. >> Talk about that. Okay. >> Why don't you come
>> before you go? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come forward. >> Okay. >> My name is Margaret Rigger. I'm the only house that borders this property. I'm the only citizen that >> What would be the address? 190 next door
to 184. >> All right, ma'am. Let me swear you in. Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Go ahead, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, >> so these are these are going to be >> question just questions >> and I have a statement later. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> Um,
okay. You mentioned the house was built in 1912. It was redesigned totally in 1994 and then Pedro redesigned it again in the last couple of years. So my house is 1500 square feet in line
with all the other houses. When the the first renovation was created, the house doubled in size from 1500 to 3,000. And now we're looking at over 6,000. And I have a problem with him harassing me. So if he could just turn the chair
around. Anyway, I came in front of you, the board, when we did the Zoom thing. And >> were we asking a question? >> Sorry. >> Question. We need a we need a question, ma'am. >> Yeah, I'm going I'm I'm going to get to it. Um I have a problem with the property line between mine and his and
what the survey says. It's not a big problem. It won't change much, but we had um >> ma'am we we well so let me do two things. Number one, if there is any property line issue
there, this is not the board that would be have would have any jurisdiction over that. >> You should probably reach out to your local attorney at law and an attorney can assist you with that. If there's a a lot line dispute, >> it's minor and I think it could be
explained to me here. So well that they that's not what the purposes of the application is before the board. And so secondly, we need a question of of Mr. Dural. He's he's ready for a question. So whenever you're if you ask a
question, I'm sure he's ready to answer it. >> Okay. Um we're talking about moving the house because of the stream is a Do you realize that in front is a brook? It's not a stream. It's a brook that overflows
because we've Are you realize that? That that's not a stream. It's a brook. >> Brook stream is semantics. But but I am I am aware creates a flood hazard. Yes. >> Yeah. But this house, are you aware of the fact that this house is presently existing is at the highest point and has
never been damaged by water in the front. >> I don't have history of that. >> The stream has the brook has four feet by me. It rises to the wall rises to 10 feet by his property. What happens? Are you realizing where the water goes when it goes over? I know this is not the
water time, but I spoke to Rockwell Muchi today and he told me that I should express my concerns. Do you realize that the house you're building is in the way of the flow of the water >> you're putting it? Yes, it is. I've been here 45 years. I've seen the damage. So, so
>> where where we're putting the house, right, >> has to comply with flood hazard regulations. Okay. And New Jersey has extremely complex flood hazard regulations. Candidly, that's not my area of expertise. Okay. My colleague, if we need to, we can bring them up, >> but we're raising the elevation of the
house, right, as a result of the flood hazard and what's required by D regulations. We're installing um dry wells which are basically areas where the roof water and the impervious surface on the building will be collected and and absorbed and and
basically recharged into the ground. >> My my question to you I noticed on the the map which I got to see finally today uh and the survey the storm water could you explain that to me a little bit? what are the storm water um that I saw on there and how is the water that flows
across all the properties from the chestnut hill down by the brook by the stream in the back that's going to massively come across how is that going to help me or help the water dis disappear because you have a house there that blocks everything exactly where the
water's coming through >> and I know those things there >> okay so so so okay there's there's really there's really in essence uh two questions there. There there is naturally
flowing water of some type either uh whether you call it a brook or a stream or whatever. Uh and there's another part of the question with regard to um rainfall uh control measures. And so I'm sure
that Mr. Jaral can provide some information about uh how the rainfall is dealt with and then secondly about uh how if any way the uh naturally
occurring water that goes across the property is being avoided. So Mr. Jarl with those two with those two questions can you please answer the lady's question? I can try and if not satisfactory we can we can certainly swear Mr. Fino in. So f first of all
it's my understanding and my knowledge based on the survey your house is actually at a higher elevation than this property. >> So the water that flows from your property flows onto Mr. Gome's property from flows. >> Wait wait wait ma'am you got you gota you gota you ask question you have to
answer. >> So so so nothing we do unless we raise the elevation of Mr. Gome's property, so it's higher than yours, which we're not proposing to do, would cause any water to flow back onto your property. Now, I I would imagine if if the brook, as you
refer to it, gets clogged with trees or something like that that that it could potentially overflow on your property or Mr. Gome's property or or or something like that. But but basically, what we've designed is not changing the flow, the natural flow or direction of of any water.
I've been through Floyd, shut down Northfield, Ida that was recently shut down Northfield and swept right across. I've had my entire driveway taken up, not by my house, but between my house and the garage, which is where that home
is going. I don't mind if you can find a way to divert the water, but right now, the water that is not rainwater and it's not a slight overflow of the brook, that brook becomes massive. It becomes torrential. It takes fences down. It
takes my driveway down. It took every shrub I had around my house down. And it's >> We have to We have to ask a question. >> The question is, do you have a way to assist in diverting it? Because right now, where you put in the house is where the water goes. And I've been here 45 years, so I know where the water goes.
And that's right where it's going. And I see a big massive. >> All right. question is question is about it's been asked and answered but quite frankly but but control >> control control of storm water and natural water
>> right so because we're downgradient from your property there's nothing that we can do to help create you know control the flow of water on your property we also my client doesn't own your property he doesn't own the property that's uphill from your property that that he could do something with I mean candidly
I think if you have a problem and you see this brook overflowing you know you may want to talk to the municipal engineering department you may want to talk to the D but we're not legally and nor are we doing anything to the brook we're not touching the bridge Mr. Gome's bridge is existing to remain. We're not
proposing widening or filling in or changing the grade anywhere around the brook that would would affect you being your property which is upgrading it. >> It wouldn't affect me because it goes north slats down and the brook. >> Okay, we have to ask a question. >> Okay, here I just had it in my head
until I I got just I got cut off. Um I did I did talk to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. I had a situation a while back where St. Barnabas owned the property. >> They wanted to take down the house in the front and they wanted to build
there. Are you aware of the fact that there was a ruling by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection of which I went to engineering today. They don't have it on file. It's not being submitted with this. >> Okay. If if your question is do I have any knowledge of that? I have none.
>> The back property is not allowed to be built on and St. Barnabas left. Again, not not the property we're talking about this evening. >> It is the same property. >> Okay. >> See what we're doing here. This is argument and that's for
>> Well, I No, no, ma'am. I'm sorry, but you this the the way this works is you have to ask questions, the >> witness answers the question, >> and then if you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but that's the answer. And
this piece about St. Barnabas and the D. I will tell you for a fact that nothing is being built in the state of New Jersey with that impinges on any type of wetland or repairing right that the DP
is not going to be involved in. So quite frankly, uh I'm sure that uh Mr. Gomes's professionals, his architects and engineers are going to have a lovely time if they have to deal with the D. >> They may not. No, there's that's that's
it. This is not an argument between you and I. I just told you. >> No, it isn't. But he brought in that I should contact the D and I'm telling you that I haven't contacted the Ask a question. >> That's what I was asked if he was aware of it. He's not aware of it, but he's not aware of it. >> Reply to his property. He probably
doesn't need to be aware of it. We can go in circles all day. I understand your concerns. >> Would you please turn to CP 100? One second. Just so I can clarify something. >> Yeah, there's a repair. >> Just I I'm talking now. Okay. >> To see CP >> if you get to CP 100.
>> Is this >> getting closer? >> Getting further. >> Which one? >> This one. >> I think he's got scroll down. This is why you need an engineer.
>> You wanted 100 >> every drawing but you shown. >> There you go. >> There you go. So there is a hatched area known as zone X and to the right of that is a FEMA flood zone AE it looks like. And if I look at that, those are
obviously areas of concern. And if I go to CP 200, it looks like you are building way behind that and out of that zone. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> I think that answers it. Let's move on. >> That's not what I have. >> That's what I'm seeing on the plans. If the plans are incorrect, go to the
building department. We're not going to debate this all day. They're doing their job. >> I will go to the building department and I will tell engineering about this. The >> the rules, right? We have a We have He has He's mapped the FEMA. He's mapped the FEMA zone. It says FEMA flood zone AE. It's not zone. Wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait. >> Okay. Any more questions? >> I have just a statement later. >> Later. >> Okay. All right. Um, >> by the way, I work with your father, Marvin. >> Wonderful. Thank you.
>> He's a nice man. You got to laugh at that >> cuz I wanted to give him a compliment. >> That's fine. That's fine. That's that that was that was that was nice. >> I'm very fortunate to still have my father. He's 90 years old and he found and he founded my business model as I say.
>> Um all right. So we're done with Mr. Jarl. >> Thank you for your time. >> No problem. Are we going to move to Mr. Dhy? Okay, Mr. Dory, let's get you sworn in briefly. >> All right, Mr. D, do you swear affirm tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do.
>> All right, Mr. Dy, you previously been qualified in the field of professional planning and uh chair. >> We can accept you as a expert in professional planning. >> Thank you. So, I kind of want to circle back on a
few items that were discussed and raised. Um, to remind the board, we are eliminating three um variances out the gate. Um, you know, we're trying to bring a a product,
you know, a a pro a project really that that is going to be as conforming as we can make it um with the hopes and requests. I'm not an engineer. I'm not an architect. I think you saw the architectural winterings. It's it's a beautiful home and we'll certainly advance purpose eye desirable vision environment by removing that fourth car
garage and keeping it in conformity with you know the vast majority of uh the Livingston residential uh neighborhoods. Um, but for purposes why I have this screen here, um, when we talked about the zone and and the split zone that
we're in, um, it's important to note that line, that hatched line, and you know, this is the existing uh, condition of the of the of the site, the light grays of the buildings of the homes, but the R1 zone makes up 77% of the lot. And
I know this because I had my my prep meetings and I worked for two hours with the engineer to get those numbers and he is here and he can verify those numbers. The R3 only makes up 23% of that that total lot which is that front portion and as you can see it's encumbered um by
a vast array of of issues here from the brook from the new FEMA you know zone X. Um with that being said this property is unique. We want to preserve as much of the open lot as we can. Um, as you know, um, the architect indicated,
we had discussions, preliminary discussions behind the scenes, the applicant and his design team about what we can do with this property. Um, a subdivision, I think, unilaterally is what we consider overdevelopment. Now, I understand the board's looking at these numbers on paper. The residents when
they're noticed see these numbers and they may say this is overdevelopment. Uh I we had an early conversation and we're poking at that that gray area in our ordinance about the basement does not include is not included in that that F calculation floor area. However, our
garage is that gray area. It's it's expressly called out to be counted. I would argue from a planning standpoint in the intent of the zone as we kind of were pondering it. When we talk about most projects and most developments, garages are at grade. I would ask the board to keep that in consideration when
we deliberate on that variance. But nonetheless, as the as the architect uh testified to when we look at the floor area ratio, the sheer size of this property, when we talk about can this site accommodate this this this home, I would argue it can. Whether we are in
the R1 or the R3 zone, we're we're on digit percent in F requirement, whether that's 2% or 2.6% 6% where the F floor area ratio for the R1 zone is 15%. And
then the R3 would be 21%. Though we are technically in definition of the R3 um we are we are substantially under that floor area ratio um and you know nowhere near the 21%. Um and as we kind of chop up some of the
uh um you know uh the site here and make it better, but the building footprint is really to remain. And I think as we had the discussion just a moment ago about the flood, the the issues, the environmental constraints surrounding it, the orange open space reservation,
the brooks and and and streams or whatever we're calling these. I'm a planner. I think we're setting the stage for exactly why we're asking for a bigger home. We are on Northfield Avenue. This is not an interior residential neighborhood where your kids are playing in the street riding their bike. That's not happening here at this
property. The property as the uh neighbor kind of gave testimony to is encumbered by floods and and you know saturation of water and you know we see this on the screen today where that is. Um so we're asking to really kind of bring some of that component inside and
really it's keeping to that garage. Um I think what we're looking here is at a design where we're anticipating future issues. everyone in this room and and and those hopefully are aware the flood elevations were just lifted higher anticipating you know global glo global
warming um and and climate change um giving the snow that we just had this past couple of months I would welcome but nonetheless flooding and environments are changing so what we have is a overengineered site um we have storm water wells and and dry wells on
site uh today or being proposed that aren't there today site is built in 1912 as a neighbor specified local knowledge and as planners we rely on that. It's been renovated. We're trying to modernize, you know, a home that that's over 100 years old. You know, my records indicated from from my research this the
building is built in 1912. Um, with that being said, um, what you have here is is, you know, substantial variance on paper, but the practical sense is when we talk about that habitable floor area, and I'll kind of defer to my counterparts. I know the numbers changed
a little bit. Um 6,400 square feet I believe is kind of where we just landed. Um when we look at the zone and what what it allows for the uh um if we did a subdivision and we try to pack this and and and and put at least one more home on there, we could see another
structure, you know, of of that that 6,200 square f feet. Um so when we talk about what the site could accommodate and see here in scale, size, and massing, we could see potentially another home. I understand the board that's not an as a right application, but I from a planning standpoint, I think there's some strong merit to ask
for a subdivision, but nonetheless, it has environmental constraints. We're not asking for that. It, you know, what we want to do is is build a home that's that's compatible with kind of the split zone here. And I did prepare an exhibit packet. It consists of a map uh some maps and some drone shots when I visited
the site over the weekend. I'll plug in the USB and kind of show you. Um this split zone is unique. this property and the two adjacent us, the brook runs in front of the property. Then it kind of does a jog and then the remaining uh houses that the lots going up the
chestnut, the brooks behind it. So when we talk about some from a planning standpoint, residents don't know when you enter one zone into another unless there's certain features. You're crossing a bridge or railroad track, the buildings dramatically change from residential to warehousing. You don't know when you go from an R1 to an R2
unless the homes are substantially larger or different. So, I would argue as we look at traveling down Northfield, which I do every day. I live just down the street of Northfield in West Orange. I would say that coming out of that stretch of woods, we have the Livingston tire and then it's just woods. I don't
pick this house up when I drive past it. It's when I'm not going that slow, but I'm not going that fast. It is well hidden. We're going to bring this house further back. So, when we talk about the scale, size, and massing, I know we're asking for a little bit on habitable floor area. We're substantially under on ratio and there is a balance to be had
here. That habit floor area in my professional opinion we're including in that garage which I would ask the board consider it's below grade and that is the gray area where the ordinance isn't expressly stating it. It's implied. It doesn't expressly state that we should not include the garages below grade.
It's mute on that. So although I agree with council that it's a variance by pure definition of of of the the the way it's written in your code. Um, but by the intent of the code, the way I read it is the basement doesn't count. Um, but nonetheless, I would also argue given these environmental constraints
when we talk about how floor area I'd like to reiterate the flooding and the firm maps and what's going on at the site from local knowledge and the engineers that are in the room. There's no way we're going to h we're going to habitate this garage. It's it's below grade. There's environmental
constraints. Um, so when we talk about setbacks, the bulk relief here, dimensional relief, we're we really are compliant. We're asking for that front yard setback because to the neighbor's point, there is some issues back there, you know, flooding and local knowledge.
We want to bring the and redesign the site because currently today that way the house sits, the driveway, the hub, the activity, the beehive of a residential home is the driveway, the garage, the front door, and the kitchen, right? But that garage, that drive
splits between the properties. We want to bring that noise, that ruckus, the car door slamming, the alarms, the moving, bring it to the other side of the property. We are in compliance with that setback with our neighbor. So, we're going to calm that down on the property line, soften that, get that enjoyment. As the architect testified,
we're going to come into compliance with the height. So when we talk about the scale of this site adjacent to neighbor, it's it's atypical of what would otherwise be permitted here. Anyways, uh from from adjacent and to the property, but there is a benefit here by moving those garages to I would call the the
right side if you're looking at it over there. It's all woods there. We're going to lose that garage. I would argue we couldn't see that garage as we drive past it, but nonetheless, it's a variance we don't need on paper. We can comply and but we bring that side load there. So, we got to kind of come out
and and come out head first. So, we are asking for the circle driveway so we can come on to Northfield without backing onto it, which I think would be um a detriment to the greater community. I don't think anybody wants to back up onto Northfield, especially coming right off those woods where you don't even
pick this house up when you drive by. So having the ability to come out head first I think advances per say the Mr. Lanny's law for the public safety and the general welfare for everybody in the community and not just those that reside here and future use and residents of the property. I do see benefits here. I'm
not an engineer but this site will have best engineer engineering practices. We are very compatible with the adjacent zone to the back of us and I would argue that this zone really given the physical features of the property could be looked at giving 77% of the zone is in that uh
rear zone of the uh the R um the R1. But when we talk about compatibility and and scale size the lot the zone we're under that F that floor air ratio. I think truly by definition and the merit and the intent of the ordinance we are compatible with that floor area
habitable floor area given the environmental given it's below grade I do agree with council I stated before it's mute on that that definition but the practical sense is um what we're seeing here on this site is is exactly what the zone allows for by its buildout and scale that set that rear yard
setback we love to be on Northfield Avenue and showcase this grand beautiful development from a planning standpoint we want to extent accentuate corners in and in in communities with good architectural design and anchor them. Same thing on prominent uh uh corridors. We want to have that that that presence there. We have that brook there. So,
we're and we want to come out head first. So, we are asking for a setback, but given this is one of the first uh I would say positive reinvestments to the housing stock what you see in the immediate neighborhood. Having it recessed I think is a benefit here. And I would also um you know from personal
experience in my term in in do we have the Rockway River C1 waterway I can tell you right now with what's happening with FEMA I'm not an engineer but with the flood elevations the flood hazard the floodways properties have to get elevated what we see here right now when they sell these homes to the next
homeowners getting insurance getting flood insurance and a mortgage these homes are going to have to get elevated. I'm confident as a professional what I see out in in in the industry and and what's happening out here, it's only going to be a matter of time before the next couple houses are being rebuilt and moved back away from that brook and
being elevated. Um, so I think we're the first of what to see to come over the next, you know, obtain years as Livingston progresses forward giving that brook, given the environmental constraints and given the new uh engineering uh regulations. But, you know, we I I do believe the variances
here exist on paper and and not in the reality of the sense of the property. Um, so with that, I I'll say I don't see any negative detriment. I see a lot of benefit. Again, calming the sideyard down with the adjacent neighbor, bringing engineering here and bringing that all in house. That garage, again, I'll state is below grade. The front
yard setback, I would argue, is a hardship due to that brook. And I think it's an opportunity as well to come out head first, which is a benefit and a safety. So with that, I think we've advanced many purposes of miscellaneous law. More efficient use of land um as well as advancing purpose I adequate uh
light air open space. I want to emphasize we're also substantially under on building coverage for this size of this property. 10.8 uh um 4% is what's allowed. We're at 2.83%. So when we talk about the intensity, the scope of development that's doesn't exist on this
property. And you know when we talk about um this this overall I can defer to my engineers. A lot of it's going to be to engineering to ensure that you know there are you know some environmental constraints. Having our consultations I I can confidently say with what you see here the multiple dry
wells in effect here there will be and what you heard about the elevation there will be no offsite detriment and our immediate neighbor to the right of us is open space conservation space. So there will be no negative effect to our neighbor to the to the left. Our neighbor to the rear is a is off a
chest. It's a flag lot. They're so far behind us. There's there's and there's a brook again back there. Um we there's no impact there. And again, we have open space to to the right. I don't see any negative substantial detriment with this project and no impairment to Northfield or the zone or master plan. And I and I
would urge the board to really evaluate and consider the garage is below grade. There's no way it's going to ever be habitable space. And with those numbers reduced, we would otherwise, from my understanding of my math, we would be in compliance. Um, so with that, I'll conclude for any opening and comments. But, um, this is a very unique
application. I think it should be considered carefully. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this, please? >> Yeah. I um I guess my question is besides this whole split R1 R3 zone um
affects the next three properties. >> Yeah. adjacent to it. So if this got approved, I mean just looking to the future, I mean the lot, you know, the lot immediately adjacent lot 27, you know, lot 29, both look like
they could accommodate the same type of size house. But the issue I see here is then you have lot 28, which is a smaller lot. I mean, how is this going to fit in with the existing split zone lots? because they all can't accommodate what you're
trying to build here. >> Let me just double check real quick. Um I apologies. I do have a uh um we exhibit and if we can bring it in as an uh for the record. >> Well, one one of the things
it we don't often have split zone applications. I think this may be the first one we've had in a while. ever. Okay. Um and I think part of this
is probably driven by the fact that the property fronts on a major thoroughare in um uh Northfield A. Right. So when the zoning was done, you know, you do
zoning based upon what you expect to to go into that area. Now, uh, zoning is not perfect, right? So, at times you'll end up with what are like this split zones. >> Um, so there's been a couple of
arguments tonight by Mr. Jarell and then by Mr. majority that the fact that a large majority of the site is in the R1 district that that has some relevance to
the application for this particular site for this particular set of circumstances. Now, every as board members know every application stands on its own. every application that comes before the board would have to substantiate its own
position as to why it would um meet the requirements of whatever that other application may be at some point in the future. But to that to that extent, if there were any other regardless if it's the
ones next to them, but any other split lot uh properties, they would likely make similar arguments about the fact that they border and in fact their lot
is shared between zones. So, um I'm sure Mr. Dhy is going to respond to Mr. Sherman's question, but I just want to make clear to the board, yes, you are the house is being built in the uh in the R3 area and therefore the variances
are necessary relative to the R3 area, but the board uh must take into consideration that the property has an R1 designation for
a significant majority of the of the remainder of the lot. >> Yeah. >> So that that's that's part of this. So yes, towards Northfield those are R3s, but obviously you can't discount the fact that for whatever reason the the
what I'll say is the rear of the property or the vast majority of the rear of the property is in the R1. >> I I got that. I just talking about the other ones that are the same situation. It's not it's the the other ones. Not talking about the other ones that are
just R3. I'm talking about the three adjacent properties that are clearly the same R3 R1 where they extend big time into the R1, but there also happens to be one property within those three adjacent properties that does not extend. So there's no way that they
could build the same. So now you're going to have >> big house, big house, small house, big house. Well, that and and let me just let me just say this once again that goes back to my point before that each individual application would have to stand on its own.
>> So, Mr. Dy, I'm sorry. I >> I appreciate that. Um, and I do apologize. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and and I need to slow down and maybe expand upon some points that I'm speaking on. >> The next couple slides I think really help >> this A1.
>> Yeah, we'll do this A1. It's a nine-page exhibit. It consists of maps and photos that I took uh myself. Uh just for orientation, we are in the red area generally on the Livingston zoning map. And what I like to do is zoom in here. What's compelling about the zoning map
and we break it up. The light is of um tan is R1. The the darker tan is R3. What's important to note here is the R1 zone exists behind the lots that front Northfield. Now, I think it's important
as we look at the tax mounts, we look at the the lots, these couple lots I mentioned extend several hundred feet deep. And when we look at the built environment of that brook, that that that stream that waterway, it's in front
of our homes pushing us rear. it comes behind the other homes which is going to keep them forcing them to hug Northfield. So when we talk about the balance and and to council's point, you know, the zoning maps and the intent of zones, but the way I look at this is the
homes that are up on Northfield Avenue are your R1. Those homes two lots down can never go any further back because that brook is back there. Our home and and and the likes could be further back. I know it's a relief. That's why we mentioned the subdivision. We could have
a home in the R1 and hopefully ask for one in the R3. And again, I I will defer. It's not an as of right, but I think we have a compelling argument. But we looked at this and said that's overdevelopment. That might be too much. And I bring that on to the record because if something was that approved, you would have a home in the R3 which
would allow for um the I'm sorry, the R1 which would allow for 6,200 uh habitable floor area and or a um a ratio of um 15% which is a 5,287. So you would get a larger home and you'd
have another home up in the R1. So when we talk about the buildout, the mass, the scales, the intensity, um I think we're comparable. I think this is the lesser approach and 77% of the property is in that um R1 zone. And I think that should be important to note though, by
definition, the structure is there. 77% of the property is in a different zone. The brook is in the front. If there was ever consideration going forward and as the council indicated, we don't set precedent. They got to make their own case and stand on their own merits. But as we look at these three
unique properties, I would argue from a planning standpoint that R1 zone should be considered and and the impact that it has in the in the fact that the R1 zone lives behind Northfield and the properties and the houses that sit up on Northfield. We're moving it back. We're keeping away from the brook and again
the vast majority of the property sits in in the uh um R1. With that being said, the next slide we kind of hone in and we kind of show those those properties. Our property extends further back, our adjacent neighbor. Yes, the one is a little bit shorter. Then you
got this weird wacky uh pie irregular shaped lot right here. Um and the next slide is uh from NJP's geo web. You can kind of really see the the the brook here and and bear brook tributary and the extent. Um, but these properties
really do push back. And then you can kind of see those three uh lots that hug up on Chestnut there. The brook is behind them. I would argue these other properties should kind of be in R3. That's my professional opinion about it. Um, I understand they're not all the
same and every every application is unique and different. I would also look at our property very unique and different that we also um sit adjacent this massive open space. um you know off in the distance here. Um so there is no neighbor. When we talk about continuity,
F scale, size, and massing, we set the tone and we're coming right off the woods that you don't even see this property. Um with that um uh the next couple slides here are drone shots I took visiting site this past weekend. It's a big home. It's it's got some
patios and um that connect and and decks and so forth, but this this layout for the most part uh is 19 uh 1912. Um you know, this so when we talk about the scale and massing, the extent of the buildout, I would argue it's it the footprint's comparable. This is a little
bit more sprawling. We have the decks and and the patios, but um when you look at the the buildout, we're we're going to move that garage driveway over here in that that that right space where you see the snow and you and I'll, you know, kind of show you the garage. The driveway comes behind it. It runs
between our neighbor. We're going to move it over here and kind of square off that that buildout. Um aerial drone, you can kind of see we're really the intensity of the site is is on that property line. So all that open white space that snow that's kind of where we're trying to re relocate that beehive
um component of the site and as uh we heard we're going to keep the bridge. We want to be able to to come out head first and and pull in and not have that conflict when one's pulling in one's pulling out to have that turnabout in the front. Um you know I think when we talk about this open space we we bring
the drone up. There's nothing behind us. It's wide open space and that lot is really deep. Um, and you can kind of see this the brook behind us as well. And on this slide here, following the mouse, you'll see that brook kind of starts to
meander behind those. So again, the R3 sits behind the residential homes on Northfield. Um, and I'm sorry, the R1 sits behind those houses and the uh houses on Northfield are in the R3. Our Brooks in front kind of pushing us back there, setting us further back. That's
why I'm making that. but nonetheless comparable. Even if we just stay to the um R3 zone here, the R3 zone allows for 21% of floor area ratio. We're substantially under that. So again, on balance, you know, that that's where we're looking at. I think the home is
comparable of what we're seeing back here, what we're seeing in the zone. I see benefits um as I stated earlier, but that was the rationale behind the um the the justification. And this is the R3. This is Chestnut. This is our immediate neighbor to the rear. It's on a flag
lot. But I want to point out though is things take time. We have larger homes, newer homes, and we we still have some of the uh older existing housing stocks, but the the neighborhoods in the R3 are changing over. And I think we're complimentary to what's what's there by
massing. And I think the identity of this property, I would be hardressed to say the identity is that of the um the R3. Um, it has more relation to the R1. >> Alex, just uh for the record, uh how many pages? >> That's nine nine slides. And I took
these photos myself. Um they're dated at the bottom here. Uh February 21st, I believe last Saturday. >> Okay. And and you'll give a copy to >> Yes, I can email them over. Yeah. >> Okay, great. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for the >> I have a question?
>> Well, let me because I want He's writing. >> You writing? You don't? >> No, no, no. Oh, Suzan, you said wait. >> Make sure you got >> I am. I'm looking at them. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. I wanted to go now just cuz I wanted to follow up on the this same issue because there's several issues. You know, usually it's how do we feel
about the variance? Usually the goalpost is fixed here. We don't know the goalpost, right? R1, R3. So, and you've brought you you've stated you're not an attorney, but you've come up with uh the prop proposed to us and our part of our
job here is to interpret the statute, right? We see the statute. We could all read the same statute. It's our job to interpret. So, I I want to tell you how I I I look at it not because I'm trying to convince you. I'm saying it during this question and answer because I want
you to tell me why we should adopt this view when we're interpreting this statute. It is a It is I'm going to call it clever, but I I get the the go by the majority of the lot. That's seems like one
that's what you're Brian for for me. I need to look and think what did the town intend when they drafted this statute the statute and and meaning drew the map. So, one, I note I'm correct that
there's no there's no right of way to the R1 portion of this lot. Is that is that correct? >> I I apologize. >> There's no right of way to this to the R1 portion of this lot. Meaning, you can't get to this you can't there's no
way to get to the R1 >> the remaining of the lot. Correct. >> The remaining of the R1 portion. There's no right of way. There's no access to this portion of the lot. >> Right. Um, two is I don't think that the town would intentionally,
you know, again, I'm putting it down. Maybe you'll come up with other examples being more >> experience. I think Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. There's a lot of >> going on here. They're in the They're Let's be clear. They are in the R3.
The structures in the R3. They need a variance from the R3 standard. >> Yes. >> The the the nuance I believe that Mr. Jarl started with and that Mr. Dory has shared is that the the
site is not only approximate to an R1 district, but in actuality, the lot itself is a good part of it is in the R1 district.
And when you look at the at your R3 standards, the lot size for an R3 is significantly lower than what this
particular lot has. So that's why their F is Florida ratio is 2%. So you you we always see the we're we're famous around t around around uh the county for our F here. So you know we
get the 3% over 6% over. This one is uh >> 6.2% I believe we're at. >> Yeah. I mean you're you're >> 21's allowed >> you know 15% under in terms of the f in terms of the
F because of the of the amount of lot. So they're not saying that that we need to apply the R1 standard. We couldn't do that. We don't you don't you don't have that jurisdiction. >> Okay. you're applying the R3 standard,
but you have what they're saying is you have to take into account what's actually there. So, what's actually there is a is a a very large lot and which most of it sits in the R1.
>> I appreciate that. >> Can I just say something? I just want to piggyback on to what you both have said. In the past, um, applicants have come in front of the zoning board and whether it's an R1 through R4, if it's an oversized lot,
oftentimes we'll look at the size of the lot. And let's just say if we're in a an R3 and the lot size is 15,000, but they come to us and they say, "Well, it's a 25,000 square foot lot, but it's in an R3." Even though it's an R3 zone, we look at it at a 25,000 square foot lot
and we'll make adjustments based on that. So maybe we should just I'm not saying not to look at it as an R1 and an R3, but let's just pretend that it's an R3. If somebody came in front of us and said, "Here's an R3, but it's, you know,
200,000 square feet." We would say, "Well, that's really oversized." So, I think that maybe what's tripping everybody up is the fact that it is a split lot, but it really is just a very over if we just look at it as a very oversized R3. Maybe it'll just make it a
little bit a little bit clear, a little bit easier to look at it. Just a thought and, you know, sort of I think everyone's getting, like I said, getting tripped up on the fact that it's 70% R1 and 30% R3, but let's just look at it as a really oversized lot. I I have other things to say, but that's
just one comment >> and that's and that that's fine. I just want to know where the goal post the goalpost is R3 and I get that the you're just making the seven. You're just making the argument of why we should go a few thousand square feet over is because of where it is. I now I understand. >> I just want to clear for the record.
>> Okay, >> we're under whether it's R1, R3, under floor area ratio. Right. >> I'm referencing the R the R um one because we look at habitable floor area which is what we're here for. We're way we're right there. We're right there on
that and the context, but to um you know uh your colleagues count your counterpart, the lot is 107 um,850 ft. The lot area requirements for the R1 is 35,250 ft. The lot requirement for the R3 is
15,000 ft. So, when we talk about proportion and ratios and what could happen on this property, which is why we talked about and alluded to the subdivision, we think we have a good chance, but we don't want to go that way. We we we really are just a drop in the bucket on the sheer size and volume
of this property. And I'm and I I apologize. I got lost in the zones here that I referenced the zones because we are going further back. We're coming off of Northfield. And that's where that that R1 zone lives is off of Northfield. That's why I and I apologize I get ahead
of myself but >> I have a question. Um two questions. Um the first one is simple. Um the sewer easement will there be any change or impact to it? >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. Um second question. Early on your
team mentioned that you will not seek um subdivision to the property. Will you add this one? Would you agree to add this one to your variance once it's >> We We cannot make that a condition of approval to tell them that they we can't
make it a condition of approval to tell >> somebody that they can't seek a subdivision in the future >> because the low FA F the ratio is due to the lot being big. >> You know what I mean? So once the if the
building there then we slash the the the property by half or by a third then >> the ratio will go up >> right. So so >> we're under ratio you wouldn't you can't you we we can't >> we can't have a condition that says they
can't make a future application. Uh however uh if this were to be approved uh what you what they're in essence doing is they're already
um setting a standard for a portion of that property. I don't know what other portion of that property is actually developable. It sounds to me like there's a number of environmental constraints. So that yes, if they did a sub if they did a subdivision in the future, then for each of those
individual lots, they would then have to substantiate variances if they need them on each individual lot. So at the it so in essence I the the the variances if you were to approve them today
doesn't mean that they would uh clear them at some point in the future if they want to seek a subdivision because they would be creating new variances. So they would have to come back before this board to obtain that subdivision approval with any and all variances that
may be applicable. So if they end up if because of the subdivision at some later point if they were ever to do it and that site went their their standards would change let's say their F goes above the standard they would have to seek a variance >> but if they're not touching just not
related to this I mean in general hypothetically if the property got divided say into three but this building will not be changed at all but in the future your F for this particular property still up. Yeah.
>> Right. But so if if if the if the F if the if the subdivision results in this property going above the required F even though it's existing because they're causing a subdivision, they would have to get a variance approval
for that particular variance that they now have created >> for the R3. So the R3 No, get away from the R3 R1's. >> Even though at point >> nothing changes to the proposed building.
>> No, >> wait, wait, wait, wait. >> Say, >> so there's no application before us on a subdivision. Okay, >> correct. >> So So we can't stop them from getting a subdivision. And if they ever were to see a subdivision at some point in the future,
Right. >> If they were ever to see a subdivision in the future, because we're getting on to dinner time, if we ever got to subdivision in the future, they would have to substantiate what their basis a for the subdivision, right? Because they got to they got to
substantiate a reason for the subdivision. And number two, they'd have to substantiate any variances that are created by virtue of the subdivision. So if this site, if that building now ends up violating an F because they're going
to subdivide it, he has to get approval for that. In hindsight, if approved, the only real practical subdivision is to sell off property to our neighbor because if approved, the structure, the garage, the pool, there's no way to access the rear
of that from Northfield. So in a practical sense, it serves no purpose. But today if we demo and do a subdivision and go to the planning board for that request, put a road in down the middle and and you know do a small col the intent was that to me is over intense development but it's in a
different zone. The F the capital floor area we would essentially see one or two more houses. So in the grand scheme of what we look at on paper the number may look big but it's really just a drop in a bucket given the sheer size of this property. And I think this is a very much the more sensible approach to
turning over a structure built in 1912. And I apologize if I went on a different direction. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yes, I do. Um I understand your environmental
constraint that you explained through but I wanted to understand uh if you can help me to understand um the hardship that you have compared to 3180 square ft of variance that you're seeking versus uh 3520.
>> So I want to just uh go back to the um the ratio allows for 21% We're 6.2. So, those are checks and balance. We're not over on the floor area ratio. We're over on your definition of habitable floor
area. Um, again, we're 64,000. I ask that we not consider the garage because it's basement level. We'd be more in conformance with, you know, about 61 uh, 62 and change. I'll leave it to the the mathematicians and engineers, but for purposes, we are over by 3500 square f
feet, but at the end of the day, we're substantially under on the ratio. And when we talk about what we're trying to achieve, as you heard the neighbor testify to, we saw the firm maps, the flooding, the the ground is saturated. We're not using that that in in a
recreational sense. I'm on a major arterial road. I don't have the same luxuries as living on Chestnut where my kids can ride in the street and play ball. Everything's going to be confined to the lot and we're trying to confine it to the interior of the building. And we're elevating the building as well.
Um, and if you look at the floor plan, it's an open floor plan. It's a modern arrangement. That's why we're asking keep the shed for that additional storage. This is a state-of-the-art facility. So, um, you know, we are asking for that habitable floor area. >> So, this this this is this and just just
to just to be clear, >> th the applicant is not seeking this relief because of a constraint of the of the lot. There's not there's not a hardship. replacing the property because
of environmental constraints. So you set you set that aside. So so the front yard setback portion of this. Okay. That would be in line with a C1 hardship because you have a brook in the front or
waterway in the front which forces the home back. Right? So there's there that's that's in essence what they're saying with the front yard setback. the the uh habital floor area that is what's fallen under the C2 flexible standard,
right? Because what they're what what they're saying is that because we have this size lot, we have the flexibility to build something on that lot comparative to what's on that lot to comparative to that lot size so that
they're not violating and they're significantly under the F, right? Because that's one of the things that that that is uh one of the standards. So they're saying yes, we're over the habitable floor area, but we're significantly below the F. So that's
that that um C2 balancing standard. So that that's in essence the so when you look at the two variances, one is a hardship, right? But the other one is on that flexible standard.
>> Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay. Are you gonna bring anybody else up? >> Um, my client, Mr. Gomes, would like to talk to the board briefly.
>> Three minutes. >> Do you swear? Do you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> You can sit. You can sit. So, just uh state and spell your name for the record. >> Pedro Gomes. P E D R O. Last name Gomes. G O M E S. >> Mic close. Yeah, you got to speak into the mic
>> one more time. Pedro Gomes. P E D R O. Last name Gomes. G O M E S. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Gomes. >> Having him pull up a picture real quick. Is it okay if I stand up or is it the mic? You need the mic. >> You just have to be close to the mic is the only thing.
>> Oh, pull up the picture. >> You can you can take the mic behind you and walk if you want. Right. >> No, it's okay. >> I'm just This doesn't have internet. Do we have it today? >> Be quick. Yeah. So, I guess the map's
not working, but just wanted to point out >> Is that good? >> It works. Okay. So, the map he was going to pull up is of the greenery. Can you just turn it around so they can see it? At least just so they can see a visual of it. Um,
so the point is the picture that we saw earlier was in the snow. That's when it's spring, summer, uh, fall. When you drive down the street, you cannot even see the house, period. Right? People miss my house all the time. So, by setting the house even further back,
you're going to see the house even less. Right? So, it's not going to be an impact uh like you had mentioned about the difference on the neighbors, etc. And that map also shows that everyone behind me has these massive houses on Chestnut Street. So, we're not really changing the design. And on that map
also, what I want to show is there's these two soccer nets in the back of my yard. And that's why I bought the house. My son just got, you know, just came from Manchester United. He got a trial with the academy team and he's been playing out there and the goal is to keep those soccer fields there. To your point, if I build this $23 million home,
for me to do a subdivision, I would have to knock that down to be ordered to do a subdivision. So, there would be no reason to do a subdivision in the future unless you knock down the existing home. The other thing, too, is I'm a single dad. My son goes to a private school. Um, doing doing the other route of doing
a subdivision and doing three or four homes puts more kids in the school system for the city. And so, for me, it was just like, you know what, I want to stay in town. I've been here for 15 years. I'm not going anywhere. I work 12 minutes away. My son goes to a private school very close nearby. I won't say for, you know, privacy reasons, but you
know, he doesn't go to Livingston school. So, this is something all the pictures up here real quick, but point out what I was mentioning is Yeah. So, the two soccer fields are here. So, by us setting the house back, you see all the greenery. These are like 30 40 foot
trees. You can't even see my house when you drive by. So, the fact that you can't see it now and already a big house. We're knocking it down. And if I'm pulling this back towards this side, still keeping my son's soccer field back here, the wetland area, you're not affecting or impacting anyone, right?
And there's no detriment because it's a 200,000 foot lot almost, right? And most people come here and they're like on a 25,000 foot lot and they're asking you for like a 3,500 like Mr. Steven was saying, why don't you do a smaller house? Yeah, but they have 25,000 square
feet. I have eight, nine, 10 times that and I'm only asking for a 6,000 square foot home. So, it's not this massive big impact. We are mostly in the R1. And I just would appreciate that you guys consider that. I also took the privilege of coming here in good faith and removed
the garage. I lowered the height even though I really wanted high ceilings on my ground floor so it could be grand, right? My personal liking. You know, everyone has different preferences. But I knocked out three of the variants just to show you guys that like we have two variances, right? We're over by a couple hundred square feet. There's no
detriment to anybody in any way, shape, or form. And this is a good product. And by the way, I'm a developer. I built thousands of units throughout the county. Uh Matt's my architect on several of them. So, this is my personal home. I'm living there. I have the expertise. I have the knowledge. And
clearly, I have the passion. So, um, thank you. And I know it's night time. So, that's >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. Do you have anything else from you guys? >> No, we are we're complete. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Would you like to make a statement,
ma'am? >> Yes, sir. >> Please come up. >> I'm fine with >> So, ma'am, just do me the favor before you start. Just please state and spell your name and your address one more time. >> Sure. Margaret Rer, >> Rie E. Thank you. 190 East Northfield
Road. Uh, resident there for uh going on 45 years. I just heard I have 3.76 acres. So my my lot is bigger than Pedro's and according to my variance that I went for
a couple years ago done by Anthony Maruchcci, I have on 3.76 acres only 120,000 square feet of property. He has less than me and he's claiming to have 200,000 square feet of property.
It's It's right here. It's right here. It's not 200,000 square feet of propert. Okay. It's your time to speak. Nobody can >> inter. Okay. I appreciate it. I'm My biggest fear. We We've appeared We have appeared in front of you before, but it was with
Zoom, so you didn't get to meet any one of us. It's when the the markers in front of my house were verified by you folks that he had put a fence on my property. He has also taken bushes and
planted them on my side of the fence and I had to have them removed. Um, he is not a nice person, but I can I wish him well and I wish him to have a nice house, but he also we had to call the cops the other day because he lit up
everything. He put a light up on his property that lit up all of my woods, all of my property, all of my house. And the police came and just by looking at it said, "Shut it off." He I fear the retaliation and I fear the past and the
best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. He has not been nice. He He hasn't even He hasn't even shovelled the snow out front on the sidewalk. It's still there. Okay. We had a storm how many days ago and it's still there. You can go out right now and take a look.
The cops came and took a look. They went to his house and said, "Please do something." I don't think he was home. I don't think he answered the door. But people can't walk from my house to his house. They can't walk down the street with their dogs. He hasn't shoveled. Now, this is he wants to do all these
wonderful things. I don't trust him. I'm sorry, but to say you have 2,000 200,000 square feet and my property is bigger than yours and I only have 120,000 square feet. Where the lies stop? >> Thank you. Thank you. >> That's that's that's
public comment. We're taking Miss Rager's comments. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it, Mr. Reager. >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much. No harm by mentioning. >> Okay. No worries. >> No harm was intended.
>> Okay. Does anyone on the board want to make a statement? >> Okay. It's 10 of It's 5 after 10 already. I'm going to make this very quick, but I just feel like I have to say something. So, um, thank you very much. One of the things that I really love about the zoning board is that we learn something every single time. And
thank you like this was an education like this. I felt like I was going to school tonight for zoning because we've never ever had to deal with this before. So, I feel like this was a great education for us and I think having this conversation was really terrific and bringing this all out to light. Um, it's unique. It's an very interesting
property. Um, I do appreciate the fact that it's really six, but we added the garages, so you actually eliminated one, two, three variances. Four because the shed is pre-existing. So, there's really only like one that you came for. Um, I
trust that you will work with professionals to mitigate the flooding. Um, and I forget who said that best engineering practices. I know that that will also be something that you will do. So, I do appreciate it. I do have to admit that this was a little daunting when I just saw this and I drove by and
I couldn't really see anything and then when I saw this and I saw these variances I was a little like what's going to happen? So, um it was Thank you so much for presenting this clearly and answering all of our questions and having patience. Um and I do um I hope that you invite us all over for a party
if this application gets approved. So, thank you very much. >> I I'll just second what my colleague said. I appreciate the fact that you guys came in, you thought about what you're coming in with and said maybe this is a little much and toned it down. That makes it easier for us to, you know, know you're working with us before
you even start talking. So I that's always appreciated when the uh applicants are willing to adjust. >> A agree. And I just add, you know, uh to the points that were made, it is a unique property. you're looking
at, you know, uh, a 2.3 acre or so property, right? Just quickly doing the math, right? So, R1, R3, R22, I I don't really know that, right? But when you look at the zone and the size of the property, whatever zone it is, right, I
get the point. I appreciate you taking uh uh particularly uh the time to kind of do those different ratios for us to help us understand the size and scaling of what you're trying to do. Any other statements? >> Yeah. >> And I don't without expressing a a view
on it, I think that the the go and you did an excellent job, by the way, submission without an attorney. I don't know if an attorney would have done any better. You did a great job on the summation. Um, >> it's all right. >> I mean, Mr. WZO would have done better, but that's it. That's the only attorney.
>> Um, uh, so I think these are I just want to say in general, since it's a chance to make statements, these are the toughest things. We're talking about double the square foot. putting putting the size and and for me I think the zoning laws are created for the the neighborhood and and I just want to say
there are houses across the street so I don't think it's not necessarily no that there's not a neighborhood. Um I think the question is just looking at the law with respect to not the ratios the square footage is will this be will
going varying by almost double the size. Is this going to be a benefit for the town as a whole? We know it will benefit you. Will this benefit the town? Sometimes sometimes we think oh that would be great to have a a much larger structure there. Sometimes not. And it's
and it's ex not exacerbated but uh more poignant here because this is a a major part of town that everyone sees uh every day. So that's really the question for me. It does the town would it benefit the town to have this structure
in the in the in the further back space with this size with the with these with these variants and it's going to substantially outweigh the detriment of us not complying with the zoning. So, since I'm not voting, I don't want to say the view, but I think that's what we're that's what we're trying to to
determine of how much will this benefit the town here. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Would someone like to make a motion? >> I will make a motion to approve. >> Okay. >> Hold on. Subject to >> subject. >> Yes. to the revisions
to the plans showing the >> elimination of one garage door, >> moving the swimming pool out of the sideyard setback and reducing the height of the building to 35 ft. >> Thank you. >> I knew I knew Mr. German
>> subject to those conditions. >> Uh motion to approve. >> Second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes.
>> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Pier, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Good night. Um, motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you so much. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second and I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you everyone. and have a good night.