Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is July 30th, 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 of the variance exists and that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require an affirmative vote of five members of the seven member board of adjustment. Other
variants require a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have the right to appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision. And that court may over
overturn the decision of this board. If you're objected 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 the notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of your complaint to our planning
administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, also known as the Sunshine Law, adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the Star Ledger and West Essex Tribune, and a copy was also posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. In addition to having notice posted, notice this
meeting was placed on the township's website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you'd like to address the board, please come to the front and use a microphone so we can make sure your comments or questions are
part of the record. To the members of the public, I would like to remind everyone that this board exists for the sole purpose of making adjustments to the township zoning rules. The rules are developed and 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 make statements. In fact, this board always encourages it. However, as a board, we are not going to discuss how we reach our conclusions and how or why
we voted for or against an application further than what is required by law. I would also like to remind the public that communication with board members is limited to the time when we are in session. Please do not email or call us. We are volunteers and it's improper to contact us outside these chambers. Thank
you for your understanding. We will now call the role. Miss Khan >> Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Shaw >> here. >> Mr. Weissman >> here. >> Mr. Ambadi >> here. >> Miss Khan is here. Mr. Beer >> here. >> We have a quorum.
>> Okay. If you are here for three Vanderbilt Drive application 2026-1-V that has been adjourned to September 22nd, 2026. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Before we begin, I just want all the
applicants to be aware you can see that the board has six voting members tonight. Uh some of you may have an application which includes relief under what's known as a Dvariance. Uh we normally have many of these that
are under the floor area ratio. That's a D4 variance. In order for that D4 variance to be successful, your application needs five affirmative votes of the members. Uh so if there are six
members sitting, you need five of the six to approve. And if there's less than uh six, if we go down to five because of a recusal, you would need all five votes in the affirmative. I let everybody know
that uh normally we would have a full complement with al alternates available but unfortunately uh due to vacations we only have the six members present tonight. Uh you can
choose to proceed forward tonight but we certainly want you to be aware that there is only six members available to vote on your application. Thank you, council. Um, would you like to call the first application?
>> Okay, I'll I'll call the application. >> Yep. >> Um, block 3101, lot 5, 11, Bunan Drive, application number 2026-4-V. Ali and Dave Brunwaser. Applicant seeks approval for a first and second floor addition in violation of the following
sections. 170-87B3 habitable floor area 3520 ft allowed 4526 ft proposed 1,06T variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 25.7% proposed
4.7% variance requested >> for and for the record Miss Khan is uh within the 200 foot zone so she is even though she announced the matter she Yes, she has to recuse herself. Uh so, uh Mr.
Doherty, um you are here tonight for this application, correct? >> I am here to ask for it to be carried without uh additional notice. >> Okay. So, uh Alex, why don't you take a seat? You're making me nervous standing up. Okay. Um so
uh so uh there as I said before on the record obviously we've gone down to now five members because of vacations and and and whatnot. Uh with that in mind Alex on behalf Mr. Dohy excuse me on behalf of your um client
um your client wishes to hold this matter over. >> That is correct. >> Okay. If that is the case, and now I'm looking at Miss Hollis and she's she's mouththing something to me. What? September 22nd.
Okay. So, um, Mr. Doy, please communicate to your client that this matter will be held over to September 22nd. Uh, chair through you. Um, just an announcement to anybody in the audience
who's here on the Bunan Drive application. Uh the matter is being held over to September 22nd. This is the notice for that date. There's no additional notice you're going to receive in the mail. Uh if
you're here on that matter, the applicant has the right to ask for a continuence based on the circumstances. Uh it's their application. It's not the board's application. So the applicant has the right to to request this. And this matter would be heard on the September 22nd date. So, please come
back uh on that date. >> Thank you. >> Is that >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now, you'll make that uh communication to your client. >> Yes. >> Okay. They asked for an extension. Okay. >> I would sing see you in September, but
I'll just say see you in September. >> Oh, you're still here. >> Okay, never mind. >> Okay, Daniel. >> Block 4302, lot 32, 1 Avon Avenue, application number 2026-5-V
Taang. Applicant seeks approval for a new single family house in violation of the following sections. 170-87 LD corner front yard setback 35 feet required 27 feet proposed 8 feet variance requested 170-99 seat 4 rear yard setback 35 ft
required 21% 21 ft proposed to deck 14 ft variance requested habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 32.34% propo proposed 2.34% variance requested Okay. All right. Um,
is there anybody here on one Avon Avenue? Zang. Yes. Okay. Mr. Mr. Dhy was was uh overzealous. Okay. All right. Why don't we just make sure
you Okay. And just bring the mic close. Okay. and you're um just just let me put on the record that I was not here at the previous meeting um when you uh came before us but I have reviewed the video.
>> Yes. Um so the applicant uh TA John cannot make it today. So I'll be representing him tonight. He already sent an authorization letter uh to the board yesterday. Okay. So, and and you're ready to proceed on behalf of the of the applicant, correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Let's get you sworn in. >> Okay. >> Do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Can you please uh state Put your hand down. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. My name is Chong Woo. Q NG. Last
name is Wu. >> Okay. And Miss Woo, you've been qualified before us in the field of architecture in the past, right? >> Yeah, I have been testified a few times uh in front of this board in the past, >> right? And uh your uh license to
practice architecture in the state of New Jersey is up to date. Correct. >> Correct. My license is currently up to date. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I blame Dhy. He probably He probably broke Alex probably broke it. >> One second.
>> While we're getting a new microphone, does anyone board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, we can accept her as an expert in architecture. >> Of course. Where are you comfortable? Thanks, Andy. >> Okay, it's all yours. Yeah, I think he's
just got to give her access. Okay. Good evening, chairman and board members. So, tonight uh I'm pleased to present our revised proposal for this new uh modern and single family home in the corner lot um of Aan Avenue and
Amelia Avenue. So based on the comments that we received uh from the board members on May 28th, we discussed with the the owner and made some major revisions to the building design to accommodate zoning requirements as as
much as possible while maintaining a functional layout. So one significant uh improvement um that we made is uh we reduce the building habitable area. The building habitable area is now 3,26
square feet uh which is within the maximum 3,220 square ft permitted. Instead of seeking for four varances as of May 28, we are now seeking for three varances, two setback varances and one habitable floor
area uh ratio uh variance. The two setback guarantes we are seeking includes uh the corner front yard setback from Amelia Avenue and rear yard setback to the deck. So uh first of all I would like to reemphasize the zoning
hardship of the corner site that has um on our proposed building. So due to the two front yard setback requirements, it's uh very difficult to plan a building within a functional with a functional uh footprint which fulfills
all zoning requirements. Um so the first setback variance is the corner front yard setback from Amelia um Avenue. Just enlarge the plan. So okay. So the core requirement is 35 feet
setback. Um existing building setback is 22.05T and we we had currently proposed a 27T setback. Uh that's a variance of 8T. So although we are still seeking an 8 ft of
um setback variance, we have um already greatly improved from the 22.05 existing building setback. And the second uh setback where is the rear yard set back to the deck. Um because the
building uh footprint is very compact only uh 37 by 47 ft and the first floor interior is very tight and we think this deck is uh essentially for basic indoor outdoor daily living. Um the core
required uh really set back 35 ft. We are proposing a setback that's 35.9 ft to the building and 21 feet to the deck. Uh that's a variance of 14 ft. So please note that the building massing meets the
setback requirements only the deck is within the setback zone. So um so for this variance we have also incorporated the comments received from the board members on the uh May 28th to move the deck stairs from the back of
the deck to the side of the back to reduce the um the rear setback encroachment and the last variance is the habitable floor area ratio variance. So the code required 30%
and we are proposing a 32.34% which is a variance of 2.34%. So the habitable floor area ratio is also significantly reduced from previous 4.68%
on May 28th to now. Um it's half is uh 2.34%. And as mentioned earlier, the habitable floor area is below the maximum 3,220 square ft requirement right now.
So let me go to the floor plan just quickly. So this is you're looking at is a revised um floor plan. Um, so the first floor is only 1,376
square ft and it has a compact very compact uh living room and the dining room has access to the deck and an office uh to the right and basement.
um also a playroom and a bedroom in the basement. And the second floor is um now 1,828 square ft contains four bedrooms that includes one master bedroom. So as you
can see um the overall building massing is very compact right now and um we think it fits well in neighborhood uh with the new re revisions that we made and um especially
um compared to the newly built house um on five Avenue which is just uh adjacent to our lot. So we think our proposed building is going to be a similar has a similar building massing to the new uh
the other building next to us and we uh k as the board to consider and approve our request of the three wences and I'm happy to answer any architectural and technical questions now. >> Does anybody 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 regarding this application? >> Does anybody on the board want to make any statements? >> I just want to say thank you. I
appreciate that you took our feedback to heart and made uh the appropriate changes. So, thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> I'll I'll second that. >> Okay. Um do you have any closing statements you want to make or you're good to go? >> Yeah, we really appreciate the board
approved this decide. Uh, we hope to make the city look beautiful and benefit the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody want to make a motion? >> Go ahead. I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it.
>> Mr. Weissman. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Oh, yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. Miss Khan votes. Yes. Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion pass.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Quest you out by mistake. Mr. Horn, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Sorry. >> Motion's approved. >> Motion. >> Thank you so much. >> Enough for her for one thing. You get crossed off the list. That's it. >> Have you to call the next application,
please? Block 5600, lot 733 Hickory Place, application number 2026-25-V. Steven Dracoitz. Applicant seeks approval for an addition in violation of the following sections. 190-1 170-98C2
front yard setback 50 ft required 48.2 proposed existing 1.8 ft variance requested. 170-87 L1C corner lot setback 40T required 32.9 ft proposed existing 7.1 ft variance requested. 170-87 CC3
habital floor area ratio 21% allowed 23.5% proposed 2.5% variance requested. >> Welcome. Good evening everyone. My name is Matthew Pada also known as Matlock which I did Google. Thank you.
>> This is the first time I got to wear the summer suit, guys. All right. I had to do it. >> So anyway, >> you look sharp. >> Thank you. Thank you. No one says that to me anymore. My mom's not around, you know. So thank you. Uh we are here today for a private homeowner. Uh that private homeowner is
a gentleman who has four kids. He loves the township of Livingston. They want to stay in Livingston. But in order to do so, they need to expand their home. Originally when we had come up with the concept that we wanted to move forward with the township of Livingston after about a handful of iterations required
four variances. Okay. Two are existing uh front yard variances. We also were going to request a habitable floor area and the ratio as well. After having some time to mull it over, we are now presenting an application that only has the ratio variance at an exception of
2.5% whereby 21% is allowed, but we're proposing 23.5%. And the other two variances themselves are just existing front yard setback variances. So although they're existing, they are being exacerbated because we are increasing the ratio by 2.5%.
But everything else is staying the same. Uh here tonight I'll only have one witness and uh if I may, I'd like to have my first witness begin this presentation. >> Okay. Uh let's get you sworn in. Alex, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Alex, just state and spell your name for the record.
>> Alexander Dowy. D O G H E R T Y. >> All right. Mr. Darity has been um qualified in the field of professional planning before this board on many occasions. Alex, your license to practice in that field is current and up to date, correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. uh we can accept you as a expert in professional planning.
>> Thank you. >> For this evening, um members of the board, I have an architectural rendering. I did not prepare it. I just want to walk and give the board an overview. Um as council indicated, the front yard setbacks and how they relate to this proposed addition and exactly,
you know, just just an overview of this because the house is existing. This application is is an addition to that. So, I think it might be prudent just kind of show a high overview of that of that internal layout and then we'll kind of get into how that layout triggered these variances.
I'll just zoom in a little bit for you guys. So on the screen is the uh photos of the existing dwelling. Uh basically what you have here uh we're on the corner of Hickory and uh Langree Drive um 33
Hickory. Uh this is block 5600 uh lot 7. Basically for purposes and orientation of the board I'm going to zoom in a little bit here. The addition proposed addition um really uh is is right here over the first floor and the garage um
which this is kind of orientated towards the uh uh um Lang tree drive. The front yard setback as council indicated um pre-existing conditions for that 50 foot um where 48 is proposed really relates to the the front facade of this house.
Um the new addition uh is keeping within the uh front yard setback. And then we have a corner front yard setback where 40 ft is required under 170 87 L1C. Um this facade you see here with the garage doors currently exists at 32.9. And as I
kind of walk you through the plan, um there is a a minor addition to the front of it. We're not bringing the facade closer to the street, but we are asking the board to uh look upon favorably of continuing the massing. So, and thus this new addition um would be in
keeping. So, that's that uh uh variance here. But those are the two elements for uh the uh front yard setbacks. It's a unique property. It's on that corner here. So, we have two front yards essentially. So, um overview here of the
existing first floor. Um again the garage the existing second floor you have um you know your bedrooms and then you have uh your basement as well uh shown on the plans. the proposed first floor
asking for a small um rear edition to, you know, kind of expand their living room. And then uh the second floor really is to kind of make more efficient use of that garage space and and and build that um primary uh suite over the garage. Again, we have a growing family,
four kids and a couple. So the primary, you know, existing structure would be the four bedrooms for for the little ones. Um, so with that, it's kind of uh, you know, the the the existing uh elevations, if you will, and then if the
board sees favorably the uh proposed um elevations here, as you can see, the they're, you know, building above the second floor where my cursor is. And then um on the side profile you have that uh again that second story massing here and over the garage is is a
proposed deck. That's it really the extent of the uh proposed project but nonetheless as council indicated we we do strike some variances. So we have the front yard setback of 50 ft required off of Hickory 48 uh.2 um is proposed that's
existing that's 1.8 um ft. um we're not exacerbating that as I indicated with the addition that corner lot setback of 40 existing there again is 32.9 and then picking up uh the front elevation we are going to pick up a little bit hopefully
um so we are asking the board to allow us to continue that massing of 32.9 which is a 7.1 uh foot um variance request and then we have the 170-87 CC3 floor area ratio 21% is allowed
23.5% is proposed. So it's 2.5 uh variance. Um in keeping with that, um as you saw, this is a very modest addition. Uh we're not trying to utilize the full extent of the uh um massing above the garage. Um what we're asking is is
really the minimal um efficient use. As as council indicated, there has been many uh iterations of this where we've chopped and reduced the variances here. Um the habitable floor area um was revised um to be now 3,514
uh which is under that 3500 uh um 30 uh sorry 3,520 ft. So we are in complian with that. So on a checks and balance we have our habitable floor area in place. We're just asking to move a little bit on the ratio. Um so with that it's about scale size and massing. Can the site
accommodate the 2.5? I would argue that it can. We have adequate parking. Um, we also have uh um um the um off- streetet parking for there for the garage. We have the adequate water, sewer, utility hookups are all here. There's no substantial detriment to the zone plan,
zoning ordinance, or the public good. Um this is a corner lot from a planning perspective. We want to anchor and accentuate uh our corners as we can. Uh it's a good uh you know township design and and layout to build over that garage I think really helps us as we kind of wrap around Lang Lang Tree Drive here
with the the rest of the scale and massing of the neighborhood. Um I think it's it's well designed. With that being said, we can advance purposes A, G, and I of the miscellaneous law. I being a desirable visual environment. This will meet all applicable building and fire codes um with this addition and give a a
family an opportunity to stay within the township, a young growing family. Um with that the other variances I think we can you know kind of classify them as a C1 a hardship. Um we know we have an extraordinary uh circumstance where uh the dwelling is existing um to ext uh
strict adherence to the zone township ordinance would be um you know an undue hardship. These existing variances I do not believe exacerbate the zone plan on Langree Drive. It does have a nice bend to it. So I don't think when we look at that front yard setback it's going to be
too out of character with the prevailing streetscape because you know there is kind of another jog behind us. Um so with that I'll kind of conclude the purposes of the F is to ensure that the site can accommodate the additional floor area. I believe we can. Um we've we've I think appro approach this from a
practical standpoint and made it as as lean as we possibly can. Um, with that, I'd ask the board to look upon this application favorably and the um, criteria for approval would otherwise be warranted. >> Thank you. I have no further questions. >> Does anyone on the board have any
questions for this witness? >> Yeah. Uh, maybe question or comment. Just to confirm, uh, the variance you're requesting is uh, 170-87 L, which is a corner lot setback. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> That's is an existing condition. Uh the garage facade is a little closer um than the ordinance uh permits and it's an existing condition. We're we're asking to build just a little bit right in front of the two windows. Um so because we're adding massing, we respectfully
going to ask for that variance um to keep in true with the the elevation on the side. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I just want like I think in the application you have it under sideyard setback. That's why >> that's fine. >> It's it's a corner lot setback. I apologize. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Just for clarification, it is a corner lot as you mentioned before. 87 L1C. >> Yeah. >> So, thank you very much um for just limiting this to really the one um variance, but I have a question. Just confirm because I I was looking at the
plans and I'm trying to follow up there. The area the the garage the one that the the part of the house that's set back. Are you bringing that forward at all? Are you keeping that? >> We're bringing it forward just a little bit. Um, so where my cursor is is, um, you know, right in this area. And then
if you go, you see, um, it's it's it's a little closer. It's got a slight jog to keep with that 50 foot requirement. So, we're not asking for the front yard setback on on Hickory. >> So, it's not flush with that. It's back. >> No. Yeah, it's got some visual interest as well. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else invoy any questions for this witness? And what are you using to clad the outside of the house on the >> um my understanding it's uh um I'll zoom in a little bit. It's
>> new shingled um to be determined by homeowner uh cedar shingles. >> And then on the other side though, the side that's >> uh the the side with the garage. >> Yeah. >> I don't believe I have anything listed at the moment.
Okay. >> Is there a preference? >> No, no, >> no. I just >> I I just like to know since we're, you know, it's a lot more massing on, you know, coming closer than what's required. So, I just like to know so the town knows what we're going to be looking at. That's that's just why I
asked >> the Yeah, sighting. Um I I you know, Mr. already is not the architect. So we wouldn't necessarily have that information. Obviously design is up to the individual applicant. >> Correct. >> Just not something
>> we would want something. >> No summer suits. No summer suits on the house. Okay. >> Excuse me. >> Does anybody else 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 regarding this
application? Does anybody in the board want to make any statements regarding this application? Does council want to make any closing statements? >> I wave it. >> Does anyone the board want to make a motion? >> I make a motion to approve.
>> Do I have a second for anybody? >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Embody, >> yes. >> Miss Convotes, yes. Mr. Beer, >> yes. Congratulations.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> You call the next applicant, please. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Um, block 7402 38 Ross Road, application number 2026-40-v, Brett and Allison Goldberg. The
applicant seeks approval to construct a single new family a single family residence in v violation of the following sections. 170-96 C2 front yard setback 75 ft required 67 ft proposed existing 808 ft variance requested.
170-87CC1 habitable floor air ratio 15% allowed 17.2% proposed 2.2% variance requested. >> We want you to be comfortable. Okay. So, I'm gonna make a wild assumption here. And you are Brett and
Allison Goldberg. Yes. You just got put on. Thanks, Alex. All right. And you have Mr. uh Dohy and Mr. Duvenet who uh to uh testify on on your behalf. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Are you going to be testifying at all tonight or you gonna let them do
their work? >> Gonna let them do their work. Okay. All right. All right. So, Mr. Mr. Doy's already been uh sworn in. He remains sworn in. He's already been qualified in the field of professional planning. He hasn't received any emails in the past 10 minutes, so I'm assuming he's still
qualified. And uh All right, Mr. Dubet, let's get you sworn in. Do you swear for him, tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yeah. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Yes. Daniel Dubenette. Uh Dub B I N T. >> All right. Mr. Dubinette has been qualified in the field of architecture
before this board on many occasions. Miss Dubinet, your credentials to uh work in the field of architecture in state New Jersey are uh current update. Correct. >> They are chair. >> Okay. Uh we can accept you as an as an expert in architecture.
>> Thank you very much. Um appreciate it. Uh so we are seeking uh with this application two variances. Um first one is the uh the ratio uh we are located in R1 zone and the
u we have two requirements. One is the maximum of 6,200 and uh we also have a 15% of the lot. We're seeking 17.2. We are uh designed it kind of intentionally to to stay under the 6,200 square feet
and it's we're proposing a new home on the site and one of the things that is included in our F which is not an insignificant number but we are um the double height foyer and we have a a very large family room. So those two rooms,
we would testify that certainly in the future they would never be enclosed and or used for second floor living space, but those two that area equates for 620 square ft of our number. So that brings us down um to a a more comfortable
number in terms of living space. 5,577. Um that's the ask. >> Jackie, do we have a the color copy of this? >> No. Can we mark this? This is exhibit A1. >> Yes. >> And please provide to Miss Hollis at the end.
>> Thank you. And I and I I I apologize, but I I I thought it was a nice idea. This is the first floor that you're seeing here. So, what I indicated in pink is the area of F that is being counted twice. And again, if it's something we would absolutely like to do
is to testify and put on record that we would never um go for permits to increase the second floor. So in terms of uh living space, the attic is also something that we are not accessing other than a pull down staircase. So
there'll be no future uh ask in the future for additional living space there. Um and of course we would love a three-car garage and and I think it's about 284 square feet to have a that counts towards our F. Um yeah, it's very interesting. thing. I mean, I could show
you the second floor, but it's a I guess for what could be, it's a very modest uh footprint. It's three children's bedrooms with bathrooms and the master. So, um it kind of felt uh because they're designing this home for their family and there's no expectation of
moving anytime soon. This is their dream to have the high foyer and the high family room. And so, of course, we get um into asking for F. The second part of this application is asking for a front yard setback of 8 ft. And um I'd like to
show you why we'd like to ask for that. Um it was something obviously it was a a a site that they bought and after studying the um topography of the site and let me take you to the site plan.
There's a a really uh pretty nice curve to the property. a very very very steep elevation. Uh it's about a 15 foot level change from uh the street to where the house is going to sit. Um so what happens is and the backyard also has a
some significantly steep slopes. One of the things that they fell in love with with the property which I think is great to maintain and we'd like to put that on record and I indicated here on the site plan if you could see it in this um color. there's an existing retaining wall that we'd like to keep and then
everything beyond the retaining wall we don't want to touch. So, it kind of left us with a a smaller area for the backyard. But, we felt it would be great for the neighbors both in the rear and adjacent neighbors if we maintain the hill and all the significant trees that
sit on the hill. And so with working with sighting the house, it's a very small portion of the garage that violates uh the curvature. And I don't know if you could consider that a hardship, but you know, here we uh in
the top left, let me zoom in a little bit more. Top left, uh the bulk of the house is way beyond the setback line and the garage, one story, comes forward. And I indicated that with this uh pink shape.
20 ft back from the edge of the garage is our second floor. And so we obviously um would maintain as much as we can flat area in the back and then not disturb and we would testify that as a result of
of seeking approval that we would not redo the retaining wall, wipe out the backyard. I mean and and so we actually got a letter. We spoke to the neighbors. Um, they liked our concept. They felt that it was a better alternative than conforming uh to maintain the backyard.
And I have a Google Earth image I'd like to show. I think it's >> Before we get off of this one, this this is another This is another color version. Is this the one that has been provided to the board? I saw you had a red line. >> No, that's going to be part of this A1
exhibit. >> Okay. It's all part of A1. >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Um, and now, uh, you have on your plans, although I don't know how the quality of the print came out, but there's a Google Earth image. And what's very interesting about the ask is normally we we try to
make a streetscape and that's why we have a front yard setback and it looks very nice when everybody's in line and there's a certain fabric to the neighborhood. But because of the curvature of the road, the topography, the setting, and all the other homes that are very very mature uh maturely
landscaped, it's very hard to perceive um uh the the alignment of the home. So, I felt like it wouldn't cause any negative impact to the neighbors or neighborhood by allowing uh the garage that's slightly a skewed to come forward. And
if I may, if this helps our case, I'd like to show you the last image on the Earth sheet. Oh, let me go back a step. I saw a little diagram here. Small interesting fact, but when we measure front yard setbacks, we do not
take into account the topography of the land. So, we're looking down um and we're drawing we're going 70 feet back. But if we were to measure from the property line up to the house because of the angle, you know, that's a triangle, we get slightly better. So it's not
great, but let's say we're asking for 67. I did the mathematical calculation comes out to about almost 69 ft. So we get closer to the 70 if you were to measure this. I forget what they call it
that that third side of the triangle, >> right? Um but then I did uh some analysis uh to primarily for me but it was an interesting discovery just the maybe the perception of the differential. So I I I I
in our computer software I rendered the image. So the top one is is with the bigger front yard setback and this is with the 8oot ask and I looked at these perspectives how you'd view this from the street. Um, so for me, very
negligible difference and very hard to gauge seven feet when you're out in the open air. And then this is the just another view coming from Ross Road, the differential of what how it would be perceived. So I thought that the
perception of the two different things uh two different dimensions were negligible, but then it would give um the Goldbergs a little bit more space in the back. And that's my application. Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Yeah, I have a quick question. By the way, I think the the gradients are absolutely extreme. So, I mean, >> yeah, >> that's um that's quite something, but can you explain like where is that retaining wall and how is the retaining wall creating that constraint where you
have to >> Yes. Um where exactly on the plans maybe? Yeah, I'm going to take you to the site plan. I think is the best way to indicate it. And even in my colorized version, uh, exhibit A1,
this this site plan. And so our truly flat area is from the uh I've indicated the house plus a patio. So we have flat grass area right in here. Um, and so we'd like to maintain that and
we'd like to testify that we're not going to dig into this hill and create a series of terrorist retaining walls and lose all these mature trees. And so that was the catalyst for trying to come forward
a little bit and um that was the ask. So that's the area that where that retaining wall is to the house is our primarily a flat backyard for um play area. Other than that it it turns into a somewhat steep slope u with very mature
trees that we'd like to maintain and not and not disturb. >> Does anyone else on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yes. U the attic area seems like 11 ft here. Am I correct? Uh and is it uh like what is the use for that 11 ft?
>> Where are we >> the attic? >> Uh the attic is just to give us a nice roof line uh on the house. Uh um it's all about really just the curb appeal. Um >> the distance you have is
>> Yeah, probably. I I actually um not 100% sure I um There it is. Yeah. So, we have Yes. 11 ft. um 10 inches to the ridge, but you know, we have this beautiful uh roof line. It's all about the roof line, the
angle the roof. Um and because we sit so high up on a hill, you know, the steeper the roof, the more presence it has. Um so that's the only reason it's not for future use, I made sure I didn't draw any dormers uh in our roof line. So, and that there's no staircase to the second
floor, and we would testify that we would never ask for open a permit andor. >> Right. I think Mr. Dubenette, you indicated before that the attic is only accessible by pull down stairs. >> Yes. >> And I think on behalf of the applicant, you would agree that that would be a a
condition if the board looks favorably upon it, that would be a condition of approval that it would that attic is only accessible by this pole downstairs. >> We talked about that in great length that uh uh we're asking for the F and that there's no future uh attic space
and we're good with that. Does anybody else on the board have any question? I think so. >> Yeah. Um, and I appreciate all your explanations on where all the compromises were made, you know, the trade-offs. So, it was really helpful. Just So, we're comparing apples to
oranges. Is the the path uh the circular driveway. So, is that in the same spot that it is now? Is So, we're looking at these new plans. That's what >> Yes, that driveway. Although we'll redo the driveway, but the shape will stay exactly where it is. >> And the location, right? All right. So,
we have a perspective. Okay. Perfect. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from the board? >> And you're removing the swimming pool, right? >> We did actually already. Uh, yeah. Swimming pool is gone. >> I think the house is gone. >> It is. >> House is gone. Yeah. Anybody else on the
board? Did anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay. Next witness. You're up. All right. Uh Alexander Dowy, professional planner. Um so as the architect indicated, we we are here uh
for the board for two variances. Um if you could can you pull up the Google Earth >> and zoom in on that for me? >> The first variance um I just kind of want to get out of the way is the front yard setback as you heard the uh architect testify to. Um we have some
steep slopes to the rear. If they were to really move that garage to the rear of of the property, you'd violate that um steep slopes, we'd probably be back here asking for some kind of relief related to that. There would be some kind of, you know, major earth work
related that would have to, you know, um compensate for additional retaining walls and and the mature trees. So, from a design perspective, if we look at the house to the right, um zoom in, please, Dan, zoom in. >> Zooming in.
that that corner of that house and the way it's angled uh kind of, you know, offset our front um corner of our garage is pretty much going to be right in line with that existing uh neighbor's uh corner. So, right, I know it's on a curve, but we kind of pick up on that
front elevation. And as the architect indicated, this is the only portion of this the massing of this of this house that is asking for the front yard setback of 8 ft. um a delta of 8 ft, 67 ft where the zone requires the uh 75.
The rest of that house is is within compliance of that 75. Um with that that location of that that garage though, if we put the garage to the rear, it would provide for a more intimate, you know, um setting to the rear yard because it would kind of, you know, encapsulate it.
Unfortunately, there's a lot more work that needs to be done with those steep slopes to bring that garage all the way to the back um and out of that. Um because the way the house is designed, it would essentially be behind the house. Um so with that, I I kind of wanted to put that that front yard
setback really in relation um for the board. I can go two ways on this. A C1 or a C2. The C1 existing conditions, steep slopes of the of the house of the property, but a C2 would otherwise a better zoning alternative in keeping with that neighboring facade and as we
kind of turn that bend, keeping with that and kind of stepping back to the rest of the the streetscape for that predictable built environment and uh for for the neighborhood. The um second variance here for that D4 um for the habitable um floor area ratio. I I just
want to put out this is a new single family dwelling replacing the existing home. As you know, the structure has been demolished. Um it's a uh it's a it's a weird 2.2% as the architect indicated. The internal programmings, there's a double floor foyer um area. So
that that that second portion of that that that that uh floor um is is taking up a large volume of that 2.2%. Um really just an interior programming of that. With that being said, um I think what's important to note is we are
within the um habitable floor area of the uh um of the zone. So on a balance, it's exactly on scale as uh the zone plan in indicates uh and prefers for habitable floor area. The ratio relates to that really unique interior uh
programming of the site. Um that being said, um the D4 the site can accommodate um essentially we're we're demolishing an older structure, replacing it in kind with better enhancements, um and and styling. With that, we can advance
purposes A, G, and I. Um new dwelling constructed to modern building codes and standards. Um G for sufficient space and appropriate locations. Again, a permitted residential use. I for desirable visual environment. Um again
that C1 um or C2 for better zoning alternative or the hard uh hardship relating to those steep slopes to the rear. On balance um as the architect testified to the the property is unique. Um it's got it's got a about a 15t
uphill uh to to it. Uh the this the building footprint. This is going to have really great curb appeal. Really a positive investment to the site, a positive investment to the neighborhood here. Um, I I think this is right on on on par with the design elements. Um, you know, with the the roof, there's no
dormers. The there is only pull down. We can now have accessible attic space where our HVAC systems are in there where you can walk up there, store things in there. It's not capital. There's no windows. It's a pull down. Um, this is all about the curb appeal uh to the neighborhood, to the site. Um,
it's not just a positive investment here, but it's an a positive investment to Livingston Township. This is a third generation um family that likes to remain uh within Livingston. And as the architect indicated, though I know it may not be missable, we do have uh letter support from our neighboring uh
uh neighbors. So with that, I want to conclude there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan. Um the 2.2 is interior design element to this and this uh the front yard setback is a very small portion and I think it helps to overall tie that neighborhood together and keep that property uh in those
mature trees. That'll conclude. The criteria has been met and I would uh respectfully ask approval be warranted. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board have any qu 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 regarding this application? I assume you have any closing statements you want to make or you're good? >> No. Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay. Um, does the board want to make any statements or anyone to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve subject to the condition of the attic only be accessible via pull downstairs. >> I'm taking notes today. I'm I'm stepping up. I will second that. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Ambadi, >> yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> I see. That was >> Boys. Boys.
Hi there. >> Block 20. Block 2402, lot 216 Hadrien Drive. Application number 2026-39-V. Alyssa and Scott Sacket. Applicant seeks approval for a covered deck in violation of the following sections. 170-963
sideyard setback 15 ft required. 134 13.4 ft proposed 1.6 ft variance requested. >> Okay. And I'm going to assume you that you're Miss Sacket. >> Yes. >> You just have to hit the green button. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh Mr. Dubinette is going to
be presenting on your behalf. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh and we're going to let him do his his thing as we say. Right. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Mr. Dubinette is uh already for the record he's already been sworn in and qualified in the field of architecture. And uh why don't chair
>> we can accept him again as an expert in architecture. Please. >> Thank you very much. Um >> this application we are seeking one variance sideyard setback and we um we
would like to um expand our existing deck and we're going to create a covered portion of the deck and I would like to take you through that. Um it's 100% this variance is 100% a function of the odd shaped lot the
existing orientation of the house on the lot and if uh it's acceptable uh I did study the significant distance from our house to the neighbor's house significant uh mature trees and so I don't see any negative impact to it. Um
but let me just explain to you what it is that we're trying to do. Um this is the survey of the property. Okay. Um so the imaginary line, the 15 foot setback line uh comes across the
existing deck must have been sensitive to not uh asking for a variance and to make it conform. So they did this very funny uh arbit arbitrary but it looks arbitrary when you're there. But obviously the the slice to the existing deck is a function
of uh trying not to ask for permission. Um however when we decided to update renovate our deck it creates a very odd living space and let me take you to the floor plan and maybe explain why we're
asking um for that shape to straighten it out which requires uh I think it's 1.6 ft violation. So very small uh it's a a little little little actually let me zoom in on it. It's a little sliver of of what we propose to be in violation.
And the reason we felt so strongly about coming tonight to ask is if I can get there. Sorry I'm never good at uh navigating this. Well, let me show you the photograph of
the existing deck in the rear. So, what we're planning on doing is taking the deck that they have, refurbishing new railings. Um, but this is their kitchen or breakfast room, and it has a g little gable roof here. So, we want to extend the gable roof, put down some columns,
and create a a covered entertaining space there. And so if we stop at that angled line, we're really quite short. And then I try to like make the gable come in and it look kind of funny. So aesthetically and functionally we're
here to ask for that 1.6 ft. Um and since I have it, I'll just give you um this is a again a aerial view. Well, these are the views certainly between the two neighbors. Um there's a a lot of distance between the
two. There's a lot of elevation. There's a lot of mature trees. So, I don't see any negative impact. Uh certainly blocking anyone's light, air, and open space. This is a Google uh image of the lot line. And again, I don't um we're not imposing or impos uh on on the
neighbor. And the design is simple but lovely. It's this uh I can do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. >> So, Mr. Dubanet, I think you would you would say that this this really is a
better design >> alternative to square off that >> uh deck in terms of making the covered uh porch look a little bit more >> Yeah, it gives them the space >> in line with the rest of the home. >> Yeah, we give them the space that they need to get covered. Uh we also created
a a pretty stone wall that we'll put a TV on that also gives us a some privacy for the neighbors. But yes, uh the alternative is a much nicer aesthetic addition than the alternative. >> Thank you.
>> So essentially it's really a dimminimous violation. >> I feel like it is. I feel like it is. >> Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah, I do. Um so the the part that's over I'm trying to figure out if because the
roof seems like it's hanging over. So, is that the part that's in violation? Where are you measuring from? >> Thank you. Um, the edge of the deck, I didn't include the uh overhang of the roof. Uh, so if I take you to the floor plan,
take it to the floor plan. Okay. Okay. Um the the red diagonal line that cuts through the portion of our proposed is at the deck line and column line. So uh to your point, yeah, there'll be a
overhang of the roof. Yeah. >> That is okay. So how like if we how how far is the set back if we include the >> uh it's a one foot overhang. So you would be then be at two and a half feet. Um, >> however, I don't think we count overhand.
>> Doesn't really count though. >> No, unless they're three feet or something significant. >> Um, structure. >> Show the structure. Okay. >> Right. Structure. >> It's part of the over that that Eve is part of the overall design. Yes. Aesthetic.
>> Yes. >> Does anyone in the court have any other questions for this witness? >> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Uh, >> does anyone in the public want to make a statement? Uh, does anybody in the board want to make a statement? Uh, does anybody in the board want to
make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr.
>> Yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you very >> application. >> Plot 301, lot 4970 Rock Ledge Drive. Application number 2026-46-V.
John and Beth Shaktel. Applicant seeks approval for a front and sideyard addition in violation of the following sections. 170-97 C2 front yard setback 60 ft required 54 ft proposed. 6 ft variance requested. 170-87 CC2 habitable
floor area 18% allow 18% allowed 19.36 proposed 1.36 variance requested. >> Welcome Okay. So, why don't we get you sworn in and we get you started here. Uh, do you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Can you please do us a favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? Um, my name is Lisa Walzer and it's L I S A and then W A L Z like zebra eer. >> Okay. And uh, Miss Walzer, you're
testifying on behalf of the applicant tonight. Correct. >> Correct. >> And uh, you're going to be qualified in the field of architecture. >> Correct. >> Okay. I made a good guess. Okay. Um so Miss Wzer let me just uh get your qualification for um in the field of
architecture. Can you tell us uh briefly your education and uh uh qualification as an architect in state New Jersey? >> Yes, I've by the way I have um testified before this board but um I am been licensed in I'm in licensed in New
Jersey and New York. I've been licensed since something like 1984 I believe. Um, my I have a uh degree in architecture from Syracuse University. Um, and I've done a lot of work locally. >> And you testified before this board and
other boards in the past, correct? And your license to practice architecture in field New Jersey is current and up to date. Right. >> Correct. >> Chair. >> Uh, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, we can accept you as an expert in architecture.
Great. >> Okay. Um, let's see. Okay. Um, my clients are away. Um, but they sent a letter um that they asked me to um read to you. But I think in the
interest of time, I'll just summarize. Um, the Shaktells have been in their home since 1994. They love the community. They've been very active. Um, they raised two kids um, in their house. Um, they're 65year-old retirees and now they are
raising their grandson. He goes to the Harrison School. Um, they've both been coaches of soccer teams for um, 10 plus years uh, for their kids and now they're doing it for the grandson. They're very active in the community. As people that are of that age know, their family is
growing. Um, so the kids that they've raised in the neighborhood are now having um children of their own and they can no longer fit their family in their house. So they came to me, they'd really like to stay in the house. Um, but they would just like some living space where they all could be in the same room at
the same time. And the house um although it doesn't seem as particularly small, there's no really one there's not really like a nice size living space. there's no place that the family could eat together or you know just hang out together. So that's when they called me
in. Um so um what we're propos I'm proposing is um adding on to the front of the existing living room. As you can see um it's the shaded area that's um the addition SL um
that's being added. Um there's like a hatch um there's two different hatches and most of it fits within the existing um allowed buildable area. There's just a small area in the front where we're asked that's going to fall that um we'll
need a front yard setback variance for. Um the required setback there is um 60 ft but we'll have 54 in what we've proposed. um is also we're going to acquire an F variance which is um actually pretty
small. It's 1.36%. It doesn't go over the allowed area. It just goes over the allowed percentage. Um the reason for citing the house over there is that there's an um well first
it works um um we wanted to keep like a clean room. So I set the room um in front of the chimney so that the chimney could stay and you would still get a nice um square
a nice rectangular footprint. as well as up above. Um we're able to get a two-story space um because there we by removing just a little bit of storage space um it doesn't block any windows or anything over there. If you were to
situate the um addition um in another area like the back of the house, we ran into problems. one, um, there's bedrooms across the back on the second floor. So, the the you wouldn't be able to go up very high and even just the roof line,
unless it were a a very low ceiling and a very flat roof, you would be blocking and have to eliminate windows on the second floor. Um, the other thing is obviously the existing layout. We weren't trying to redo their kitchen or
anything like that. So the existing dining room is, you know, has the right adjacency. But even bigger than all of that is that they've done some work in the past before I knew them and they found there's a lot of rock in the back and they actually sent me a bunch of pictures which I can share with the
board if you're interested in seeing them. Um I did so I no Okay. So and they wrote me a letter to explain the whole situation. Um, so I don't know if if you'd like to hear the letter either, but um they they went through two scen
I'll just kind of sum it up, I guess. So I guess they the first thing they did um I guess they built first they built a primary bedroom on the second floor because the house didn't really have any. And so when they did that um they
ran into a lot of rock and etc. Um and then they later on they put a small pool in their backyard and again the two times they ran into like a lot of rock. They couldn't use normal you know ex they had to do a lot of jackhammering.
They were recommended not to build in the back again. Um they said, as I said, they um sent sent me um like pictures. Not I brought four, but they sent like they walked the property and you can see in the backyard that there's rock at the
surface. I don't know if this is they say that's probably why the it's called Rocklidge Road. I I'm not an expert on the history of Livingston, but it makes sense. Um if you look in the front, it doesn't, you know, obviously we don't know what's underground, but it doesn't have that appearance at all. doesn't
look like it's, you know, you don't see rock in the front, you just see rock all over the back. So, um I think that's a hardship with the property, the um fact that it's all rock in the back. Um the existing house, the the front works with
the layout. You don't have to some of the existing living room will incorporate into a new living room, so you don't have to build quite as much if you put the addition in the front. So, it keeps it a little bit smaller. Um, so those are um I guess the main
reasons we wouldn't Oh, and also you we wouldn't have to lose windows on the second floor uh by putting it on the front because the front of the house, the way the original house is designed, that's just going to come in front of existing storage. And we looked at this
as also um an opportunity to enhance the front of the house. So, um, let me see if I can show you that. Let's see. How do I get to that? Um, I'm sorry, but how do I get to the
other? Go back to the menu. Oh, just close that and then I'll see. Okay, got it. Thank you. That was helpful. Okay. So, if you look on the top, this is a front elevation. Um, and the on the left is the new addition. For some reason, it
didn't doesn't look as clear. you know what it's the line weight looks a little bit heavy here but um only that triangular piece on the left hand side is the addition everything else is and the piece right next to it is a much bigger um kind of like too big like kind
of um huge like portica which we're actually making a little smaller a little cleaner and a little simpler but um the rest of it is all existing so what I think what um the addition is actually helping to balance the front
facade in a very nice way. So, it kind of gave by putting it on the front, it actually gave them an opportunity to like enhance the look of the house. It's almost like um two book ends and then like something in the middle. It's actually a popular kind of style nowadays with like the two big masses
and something in the middle that creates an entrance and it's a much nicer, more up-to-date look than what's there currently. So although we're going a little bit into the front yard, um I think it's really going to enhance the house and therefore the neighborhood.
Um, one other thing, um, so Rocklage Road, uh, Rocklage Drive is a curvy road and I I noticed one of the other applicants earlier in the evening had the had a similar situation and I also had looked I didn't bring it, but I also had looked on the Google maps, the
Google Earth view, but the houses, it's a curved street, so the houses are not lined up. The houses are all situated differently along the curve. So, I don't think you could actually ever perceive, you know, six feet of difference in a
house on a street that's um has very big setbacks and um and curves and all the houses are facing, you know, towards the curve. So, it's not like a row and all of a sudden one's, you know, popping forward. It's a
it's a gentle, you know, curve and I think it'll just look fine. I don't see any um uh drawbacks whatsoever. Also, the F includes two garages, so they have actually space for four cars. The reason
being they told me is that when they built the primary bedroom, which I said was years ago, um they couldn't afford to build anything underneath it, but they wanted to keep the bedroom on the same level. And the whoever designed it for them then said, "Well, the what we could do is just put garage space underneath it." And that's what they
did. I think it turns out that um the garage space is very nice in the neighborhood because they have a long driveway. They have four cars, four spaces for four cars. So, you don't, you know, you don't see a lot of cars on the street. And I think that most towns um
look at that as a positive um for the neighborhood. So I think um I see it as uh you know as a plus for them and a plus for Livingston and um
I think that's oh yeah and the F is you know it's pretty dimminimous also it's a very small number um a small percentage it doesn't even go over the allowed number um >> so okay I don't anybody have any questions >> and um you're taking the existing
portico is being removed, right? >> It's being removed. >> So, you're getting rid of some mass and putting some >> right. So, there's this big mass which um I don't know if my clients would even agree, but I don't think it's very attractive. And if you've driven by you probably I think people most people
would agree. Um but um it's not that attractive. So, I we don't want to I don't want to change more than we have to, but we are taking out like the big uh pillars that are supporting that portico. And I drew like kind of a rectangle there. I'm going to have some
kind of very simple clean covering uh you know, so that just to protect people, you know, while they're fumbling with their keys, but nothing as big as as what's there. Now, what I'm hoping um by this design is that the new addition will kind of balance the garage on the
other side and be a nicer kind of massing than what's there and not something I think what's there now is I guess more ostentatious. And we're kind of looking for something cleaner, aligned, and you know, more in keeping with design today. >> All right, great. Does anybody 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? >> Does anybody in the board want to make any statements? >> I just want to say I appreciate I my son's best friend lives further down the
street and so I pass the street. You're absolutely correct how that street curves like this in the hills of these houses, right? What you've done blends in well with the area. So, I I appreciate you taking in the aesthetics of the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else want to make a statement?
Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Ambadi, >> yes. >> And Mr. Beer,
>> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back. 46 West is this right? 46 Westlaw Road a block 2906 lot 2346 Westl application number 2026-50-V
Road Act Builders LLC applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following sections 170-98C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 35 ft proposed existing 15 ft 15 ft variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor
area ratio 21% allowed 29.99% proposed 8.9 99% variance requested. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Chairman Richard. >> Oh, push the button. >> Chairman Richard Skolnick on behalf of the applicant. Two variances here. Uh
front yard setback. We're actually reducing that from the existing just a tad. So, it's essentially an existing condition. There is a floor area ratio variance here. I know you have a a long night. I thought we'd get right to the witnesses to uh present. We're going to
call our architect first, I'm in Cedra. >> Miss Sedra, let's get you sworn in. Do you swear for untelled truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> And uh Mr. Sedra has been qualified in the field of architecture on many occasions before this board. Your license to practice uh practice uh
architecture in state New Jersey is current up to date. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. We accept you as expert in architecture. >> Okay. Mr. Sure. Can you tell us what we have here from an architectural standpoint? Why uh you think the variances make some sense? >> Sure. Um we designed a new single family
house for this lot. Um uh this new single family consists of six bedrooms total six bedrooms and five and a half bathrooms. Uh we are applying today for two variances. One is the front yard uh
which is uh 35 ft where it's 50 ft is required but the existing is 34.44. We also did an average front study with the survey uh which is giving us an average sitback of 35.18.
Um that's uh shown actually with the site plan that was submitted. Um the the main v variance we're applying for here is the floor area ratio uh where 21% is required. We are at 29.99
with a total of habitable floor area of 3205 where uh the maximum is 3520. Um the the house is a is a colonial style home. Um the frontage of that
house is only 45 ft. So it's a it's a small frontage and it's in keeping with the neighborhood. Um the the the depths of the house is 59 ft. As you see the massing of this building um was
allocated to the back of the building, not the front because the front is not um um a big frontage. Um the uh the attic uh it just will be unfinished attic uh accessible only with
a pull down stair from the second floor. Um and as you see this this the design for house it's kind of like a moderate uh design. It's not it's not a big house by any means. It's uh uh the normal size we
always use for this kind of zone. And actually the square footage is lower than what we use on the R4 where uh where the R4 we use 3220 as the maximum. We are at 3205. As I mentioned, we have five and a half
bathrooms. Um sorry, six bedrooms. There is four uh located at the second floor, one at the first floor and one in the basement and also five and a half bathrooms. >> That's it. >> Mr. Sedra, we we talked about the fact
that we have a a deep lot here and in terms of massing, >> correct? >> The square footage is sort of pushed into the >> the house. So, you know, at street level you have something more similar. Could you just talk about that a little bit?
Yeah, the the so as I as I mentioned the frontage is only 45 ft 5 in and that's a that's a a small frontage for this kind of house. I mean some some of these zone we can we can go to 60 or 65 uh ft as
being the frontage. So given the the shape of the lot uh that wasn't possible here. So, uh, the frontage is, uh, kind of small, but the the the majority of the square footage going toward the back of the house.
Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come forward. This is for questions. Statements will be later if you want to make a statement, just to be clear. So, please
come to the mic. Do you need to >> We just need you to state and spell your uh name for the record. >> Uh Stephanie S t a n i e. Last name is Warner. W E R N E R. >> And your address?
>> Three Cath Drive. K A T H A Y Drive. >> Okay. As the chairman indicated, this is the time for questions of the architect. So, if you have a a question for the architect, now is the time to ask it. This is not the time for making any
comments about the project. There will be a time for that uh at the end of the presentation. So, if you have any questions for the architect, please feel free to ask them now. >> So, if I had a question about how far back and the aesthetics, is that appropriate?
>> Please ask the question. Yeah, sure. Question. So then um I'd like to understand because the house um we are facing the back. So the back that it's coming into is what we are facing and
right now that's been decimated because um deciduous trees have been taken down. So right now we have aesthetically a very poor view. So, we're very concerned about how far back the house is coming, how much in our view it's going to be,
how much more of the lot it's going to take up, and what we can expect in terms of what we're going to see visually. >> Um, from the back of the house to the end of the property line at the back, we
have about 88 ft. 88.07 ft. Uh that's how much space we have before we reach the property line. Your house is is the the house in the back, correct? The back of >> If you're if you're facing the house, >> we're this way.
>> So we're on >> the right side. >> Cafe Drive. If you're facing the house, we're on the right. >> Oh, okay. I see. So, but uh as I said, we have 88 ft. 07 as a as a rear uh yard
setback. And in terms of the code, we're not violating the code in the rear yard setback. The rear yard is is 40 ft. That's the code. That's what the code requires. We're almost above double double this number. >> So, how much more is it coming back
versus like what it is now? Uh the original house was uh 11594 >> and >> so it came back uh 115 - 88 115US 88 27
ft. >> So you're coming back an additional 27 >> 27 feet correct. >> That's a lot. Um, so what can we expect in terms of what's now going to be in our view in terms of material that's being used for the house? Like what are
we going to see? We have a three-bedroom house. This what you're putting is a sixbedroom. That sounds very large to me. Also, um, you know, five bathrooms. >> This is going to be a new house. So, we'll use material like hardy, nice
hardy um horizontal siding uh and and board and bat and things like that. But it will be a brand new construction. So, it will be aesthetically more appealing than what's there now. >> I would just ask the board to consider
how large this later. That's okay. >> Okay. Very good. So, that those are my questions. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. Does anybody else in the public have any questions for this witness?
>> Okay, you're up. Back to you. >> Okay, next witness, our planner. We could have him sworn. >> All right, Mr. Dohy, he's been sworn in earlier today. He remains under oath and his qualifications in the field of planning have been placed in the record
and he remains qualified to uh testify in the field of professional planning. >> Correct. Thank you. My license is still current and good standing. Um so with that, um yes, we are here. >> Well, I beat you.
>> Yeah, I I Well, it was open source, Rich, so I >> Yes. Uh we're here for 46 Westl Road um block 2906 lot uh 23. Um as as um architect and council indicated in the opening um we're here for two variances.
The uh front yard setback 170-98C2 um 50 ft required. We're proposing uh a new construction home at 35 ft. I think it's important to note when we look at um historically that lot the um existing
uh home the prior home was set at 34.44. So we're trying to put the building footprint where it has has historically been within the neighborhood uh per the survey that was taken. Um and as the architect uh indicated um you know there
was uh an attempt to kind of get the uh the front yard um in line with the neighborhood and there and they've looked at it uh and studied that. Um but we are nonetheless asking for that 15t variance because this would otherwise be a new construction home. Um but I think
it's important to note that the prior house was also approximately at the same location. Uh and we are here um for that habitable floor area ratio um 17087 uh CC3 the township's code. Um we're asking for the board to look uh
favorably upon a delta of 8 uh 999%. Um when I look at this application and you know I think the architect really hit it on the head here. uh the lot a as far as the house and the way it's positioned on it, we do not have any sideyard setbacks. We are in conforming
with that R3 zone. Um you know, we are asking, you know, uh for F, but I think it's important to note this is an undersized lot. Um this is 10,686 ft. 15,000 uh ft is required for the R3
zone and on balance the proposed dwelling is 3,205 ft um which is under the permitted uh uh 3,520 when we look at that habitable floor area when we talk about the interior programming of the dwellings. So
substantially under the habitable floor area. Um, but when I look at this this uh you know percentage here, it may seem like it's a lot. When I run my calculations, um, if I had that 15,000
square ft of uh um of lot area, we would be asking for a 36 uh%. Now, I say that I understand that we don't have that lot area and we have to be sensible. I I want to just put on there from a planning standpoint when we look at
floor area ratio. It's a mechanism designed to scale size and massing uh the intensity of of of you know the lot. Water sewer utility, it exists here. Curb cut, it exists here. A a prior dwelling existed here. We're not asking for bulk dimensional relief other than
that front yard again existed in that condition before. The rear yard and sideyards uh comply. We can park the site. We can accommodate the site. um and the likes of that. Um so when we talk about the design, I think the architect really uh bring brought this
point home uh here. The massing of this is to the rear. So when we drive down the street in the neighborhood or walk down the street is going to look and feel as it should in the predictable neighborhood environment. The front of that house and the sideyards are are all
within compliance. It's the length of that and towards the rear. Again, we're not asking for reard uh uh variance here, but that length um is where we pick up our massing. And really, if you look at the lot, it's kind of a pizza pie shaped lot. It gets kind of narrow
there. Um and that's kind of where we lose out on that lot area. If we had that 15,000 square foot, um we would be asking for a.36 uh delta of a variance here. But from an F this control size, scale and massing
the intensity here, the site can accommodate this this building uh of this size. The size is appropriate by way of, you know, new modern uh uh buildings coming in and and houses coming into the township. Um when you walked again down the street, you would
never know that this house was a little too big for the lot. Um but nonetheless, on a balance, we are under on that perhap area. And with that, we're also um substantially under what the R4 zone requires, which is 3,220
ft. So, uh on on a balance here, it looks good on paper. That variance though seems high, that 899, but it's in relation truly to that undersized nature of the lot. Um and that massing is really towards the rear. that front yard setback. From a planning standpoint, I
think it makes perfect sense to put it where the prior home um used to be um and and keep that prevailing front yard setback. So, when we look at this um this application and this brings a brand new uh home here with best engineering practices, the dry wells, the storm
water management, everything that would otherwise need to be accommodating a new or larger home on this this dwelling. The size of the dwelling as I said before I think is pretty consistent with the buildout of the township of newer homes coming online. Um I believe that floor area ratio can be granted as the
site can accommodate the proposed dwelling meeting all site and rear yard setback requirements. The front yard again aligns with the neighboring dwellings. We have adequate off- streetet parking. We have that new storm water management drywell that would be required. I do not believe there's going to be a substantial detriment to the zone plan a zoning ordinance or to the
public good. And again, that front yard setback, I believe, can be granted under that C2 for a better zoning alternative and keeping that prevailing uh uh streetscape. All of that would otherwise advance purposes of the miscellaneous law, purpose A, G, and I, particularly a desirable vision environment for that
front yard setback. Um, and with that, I'll conclude. Um, I believe the criteria would be met and approval would be warranted. And you know, I I really just want to uh hone in again, this number 8.9 really does relate to that
lot uh area um of 10,6 uh 686 ft. Um but on portion in the public realm, the house is is right on queue with the bulk standards of the R3 zone. I'll conclude. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have
any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Come on up. >> My name is Mark Warner. >> Okay. Um, so I live with my wife in the
house that's on lot 21 and it seems to me like that that six bedrooms is way out of scale with that. >> Okay. So, wait. I got to give I got to give you Oh, I question. I'm sorry. It's question time. I do have a question actually. >> Where, like you say, there's adequate
parking, but like six bedrooms, you know, I have three bedrooms. When I had kids in my house, there was nowhere to put cars. >> And there's and that street, it seems to me, is very busy. So, there's really nowhere to put cars on the street. So, where like how much space do you have
for cars for six bedrooms? >> I think it's important to note one of the six bedrooms is a guest bedroom on the first floor. It's not necessarily a permanent, you know, I would I would call it more of a flex space. You know, your in-laws are coming holidays, you know, you need you need office space in that regards, but we are labeling and
classifying as a bedroom. Um, I think for the for the initial intent, it's it's a first floor bedroom um as really a flex space, a guest room. >> Sometimes they use it in as an office as well. >> Yeah. I mean, it just seems out of scale. I I'll make my statement in a second. So, I'll be back.
>> Right. So, your your to paraphrase your question, sir. Your your question is can can the site with the proposed new home can the site accommodate parking sufficient to what the home is
being proposed? >> Yeah, >> that's that's the question, Mr. Dy. >> So, it has a two-car garage and then the driveway. So, we can put two in the uh the garage and then an additional two in in there. So, we'll have the four >> um you know, parking on site, which is what would be otherwise required
>> because like when you drive down West Lawn, it's a lot of times if there's somebody parked on one side, it's like one car at a time coming down the street. So, there's very little room. Like if if you can't fit all your cars in there, it's going to be, you know, tough. But that's that's a statement. I'll come back. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Does anybody else in the >> have a question? Come on up. Yeah, >> you guys can sit up front if you want. >> Yeah. Or you can get your steps in. >> Yeah, steps in. Right. >> State my name again. >> Just Yeah, just for the record, man. >> Okay. Stephanie Warner.
>> Um, my question is, how many stories, how much taller is this structure going to be than what currently exists? And how much of our, you know, aesthetically, how much of our view will now be blocked because you're coming so far back? Well, we we meet the
requirement of the building height where the code requires 35 ft. We are at 34.49 and the structure is considered twotory building. >> So, it's not going to be taller than the current >> uh >> structure. Let me see what's the
current. >> It's a one and a half story today. >> It's one and a half story. Yes, today. So, it will be a little bit taller than what's there now. But again, we we are in conformance with with the code. We're not applying for any building height
variance or even more than twostory building. >> Mhm. >> So we we we conform to the codes the zoning codes of Livingston. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um any other public? Any other
>> any other questions from the public? Um, I think I had a question. I don't remember what it was. Um, one second. Bear with me a second. >> Sure. >> There was something I wanted to ask. >> Um, I can't think of it off hand. Do you
have a question? So, I want to thank the Warers for coming out tonight. Thank you so much for your comments. We always appreciate it when um residents come out and you know, we hear what we get a chance to hear what you have to say. So, thank you very much. Um and thank you very much for your presentation. Um
the house in my opinion does fit on the lot because like you said it is sort of a little bit of an oversized R4, right? Um and the house does fit it. It is a little, you know, we could talk about the roof height, but I think that the house right now as it stands, it fits. Um, because we can consider it, we can
look at it as an R4 and it would definitely fit. Um, I I am concerned like now you brought up that the roof height. We can talk about that. Um, maybe you would consider lowering it just a tad. >> Yes, that's actually a possibility. Yes,
we don't actually have to go with that height. We can maybe taper the roof down a little bit. >> Okay. Maybe two feet more foot six something like that. >> And then also >> Mr. Let me just get that on the >> record. Can >> can we get that out in the record and
make that a condition of approval? >> Right. So why don't why don't we let Mr. Cedra use his let Miss Cedra use his slide rule and make sure that what he's about the >> Yeah, it is possible to be lowered by two feet.
>> Okay. So just for the record and then we'll go back to Miss Khan. Um >> that you um Skolnick, you would agree on behalf of the applicant as a condition of approval that the roof line would be lowered by
approximately 2 feet to reduce the massing of the house. >> Just double check with my architect. Yes, it is possible down from 34.49 to >> 32.49.
>> Thank you. Thank you. And then the other comment. So there were I I'm not sure I quite understood the trees are decimated. Were trees were trees pulled out? Were they cut down? >> Yes. Every tree. >> No. No. No. I'm just I'm so I'm I'm assuming that the trees were cut down. So I don't know if you have your landscape plan yet, but you might
consider putting up some new maybe some green giant arborite to provide a blockade between the two homes. Those grow pretty quickly. >> We do some border border landscaping as a conditioner. >> No, we could agree to uh produce a landscaping plan, >> right?
>> So this way the warers don't have, you know, they'll in couple years it'll >> I'm sorry. What's your house number so I can make sure it's >> Thank you. >> lot 21. >> Lot 21. So we could work with uh the the
designate of the board to do that and consult with the neighbors as well, >> right? Yeah. We uh so as a condition of approval, you'd agree to work with the board professionals, board and township professionals with regard to land landscaping enhancement.
>> Correct. We do agree. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> I I I remembered my question. Um, there's there's a there's a a staircase going from the uh back left of
the house out to the uh the yard and that won't be used as a uh a separate entrance for a apartment or anything else. Correct. Just confirming. >> Yeah, it's just an access to the house, >> right? Okay. Just we like to dot a few
eyes and cross a few tees. Um Okay. Does anybody on the board have any other questions or would anybody like to make a statement or if you're comfortable or you want to say anything or
>> feel free now? It's a little different. Wait, >> come on. Come on. >> There's a whole procedure now. Sorry. So, >> because it's now time for a public comment, I'm just going to swear you in. >> Do you swear? Do you swear from and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. And you're Mr. Warner. you've
been identified before. So, go ahead, Mr. Warner. >> I just feel like the house is out of scale with the neighborhood really. I don't know how many six-bedroom houses other than one new one that was just built on a lot, a much bigger lot that could handle that. I feel like this lot,
as they keep saying, is very small. Why would you buy a very small lot and then plan to put a very big house there? Like, that doesn't seem logical to me. If I was going to build a house, I'd buy a lot that was appropriately sized and build the house I want. So, I feel like
it's just not in scale with everything else. I think they're all three-bedroom houses mostly. You know, there may be a couple that have been adjusted over time, but you know, that's it. So, that's my statement. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Warner. >> Would anybody else? >> Mrs. Warner. Okay.
>> Told you it's sat front. >> They're they're they're getting they're getting their steps in. All right, Mrs. Mrs. Warner, thank you. Do you swear for untail truth for the voting board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mrs. Warner has been before us. Put her name on the record before. So, go ahead, make your comment, ma'am.
>> Thank you. So, I just wanted to say two things. One, that I just think it's a shame that so many of the trees, you know, were cut down and that that, you know, is a shame that none were spared. Um that said, I do
thank you and appreciate um this partnership of or consultation on whatever new landscaping is going to be in because I do think that um you know that would be great to have uh some replacements and not just the arbivites
that get eaten by the deer like something that would maybe like >> some giants maybe not but um notes I think that They they do I don't know if they're the same thing. I'm not a tree expert, but um I just think it would be
um very welcome to have landscaping that, you know, helps to reinvigorate. So I I wanted to say that I think that's a a positive. >> Yeah. >> Right. And I think that >> fair it's a fair request. >> And I think that Mr. Skolnick from his
many many many years of doing this uh didn't say how old he was but from from the many years Mr. Skolnick has has done this I think he will certainly uh take your comments back to his client and advise them in terms of uh how to how
they're going to proceed forward. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> I'm going to give you my card so >> Mr. Sknick loves talking to people. So thank you Miss Warner. >> Thank you. Does Yeah, I think so. Does anybody else have any uh statements they'd like to
make? >> Mr. Skolnick, any close? >> Um, anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve >> with the subject. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Somebody that's
subject to the conditions of You're very good. you are taking nice notes. Uh that um applicant will uh consider um a landscape enhancement. Uh there won't be a separate entrance for a separate unit.
Uh the u roof height will be reduced by 2 feet. Revised plans will be uh provided in accordance with that. Do you agree with that Mr. Can we say the landscaping plan will be in consultation with uh >> landscaping to affirmatively do
>> thank you appreciate that >> affirmatively do it >> in consultation >> okay >> right >> yep I approve >> we're going to repeat the conditions so the conditions are no separate entrance for a separate unit
the roof height will be reduced by 2 feet and revised plans will be provided in accordance and uh the landscaping plan will be done in coordination with township officials to uh provide
enhanced landscaping to neighboring properties. >> Correct. >> In consultation. >> No, no, no, no, no. Con, >> we will take that. >> Yes. Yes. The applicant. >> Correct. Correct. you know, well, the township can provide guidance. You're
providing the coordination. >> Fair enough. >> And you know, everybody can call Mr. Skolnick. That's not one of the conditions of approval. You agree with that, Mr. Embody? >> I do. >> Second. >> Yeah. I I'd like to second. And while
when I second, I'd like to say that I do appreciate the comments of the the neighbors and the these are these are tough decisions. Uh so that's why I wanted to say I don't want the fact that I am seconding this and probably some of the other board members as well. It's
not to dismiss your concerns because they are real and it's a balance of weighing and I think it is appropriate that it gets approved even though I I I realize it's not the the perhaps might not be the best circumstances for you
but I still think it's appropriate for this property to be improved in this way and for us to approve it. So, so that's why I'm seconding this uh motion. >> Okay. Mr. Ambadi, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw,
>> yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Okay. >> Excellent. >> Chairman, I'm still Richard Skolnick representing the application. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> Sorry. >> You have a lot.
>> I know we're on a roll. Look to me. >> I'll be fast. I'll be really fast. Okay. Um, block 4204, lot 2, 3 Spalding Drive, application number 2026-53-V, Road Act Builders. Applica App applicant seeks approval to construct a single new family residence in violation of the
following sections. 170-99 C2 front yard setback 40T required 35.08 ft proposed. 4.92 ft variance requested. 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 35.99% proposed 5.99% variance requested
>> Richard Skolnick on behalf of the applicant I'm going to call our architect Diamond Cedra if we could have him sworn >> all right Mr. Cedra has been already sworn in. He remains under oath and his qualifications in the field of architecture have been set forth on the
record. >> Okay. Can you tell us what we have here, sir? And >> Sure. Well, you pointed out. >> So, this is a a new single family house. Uh we have uh six bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms in this house. We are applying for two variances. One is the
front yard which is we not exceeding the existing front yard of the the existing house uh where uh the existing house is 34.31 we are at 35 08 which we're a little bit better than
the existing uh house. Um the the the variance the main variance here is the the floor area ratio where 30% is required. We're asking for 35.99 with a total of 3,14
square ft. 3,014 square ft. Uh where uh the maximum for the habitable floor area is 3,220. So we under the maximum uh square footage. Um
uh this is a a colonial style home um where we have the the attic is only accessible from the second floor by pull down stair. Um and we have a hip roof where there's no
windows up on the attic plane. Um, we have four bedrooms at the second floor, one guest bedroom/off at the first floor, and one bedroom at the basement. >> Okay, we're below the maximum height here.
>> We're We're under the maximum height. We are uh the maximum is 35 ft. We are at 33.99 ft. >> Okay. And we have a dry well proposed here. correct >> as well. >> Uh we're eliminating some sideyard setback deviations that are existing
conditions. Is that accurate sir? >> Correct. So the sideyard the existing uh sideyard was 6.64 which is uh um non-conforming to the code where it's 10 ft is required. We're meeting now the 10 ft
which we are at 10.6. 16 ft as a sideyard. Also, we are eliminating the aggregate sideyard where uh the existing house is 18.89. The proposed is at 21.24. >> So, we have some modest uh improvements
uh C2 type criteria, some modest improvements in that regard. Yep. In addition to the aesthetics of a new house and a and a new project. Uh and you've been out there. There's a couple other three other houses. >> Yes. >> Right nearby under construction, it
appears. Yep. Those are similar in size. >> Similar in size. >> Yep. >> Anything else, sir? >> No, I'm good. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anyone in the public have any
questions for this witness? >> Back to you, counselor. >> Okay, we're going to call our next witness. Our planner >> Alexander, >> Mr. Dhy has been sworn in. He remains under oath and he has been qualified in the field of professional planning. Uh
so uh we're going to accept him once again chair as a professional planner. >> Yes, correct. >> Even though he hasn't testified in the past five minutes, but we'll accept it. >> Okay. Mr. do your observations uh on uh
on the main variance here uh from a planning standpoint. >> Yeah. Um the big one is uh obviously the uh habital floor area ratio 30%'s allowed. We're asking the board to look favorably upon 5.99%.
Um when we look at this um application as well, we have that front yard setback of 40 ft required, 35.8 is proposed. Um, you know, again, similar to the prior application. Um, it's pretty much an existing uh uh footprint as as um what
was there originally. It's a 4.9 uh2 um foot variance requested. That's the delta here. The lot um here lot 2 block 4204 um on three spolding. It's an undersized lot. 8,370
ft um is what exists out there today. proposed uh where the 9,375 ft is the requirement for the zone. Um the proposed dwelling on a balance here is 3,14 square ft uh which is under the
permitted 30 uh 3,220 ft for that habitable uh u floor area. Um which I think on balance is important. Much like the prior uh application, our our dimensional variances are are are in check. rear yard, sideyards, and the
like. Uh we believe the front yard's appropriate. The uh the setback again aligns with the neighboring dwellings on lot one and three um uh on either side of us. Um this uh this new development uh if you will of the site uh eliminates
existing deficiencies, sideyard setbacks of 6.64 ft and the aggravated sideyard setback of 18.89 uh to conforming conditions. So is on a balance. We are um giving a little bit more light air and open space to our
adjacent neighbors. Um with with this new proposed construction than what was prior there. Um we are as council and the architect indicated we are an entire foot below the permitted height for the zone. This project um will also bring with it best engineering practices by
way of storm water management and dry wells where currently out there today there are none. Um the size of the dwelling um is is from my understanding in my research u is pretty consistent with the neighboring dwellings. Lot five that is a 3,125
ft home and lot 8 is 2977. To reiterate the proposed dwelling that we're asking the board to look favorably upon is 3,14. So we're kind of right in in the middle here uh on a balance. Um, so looking at those existing
conditions, looking at the built environment, there's three larger homes under construction right now on Spalding. Um, I believe those addresses are number one, four, and six. So within our immediate area, um, we are again three Spalding Drive. So on on the D the
D4, the habitable floor area ratio, I believe it can be uh granted as a site can accommodate that. Again, we are bringing a newer home, alleviating those existing sideyard setbacks. uh meeting the rear yard requirements as well. The front yard um again aligns with the
neighboring dwellings will have the adequate off- streetet parking new storm water management dry wells um and best engineering practices. I do not believe there's going to be substantial detriment to your zone plan and your ordinance or the public good. The front yard setback variance I believe can be granted under the C2 criteria for better
zoning alternative in keeping again with that predictable built environment and and neighborhood um um pattern. Um this project would advance purposes A, G, and I of the municipal land use law. And with that, I'll conclude the F I believe um again is is is when we look at it
from planning perspective, can the site accommodate this? I believe we can and I believe on scale we're we're right uh in line with Spalding Avenue in the development patterns on Spalding. So with that, um I'll conclude. I apologize. Spalding Drive. >> Thank you. 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 regarding this application? Anybody in the board want to make any statements regarding this application?
Does council want to add anything to this? >> I'll wave my summation. >> Great. Thank you, sir. Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay, I'll second it. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes.
>> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Ambadi, >> yes. >> And Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Thank you for your time. We appreciate Thank you. Thank you. >> We're getting there.
>> Okay. Block 20. Block 253, lot 8, 320 East Cedar Street. Application number 2026-38-V Heesh Heesh Bathe. Applicant seeks approval for a new single family house in violation of the following sections
170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 30.26 proposed 9.26% variance requested. >> Okay. So, uh you're here on behalf of the applicant, correct? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. And um why don't we get you sworn in and get going on it? Okay. Uh do you swear a firm tell truth for this zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Yes. My name is Ritu Soha. R I TU. Last
name S as in Sam. O H A L as in Larry. >> Okay. And uh you're testifying tonight in the field of architecture, correct? >> Yes. >> And I believe you've been qualified before this board in the past, right? Uh yes, I have. >> Okay. Because you look everybody sort of
everybody sort of looks the same after a while. >> Um so uh yes, right. I forgot. >> Okay. You're on the other side. Okay. So uh just um why don't we have your
qualifications on very briefly for the board? It's getting it was it's your proximity is causing me off. Go ahead. I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. >> Okay. >> And you've uh uh schooling >> uh NJIT.
>> Okay. And uh you've testified before other boards in the past? >> I have. Yes. >> Okay. Chair, >> does anyone have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in architecture. Law >> is yours.
>> Okay. I'm speaking um on behalf of a family who's uh simply trying to make a small unders unders sized lot work for their growing family. The Batijas moved into Livingston about five years ago and at that time I helped
them with their current house that they're living in um renovating that house to create an an additional bedroom and um kitchen and that sufficed the needs of their family at that point in time. as their family is growing and um
they've they're realizing that they need more space for their kids to play and also they have uh aging parents uh who want to be part of the uh lives of the grandkids. So they would be visiting them as well. So keeping those two things in mind they want to build a new
house. Um so we are proposing to demolish the existing house and uh create a new house that will fulfill the needs of the family. Uh we are so so if you look at the footprint of the
new house uh it's set back slightly further back than the current houses and uh left to right it has approximately the same width as the current house. We're just taking the lot deeper, the
house deeper to create the um to create the new plan. We conform with all um the requirements of the zone R3 except for the habitable floor area ratio
and the difference is we have an undersized lot where a 15,000 ft² lot is um required. Uh the existing lot is only 11,627 ft. The lot also slopes down significantly
in the back. So we are limited um with that uh variance also with that hardship as well and how far we can go back. If I'm looking at the floor plan, it's a simple floor plan with front foyer, living room, dining, family room,
kitchen, and a bedroom for the parents. The second floor has two rooms for their two kids, a master bedroom suite and an office which you know we work from home nowadays. Um so the office is um again
uh part of the planning here. On the ground floor, we have an additional guest room for occasional guests in case both sets of parents are um visiting and a game room and a walkout basement. Like I mentioned, uh
the the site slopes considerably, so we were able to create an exit out on the side. So because we are only requesting a variance of 9.7% we feel we will generate a home that is
um appropriate for this lot size and also conform to the characteristics of the community of Livingston. Um and uh the house will fit in well with all the new homes going on. Uh I also want to uh state that we will not be taking down
any mature trees when we do this. um uh extension. In case their lot was 15,000 square ft, I would be only requesting a variance of 2.5%. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness?
Uh the attic access uh how do you propose attic access? >> So the attic attic will be accessed through the laundry room. >> Uh through a pool downstairs. >> Through a pool downstairs. Yeah. >> Got it. >> Does anybody else have any questions for
this witness? I I have one question. I was looking at, you know, looking at the the street. I'm I'm a little concerned of some of the massing. Um
there's like a, you know, there's a lot of roof. There's a lot I I don't know if it quite fits in. I don't know if there's anything we can do to soften it a drop. Maybe >> I can look at uh lowering the roof line, the ridge, the top ridge. I can look at
that. >> I I think I think that might help. I don't know if anybody else on the board wants to have any comment on that or >> Well, I definitely think that the roof is um substantial and it probably could be taken down and maybe I don't know somehow
incor not so not so much. But my other question is this this um or my other statement is this um lot is really like sort of to me like a large um R4, right? where so it's really like an R a large R4 um where the required
size um dwelling would be 3220 and here we are coming in at you know what an R3 would be. So I feel like the house is actually a little oversized for this particular lot if it were more in line with the 3220 but I feel like this is a little oversized for that particular
lot. I'm not sure that it fits that it actually can fit that it's appropriately sized. So I mean the fact is that we are on an R3 zone, right? And um 35 I'm just trying to do a
calculation. Sorry. And um the lot size of an R3 R4 is 90 uh 90. Yeah. Right. So it's significant. So my the lot here is again um larger than that. And if I take 30% because that's
what I'm allowed. I'm trying to get to my calculator here. So if I do 11627 *.3 is 34.88. So it's about 3500 ft. Does anybody else on the board have any
uh questions? Um I I guess I'd still like to see something. Can you make a proposal to make a change to the roof? >> Yes, sure. >> Um you like some number that we could latch on to? >> Um you want to
>> you want to spend two seconds? >> Think for a second. put you on the spot a little bit. >> I can look at dropping it about 2 feet. >> So >> 24 in. >> So just to follow up on that just so we
have a clear record. So you're stating on behalf of the applicant that you the applicant would agree to reduce the roof height by 2 feet from the current plans and
revised plans will be submitted to reflect that lower roof line. You may have to make other >> changes in terms of of your plan as a result of the reduction. You don't want to make it look >> they're requesting if it can be 18 in
instead of 24 in. >> Well, the the the so the request by the board I believe uh was to reduce the massing >> right >> and you're what you're stating is that
the applicant would consider a reduction of 18 in or foot and a half from using English meth. >> Yeah. I I I I tried to use the metric system. It's a little easier. Um but no, apparently nobody around here uses that.
Uh I I think also to that question and maybe this may help because normally the board asked this question. Do you know what the height in the attic is to the to the to the ridge line?
>> So I was trying to be below the 7 ft and also we'll uh have the collar ties. So we will be below the 7T threshold. um I don't have that calculation right now, but looking at it,
it is on the um Yeah. So, right now I'm about 12 ft to the ridge from the attic, but with the Yeah. But with the collar ties, it'll be lowered. >> So,
All right. So, do the do the board that's >> was the the question was what would be the reduction and we had thrown out the twoft number but based upon the conversation you had over the distance
with your client that it would be uh the the request uh would be uh to keep it at 18 in >> 18 inches. Yes. >> Okay. But I think the real issue here is the amount of roof rather than I mean the height. It definitely needs to come down
and I think the attic height needs to come down more as well because that's basically the height of of a regular room. So I think the attic height needs to come down more but it really is the issue of the overall size of the roof. >> I mean it's a typical shed roof with two
dormers. >> So you may be feeling that. But you're but you're on a small lot and therefore that height makes it a much bigger looking structure on a very on a small lot as you said right you're in an undersized lot the because you have that excess height it makes it look even
bigger you're you're already right you're already as rightly say you're asking for the variance for the half a square foot ratio right >> but then because the roof is so high you make it it looks a lot bigger on the on the lot >> so the width of the house is approximately the width of the house
that sits on it today. >> I'm not talking about the width. I'm talking about height of >> height and that that is what is dictating the height because when the roof lines come in >> you could design it differently. I mean I think you're hearing the boards you want that we're not comfortable with the
size of the roof. >> Okay. So by are you comfortable if I reduce the roof height by 18 in? >> No. I think maybe what you should do is have look at this again and look at the attic the height of the um the height of
the attic as well and then also the size and massing of the roof because as Mr. Horn just stated it's really, you know, because you are keeping it the same set sideyard setbacks. It's this very tall tall and skinny house on a on an undersized lot. So, it gives the
illusion of being a very very oversized house. And that's why I said it doesn't seem like it's an appropriate size for that lot because it gives the impression of being extremely oversized because the roof the roof line is really sort of the majority of the house.
you know, >> and to be fair to you and the applicant, I think based upon the comments that were have been made by the board, >> maybe it would be a good idea to maybe take um
a moment >> to talk about it directly with your client because you're kind of >> communicating by telegraph here. Uh so maybe you want to take that opportunity to do that so that you can express what
the applicant is willing to do. But I think the applicant and yourself have heard the board's concerns, but maybe you want to go into a quick conference. >> I just >> on that one more. >> Yeah. Well, just to to that point of
that uh uh roof massing being substantial, would uh would adding like a dormer window and breaking the like I don't want to get into the design stage, but you know, >> the the other the other thing is you got to be careful with dormers because then
that that may create and I don't we don't want to go down that line. It may create the appearance of a third story. Correct. So, normally you want to avoid dormers for that reason. >> Um, but I know that the applicant is
very interested in talking to their architect about this interchange and maybe they want to have that opportunity to do that. Um, you think it's a good idea, chair? >> Sounds like a good idea. >> I need to say that
>> you have a lot of good ideas. >> No, not often. So >> why don't we um do you want to do you want to take that assess for five minutes? >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Thanks. >> Okay.
I think I have a good understanding. We spoke and I appreciate your time and the opportunity. >> Of course. No, no, no worries. No worries. All right. We are back in session. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you for giving us an opportunity. So, we've uh discussed and
we will reduce the height of the attic and the roof line. We'll bring it uh we'll bring it down about two by two feet and reduce the massing that way. >> Do we need new plans? >> Do we need new plans? >> We don't you do.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I will submit fresh drawings. So, so just chair just through you just to be clear the the reduction in the height is going to re result in a reduction of the actual attic space. >> Correct.
>> As well. >> Correct. >> So it's an overall reduction >> of 2 feet. So the new attic height at the ridge line would be >> using the ridge line approximately 8 ft and the collar will be about six feet.
Okay. All right. >> Does that make sense? >> But the high goes from 35 ft to 33 feet. >> 33 feet. Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Reducing the massing of the roof. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Okay.
Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody public want to make any statements regarding this application? Does anybody on the board want to make any statements? C >> can I just go back and I'm trying to help the applicant here. Can we go back
to the that the this the front view? What what I and I correct me if I'm wrong on some of the concerns that the other board members have cuz you have the the front door and double front doors and then it looks like a large window and that the front doors with the
with the window above that's usually the appearance of like a double height entry foyer and visually because I don't know maybe it's maybe it's just a visualization different than what you actually plan to do. So, it almost looks like you get
that sort of visual of a double height and then there's all this house above it and I get the feeling that maybe that's what is throwing off the other board members. I just want to point that out to help you that it might be a visualization issue correct here that we're having trouble visualizing how
it's going to appear. >> Right. So what is happening is we do have a double entry foyer but the foyer wall starts at 13 ft and the roof line goes up all the way so that you don't have the double story all the way it
just appears at the front entrance only and then the roof line continues >> right and so and and the revised plans will be indicative of that overall reduction correct >> that reduction down 33.
>> Yes. >> So, it's going to the visualization that you're seeing there is going to be noticeable noticeable difference. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> To do that, you got flat. >> Right. >> Right. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Would someone on the board like to
make a motion? >> I will make a motion to approve subject to the condition of lowering the roof by 2 feet from 35 feet to 33 feet and new plans being submitted to the town. >> Sure.
Do I have a second? >> Yeah, I I'll second it. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Ambadi, >> yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Okay, >> thank you very much.
>> Welcome. Nice to see you again. Okay, the last application block 2006, lot 28, 33, Tiffany Drive, application number 2026-37-V, Romesh Candell. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following
sections. 170-98C3, left sideyard setback, 10 ft required, 7.68 ft proposed, 2.32 ft radar requested. 170-98C3 sideyard aggregate 30% required 17.68 68 proposed 12.32%
variance requested 170-87B4 habitable floor area 3520 square ft allowed 4,197 ft proposed 677 ft variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio
21% allowed 28% proposed 7% variance requested >> okay so I assume that you were the owner applicant correct Yes. >> Okay. And you have uh you got to just hit the the green button. Yeah. Perfect. And uh
>> we have the owners. >> Okay. And you have a couple professionals here to testify on your behalf. And we're going to we're going to proceed with uh swearing them in and have them testify on your behalf. >> That's right. Yeah. >> Okay. Very good. So, why don't we start? We're going to start with Do you swear
from Tell Truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> My name is David Dugos. That's D UG as SZ and I am a partner with Dasper Architects. We're located in Wiibridge,
New Jersey. I was licensed in 19 uh 98 and I've presented in numerous boards. However, I've never presented here in Livingston. I know my partner has a couple of times. Um my license is in good standing. I'm licensed and it's
in in New Jersey still. Everything's good. And you've uh appeared before, while you may not have appeared before this board, you've appeared before many other lane use boards. >> Yes, I have >> chair. >> And just for the record, your schooling,
>> I graduated from NGIT back in uh 92, >> way back when. Um does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? There be no objections. The witness is accepted as expert in architecture. >> Okay. um start off with a little brief
background of of the project. Um the applicant had purchased the property and was looking to modernize it and um he had some stipulations with the way it was designed. uh he would like to use
the uh vastu method of uh designing the home which is a principle in his religious beliefs which dictates proportions, lines of sight, um circulation patterns where items
could be located with within each floor and that was something that was a main um driver of the design. Uh the home is uh 80 foot 4 and a/4 in which once again that's because that's
through Vasu uh by 40'7 in deep. It includes a finished basement. On the first floor there is a front porch an entry for double height which opens into a living room um a kitchen and a dining room to the
left. A full bath to the right. a guest bedroom, a home office, and a puja room/p prayer room. Attached to that is a twocar garage and a rear covered porch.
On the second floor, there are three additional bedrooms with onsuite baths and walk-in closets. It also includes a laundry room which from past past testimony uh that's where we'll have our pull down stair that will feed into the
attic. Uh we're coming to you for variances that include the minimum sideyard. Um we have the engineer here. You know the property is pieshaped. So as we come forward it it narrows a
little bit and that helps trigger some of the variance. Also, once again, due to the proportions of the space itself and the needs of the rooms and the way it was designed through Vasu, um the house became a little longer than than
would normally be. Um there's also a double height space in the living room and one of our variances or both of the variances related to the habitable floor area was affected by that. um based on my calculations
sitting here and hearing the testimony while I was doing it, we're looking at approximately like 1.7 um for the floor ratio. So right now we're I believe we're at seven. So we'd be closer to 5.3 if you removed that double those double height spaces out of it. We calculated
the whole floor area based from on on the way that Livingston calculates it to the exterior walls. So, um that is the long and short of it. The home itself from an exterior standpoint,
uh we went through different modifications. The homeowner was looking for a more modern appearance. He wanted um a home that would stand out a little bit different, but it was a design decision that he felt um the
neighborhood can handle. Um, so it's a little bit different, little modern as far as some of the um materials being used, vertical wood siding and probably some uh metal panels, but it's something that he really liked the appearance of
and we were striving to achieve for him. That's that's it. >> Hey, does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Go for it. >> Yeah, I'm just I'll just deal with this. Well, both the square footage and the encroachment.
First of all, this is beautiful. I love this rendering. So, I don't know how much it was you architect. Love it. It's beautiful. Um, >> he did it. >> He works for Google. So, >> Oh, I I love it. I'd love to have one of these. Uh, that's the first part. Uh,
the second part is we would have to need a justification. I' I'd like to see such a beautiful home. I think it's beautiful, but that could fit and not encroach on the neighbors um and be within the size that
that the law governs. That sometimes there's exceptions because it's a uh because of particular property constraints. But here we almost you almost have a perfectly zone property. Usually we're looking for the property doesn't really fit because it's in this big zone, but this property is unique.
This property seems to me it's not unique. It's not a corner. It's it's right off the corner, but it the the the typical lot size requirements are are 100 by 150. And you're right about 100 150. So
>> the pi the property is if I can I can I interject a little bit. I believe the property is a little bit of a of a pieshaped piece >> and I had spoken to the engineer who had prepared the site plan >> and if the lot was square uh we would be
we we would be meeting the 10 foot. So the seven we'd meet the 10 foot. We'd still be missing the combined of 25 but we would make the 10 and 10. But I'll let him testify to that. But just as a square, but the the zoning minimum requirements actually it's a it's a
rectangle of 150. So this is probably I I'm not sure like I see the back's 120. The back is >> just about 107 106.9 >> and the the minimum is >> uh 100 wide and then the front I think
it's 125 and the minimum is uh again 100 and then if we look at the depth so it's not really a a square the the depth is um 150 so it is a little short so I'll give you that a little
short but it's it's pretty close 145 5.55 versus 150. So, >> but but once again, I I'll let the engineer discuss that, but I do believe that if it was a square property, it it you know, so the the one of the hardships is that it's it's pie shaped,
but if it was a square property um and we had the frontage that meant that we would we would we would be meeting the 10 on each side. >> Once again, I will let him testify to that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Oh, you got it. >> I just want to because I I He's the one prepared. He knows he can read it
quicker than I can. Okay. Okay. I mean, I I'll just add on to that a little bit. Um, understanding the pie shape and everything else and understand that'll be discussed further. We're still 600 square ft over and 7% over and we have a
little trouble on the sideyard and the aggregate sideyard. So, I'm I mean it I'll say what I'll follow up with my colleague. beautiful design and beautiful house, but it just seems at this point in the testimony to be large
for the site. I know I went up and down the street. I looked at the other houses that are there and um it just seems large at this time. So, I will let you >> the um from what I understand the double height space is at about 200 280 square
feet to to the second floor. Massive. That's >> Well, that's that's part of the F. You mentioned the FR. So, I'm just saying if that wasn't included, that would drop that number down from seven to, you know, >> contributes to the mass. >> You got to be >> I'm sorry, >> you're not talking to the mic. No, I was
just I was just adding to what my colleague said, but it contributes to the massing of the house even though >> and once again >> I I mean it's not a rationale behind it, but we used the vast method and and some of the things became elongated because
there were a couple of um ratios that had to be met and you could pick from them but they were all difficult. We actually went through several of them. has been designing for quite some time and this was the closest to kind of bring things into conformity.
Not saying that's a legal rationale. I'm just saying it was a religious purpose that he had that he had stipulated into the design of the home. >> Hold on. You can't talk. >> You have to be >> okay. Just want to say
>> so just to kind of say I think what some of my colleagues colleagues have said, right? I get the pie shape of the of the lot. Okay. >> Fact of the matter is >> the minimum lot area for zone 3 is 15,000 square feet. However that has arrived. >> Yep.
>> And you're at 14,980. So I think we could say you have a fullsize lot. And yet you're asking to go 20% above the capital square footage for that home. Even if I take your 280 out, which I don't, but I did the math. Still 11%
over. No, I agree. So, you have a full-size lot. The pie shape to me is irrelevant because you're still from a square footage, a full-size lot, and you're asking to go significantly over the square footage for that lot. >> I understand.
>> Okay. >> I think you're hearing the board has concerns on that. >> I I I understand. I mean, I was trying to absorb some of the other testimony from previous cases to see where we lined up, but I will let the engineer give testimony if that's okay. >> That would be great. Yeah, of course.
Can I can I just ask one sort of for you because are are you the whole and I understand you were trying if I understand correctly you're trying to fit the uh the difficulties of fitting it in is because of particular um
measurements to conform with religious aspects. >> Yes. >> So my question is which I don't think and maybe it's for my attorney as well. uh when I read the definition of hardship, are you claiming that that's part of what you're claiming as hardships? Because I just want to
understand our legal ramifications. >> The only way it is the only way you can claim uh a a a >> a C1 hardship, >> right, >> is based upon the physical aspects of the property to say, and I think that
that's sort of where >> a little bit of the pie shape adds to that. I'm not saying it's a hard line, but it's, you know, it does. If that was >> squared off and the property was proper by 100 by 100, once again, I'm going to let him testify. >> The client's
uh predilctions towards certain sizes, shapes, measurements. That's not a hardship. That's a particular choice >> uh under the law. >> Agree. That's what I want. trying to
explain the right explain the concept. >> All right. So, we're going to uh proceed with the engineer, right? >> Thank you. >> Before we Yes. >> Okay. Right. Thank you. Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness?
>> Questions. >> Questions. Okay. Come on up. >> I understand there's an engineer who might be answering some of those. Okay. >> Exactly. I'll find out who's more of a specialist as we go on. name. >> Okay. My name is Michael H. Glassman.
>> I live address. >> I live at 29 Alcott Drive in Livingston. My father is Jerry M. Glassman, the owner of One Tiffany Drive, the house next door. I'm a New Jersey attorney at law and I have power of attorney for my father to represent him.
>> That's fine. >> Okay. >> You're a member of the public. You're You can go ahead and ask your questions. Um, my first question is why can't the house be redesigned to comply with the ordinance in terms of square footage?
Um, once again, um, from a legal standpoint, yeah, I mean, every case that came in front of you, >> well, yeah, >> could could could could >> possibly >> I think I think part of the to to to put a point on it, I think that, and I don't want to necessarily put words into Mr.
Dug his mouth, but I mean he's testified a little bit about this actually extensively about it that the design was reached by virtue of the client's request and that's where he produced the plans
as they were presented. Okay. So the request he's he's he's clearly going over not he but the application is clearly going over the standard and that's where they're asking for the um the variance and normally with any of
these situations. Uh can the applicant meet the standard? Sure. Everybody can make a smaller home, right? >> Uh that's not but they're asking for the variance and that's why they're here today. And they're asking for a variance of approximately 20% larger in square
footage of the house than what the uh ordinance permits. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um I didn't quite get the name of the style of the house. Was it Vas 2? >> Uh the the religious uh concept behind it, it's called Vasu.
>> Vasu. Are there any other Vasu designed houses on Tiffany Drive? Now, >> I do not believe so, but I couldn't confirm that. >> And you also So, do you think it would
fit in with the character of the street, >> meaning the design of the house? >> The design of the house? >> I think the house is a little larger, but I believe if you look at the other homes that are there, they do have the homes themselves are on the longer side. Yes.
>> But I meant in style are the and I They're mostly colonials. There's no Vasu houses on Tiff. It's a modern home. Vasu is just the way we got there. But are do do we match any other homes in in the neighborhood as far as that? Um, no. There aren't many
homes designed with a modern flare. This home was constructed back in the late 50s. A lot of these homes were constructed in the late 50s. And if we're going to base it on that, the homes would all be smaller and they would all be colonials.
>> And I believe you were talking about it was a pieshaped lot. I don't really understand that. I will add that I grew up in the house next door. So I >> The property is not square. It is pieshaped, meaning it goes wider at the rear, right, >> and becomes narrower at the front.
>> Okay. But it's generally rectangular, isn't it, though? It's wider at the rear end and it becomes narrower. It's it's does it come to a point? No. >> But it's it's trapezoidal. >> Now, you also asked for a um a sideyard
variance. Is that on the one Tiffany side or the five Tiffany side? >> On the one Tiffany side. >> Okay. And why do you need that? We need that because of the nature of the home meeting the
requirements that the homeowner had laid out. >> Okay. >> And if the property was square, which I will let the engineer testify to, you would probably you would meet the 10 at both
sides. You would still be short on the combined, but you would meet the 10 on both sides. Okay. Um, are there any other houses in that area on Tiffany Drive that are comparable in size >> in terms of
>> There are some larger homes, but I believe in general, they're they're smaller than this home. >> Okay. >> But all the homes that are being constructed now, as you had seen at the previous Well, I don't know if I'm allowed to say that, a lot of the newer homes are becoming larger in nature. Will any of the bedrooms on the second
floor have windows that face one Tiffany Drive? >> I believe there's a there's a window. It's there's a there's windows in the bedroom and there's another window that's required by Vasu um which is near the bathroom that there's a window that
there's they have to line up through the middle of the home all the way through from from left to right. >> Okay, I think I'll rest at this point. >> Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? >> Okay, now I think we can go to the
engineer. >> Thank you. >> It's comfortable. >> Okay. You swear and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. Thomas G. Sterns III. S T A R Ns
144 Juel Street, Garfield, New Jersey. GB Engineering LLC. >> All right. Mr. Sterns, you've appeared before this board. on numerous occasions. >> I have my plans more than myself and >> but I am here I've been here before as well as an expert in engineering and
land surveying. >> Exactly. All right. Chair >> and you are here as an engineer or land survey both >> engineer. I prepared the survey as well but I'm here as an engineer. >> Okay. Um we can accept you as an expert in in professional engineering. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Good evening
everyone. Let me uh go to the vide tape here. is my um Here we go. Okay, here we go. So, this is my site plan dated uh February 27th, 2026
and most recently revised uh 41726. So, this is Three Tiffany Drive. Um, sorry, as we said, uh, we're lot 28, block
20006. We're on the, uh, westerly side of Tiffany Drive, north of East Mount Pleasant Avenue. Um, so this lot in question. So, I'll get right to the square footage first. Square footage, as we said, in this zone, the requirement
is 15,000. We're very close to that at 14980. Uh but what's come up is the configuration of the lot. So this lot is um so the requirements for lot width and depth we have 100 ft required for lot uh
lot width. This lot comes in at 96.69. The reason for that is uh so we have a a 90° angle on the right side with the rear of the property. We have a curve along the front, but the left sideline
uh basically angles in at approximately uh one one foot for every 10 ft. So you have 107 in the back. By the time you get to the front of the lot, it's 17 feet of uh lesser uh it squeezes by 17
feet as you come to the front of the lot. So that um so having like as as our architect said uh we have 80.35 nearly 80 feet. If you had a 100 foot rectangular lot you'd have 10 and 10 on
either side. Uh but with that angle it pulls us in and you could see he did some stepping. Uh so he did step in that front on the left just to do the best he could as far as the width uh with with the Vasu requirements. Uh but we come up
with this 7.68 68 as a result of that angle. Um, I'll just mention, I know we talked about other items. I'm going to mention the uh the improvements we're doing. So, this lot uh the current slope of the lot has uh we have
327 at the right uh at the curb line or the the sidewalk here. Then we go slightly up to 328 elevation. So, approximately 1 foot up. we have a level area and then it goes back down approximately 3 feet to 325 in the back.
So, it's nice. Uh topography is is good for us on this lot. Like we have a mound in the middle, a flat area in the middle, and we have uh front and back slopes. Um so, you can see what we're doing. We're moving that existing dwelling. We're proposing our dwelling
uh at 52 feet off the rear line. So, 42 is requ 40 is required. Uh we're holding our wood deck at 42 and we have 52 on the rear dwelling. Uh we could push this dwelling back further, but we do have some mature trees in the back that we
wanted to keep. So that was the purpose of uh the position of of the dwelling. Uh we are 56.87 in the front where 50 is required. Um as far as uh storm water management goes on the site, currently there's no storm water management on the site. that
existing dwelling and the driveway uh they have roof leaders that go off onto the ground and go off to adjacent properties and to the street. So, our proposal is to um we we're storing this
entire dwelling for a 100red-year storm. So, Livingston does have some uh um impactful uh storm water management requirements. So you could see so a lot of towns only require 2 in rainfall over
the footprint of the dwelling. Uh this is 6 in of rainfall over that entire footprint of that dwelling. So we're going to remove that dwwelling footprint uh from any runoff requirements. All that runoff is going into the ground and
we have three sepage pits in the front yard. So you can see, so we're really uh managing storm water management and the driveway uh our proposed driveway is curbed so it won't affect any adjacent properties as well.
Um and as we we we went over the uh the variances already, I believe. So we have our existing nonconformities for lot area, lot width, and lot depth. Uh and then we're asking for that sideyard on
the left. uh aggregate sideyard as well and then we also have the uh the area and the uh the floor area ratio as well. So we are complying with the building height. Our building height is proposed 33.38
where uh 35 is required. Um I believe that's my >> I'm sorry. >> Hold on one second. Sorry. So, um I believe that's that sums up my testimony if anyone asking any question for me. We're going to have the
applicant speak as well, but um if you have any questions for us, >> does anyone in the board have any questions? Yeah. >> Do you have the approximate measurement of the width of the lot at the point at which you're seeking a variance for the 7.68?
>> I do. Yes. Uh so I calculated that at um let me see. So it is uh hang one second. So, it's 98 ft at at that spot. Okay. >> Yeah. 98.
>> Anybody else have any questions? >> Yeah, I have a quick question. Uh, so, uh, yeah, so I drove by the site and, uh, I do see like the the shape of the lot is is is, you know, it is pies-shaped.
And uh I was just wondering is is uh the applicant amenable to because of the size you know the shape of the lot. I understand from a vast standpoint it it may you know it is considered it is appreciated the kind of the shape of the
lot but that said are you amenable to you know maybe reducing the size the width of the garage so it is within conformance uh and uh for on the for the sideyard setbacks so that it it visually
it uh it appears um you know much >> narrower >> narrower uh given the given in the side lots which are too close. At least it they look too close. >> Sure. We did have that conversation. Uh maybe we could have some testimony from
the architect can describe what what he would do or I don't know if we want to take five minutes maybe. >> Before you do, I would just like to make a comment. Sure. >> Um to me, this house is just too big for this piece of property. It's it's it's way too big and I don't believe that it fits into the neighborhood. Um it's
beautiful. It's an absolutely beautiful home. Um, and I think that, you know, every detail has been tended to and I appreciate, you know, the beauty of it. I really do. It's a beautiful home, but I do not believe that this house actually fits on that size lot. Um,
that's how that's how I that's how I feel. >> Sure. I concur with my colleague. As I said before, you're 20% over the capital square footage on a full-size lot, and that's more than I can get my head around.
No, we appreciate your comments. Um, >> do you want to talk for two minutes? >> Yeah, we'd like to talk for two minutes. Yes, please. Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Take a quick break. Okay, we're back in session. >> All right. So, >> so Mr. Sterns, you had the opportunity
to have a little uh conference. >> We did. Yeah. >> So, uh so what we talked about was taking uh let's I'll zoom in here. Okay. All right. Here we go. So, our plan is to take uh 2 foot six off the
garage. So, we're going to take 2.5 ft off the garage and then we're going to take another three foot in this is the width of it. And then another three foot in width off the dwelling. uh two stories high. So um so that's going to get I'll tell
you what our sideyard setback is going to be. So it'll be 5.5, right? >> So it's still I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Sterns, you're doing you're doing math. I'm going to let you >> Yeah, sure. So our new sideyard uh >> our sideyard setback on the left side
would be 13.8 >> almost almost double what it is. Okay. So, it would still be it would still be a twocar garage. >> It would still be a two-car garage. >> Okay. What type? >> So, yeah. Well, the breathein, right? >> Um they'll get little Mini Coopers. Um
so, there's going to be a reduction there and then a reduction in another section >> and Yeah. So, this section right here. So, the if you could see up there, right here, we're going to reduce we're going to take three feet out of this section, the width of it.
>> Okay. Are you shifting the house or you still the 7.68 to the left? >> Uh, so we're going to pull the house to the right. >> So, we're going to actually pull the So, the garage will actually uh So, let's do that. So, what we're going to do is we're going to take two 2.5 off the
garage. We'll have an offset of 12.5 on the right, >> right? >> What about your Are you going to be in compliance now with the uh combined? >> So, the uh combined won't be compliant. Uh I'll tell you what our combined is. Let's say so the left. So, so let's testify to that. We're going to have
12.5 on the right side and then the left side will be will be 10.68 on the left. So, so combined hang on
plus >> uh 12.5. Yeah, it's going to be 23.18 where 29.18 is required. Okay. >> So, we're shy six feet of the combined side dirt. >> Right. So, as a result of these changes,
there's going to be some you would I think you would agree with me there would be some notable differences in what you're presenting to the board in terms of those variances and the actual uh site plan. And obviously uh to some
degree I'm not an architect but I'm assuming there's some going to be some arch some architectural >> lay layout because we try to yeah >> some architectural adjustments. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, with that in mind, uh, what
the board would normally do, and it's up to you, uh, chair, and I know board members may have comments, but if you're going to make offer those changes, I think it would be best for those changes to be provided between now and a future
board date so that the board would have time to digest those and and and the town. Um, but I I understand what you're uh suggesting by saying your my word
shaving the the the application down a bit. So, um, I think that that I think that would be the better course because when we do this at a meeting, you know, it's also it, you know, when we're talking about just reducing the height
of a roof like we did with a couple of these applications, that's one thing. Now we're talking about the actual width of a building. I think that that's more substantial that we have to have a uh you know a better view of that with you know whatever the revisions are.
>> Understood. >> And I would say I would want to see as I said before I assume these changes will also bring down the habitable square footage of the home but I need to see those revised plans before I can give an opinion. >> Right. the height. I mean, we comply
with the height, so the height won't change, but the square footage will. >> But I was just going to actually say exactly what my colleague said is that I'm assuming that the redu will be a reduction in the um habitable floor um area. >> Yeah, it's going to take out
>> Yeah. Quite a bit. Why would you get close? >> Because you did hear our comment. So you you understand >> it's going to take 180 square feet out of out of the home. >> 180. Yeah, it's the house is 32 foot deep, a couple inches. We're taking out
three feet, so three from the garage. >> And we're also we're also taking stuff out of the out of the out of the garage. Once again, I don't think Well, we still have to look at it, but yes, the the F will be reduced. >> I I would >> by at least 180 square feet. I >> I would just reiterate for your
consideration, right, that I clearly was struggling with a 20% over the capital square footage. So when you redo these plans, just take that into your view and account. >> I >> I will second that.
>> I I'm gonna I'm gonna third it, but I'm going to add and I'm probably the strictest on this. I'm just I just want to have you to have as much feedback as you can. I feel the law is the law and it has this number and sometimes we have double lots and that's a good reason or
it's a particular location of the of the site and that's why we go over square footage but there's got to be a good reason and so far to the testimony to date I haven't heard a good reason. So, so far I am not inclined to vote for a foot over. I don't believe in the ish or
dimminimus um unless it's combined with other factors that should make us warrant >> uh varying the law that's on the books. So, I just I I'm saying that again because I again because I'd love the
house. I'd love for you to find the property where it fits and and do it. So, I'm trying to be helpful here, not not to be antagonistic. I want you to understand that >> and I think it's it's this is just something for you all to uh to to take
back. Uh I know you know Mr. Sterns had offered uh those numbers, but obviously this is some additional color, some additional commentary that you may want to take back and uh take into consideration. You've also heard some
comments, some concerns raised by uh questions raised by the public uh uh person. So, you know, other things to take back between now and the next uh board meeting to to consider, >> which I believe is September 22nd. M
Miss Hollis, >> September 22nd, which would give you some little bit of time to get your balance it out and >> um >> so plans. Yes, Miss Glassman, I'll explain it to you in a second. >> I just want to know if I can get notice.
>> There's no there's no more >> I'll explain it to you. >> This is the notice >> 22nd. That's it. >> 9:22, >> right? So, um, the applicant is going to, >> take a look at their plans,
>> take the comments from the board, consider all that, work with their very uh, astute experts uh, on this uh, including Mr. Sterns uh, and uh, then they will uh, come up uh, with uh,
whatever those revisions are. You have to make sure I know Mr. Sterns and M. Dugas knows this, but you have to provide it to the town within a certain time frame so they have enough time to review it and and put it through the the process there. As far as Mr. Glassman is
concerned as a member of the public, there won't be any other actual uh mailed notice uh for this application. This is the notice. This what we're saying right now, September 22nd. Uh that is the date to return to come back
on this. So, if you continue to have questions and concerns, that's the date to come back and that's the date we'll have you'll have the opportunity to ask more questions and eventually if this goes to uh finality for it to make a public comment.
>> Will the new plans? >> Cor correct. So, if there are going to be any new plans, they're going to submit them to the township. It will be part of the township's record. So, if you want to come down and view those plans, you'll have the opportunity to do that. I would suggest you just reach out to Miss Hollis ahead of time 10 at least
10 days uh beforehand they should have them and you can contact Miss Hollis's office and they will uh tell you when you can come down and see them. >> And I just want to say as delicately I I implore you to really take into account what we've set up here today so we can
you know do something positive with the application in September and not have to rejourn it because when we do that it's costly for you. It's you know time for us. So, I really hope that you go back and take a look at what we said and come back with something that you know is positive. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. Good luck. Um, enjoy the rest of your summer and uh motion to adjurnn. Agreed. Approved.