Good evening and welcome to the public hearing of the Living Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustments. Today is June 23rd, 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 re reasons for the
grant of the variance exists and the 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'll require affirmative vote of five members of the seven member board of adjustment. Other variances require a majority of four
members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by the board, you have a right to appeal to the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're an
objector to any of the any type of variance that has been granted, you too may appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask 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 Tribune and a copy was also posted on the bulen board of the municipal building. In addition to having notice posted, notice this meeting was placed
on the township website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you'd like to address the board, please come to the front and use the 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 decisions based on the township
rules, state guidance, as well as rulings issued by the New Jersey courts. We are very happy when the public comes forward and ask questions and or make statements. In fact, this board always encourages it. However, as a board, we are not going to discuss how we reach our conclusion and how or why we voted
for or against an application further than further than what is required by law. I'd 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 is improper to
contact us outside these chambers. Thank you for your understanding. will now call the role. >> Mr. Kenya. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya here. Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Sha >> here. >> Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Yon >> here. >> Mr. Wiseman >> here. >> Mr. Hati
>> here. >> Miss Khan >> here. >> Mr. Beer >> here. >> The other. >> Excellent. Thank you. We have a very busy day today. So, we'll ask for brevity among everybody. Um I can call the first application.
Block 453 lot 106 Kimble a Avenue application number 2026-21-V Jagan Anunta applicant seeks approval for the twotory rare addition in violation of the following section 170-
99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 35.8 ft proposed 4.2 2 ft variance requested 1709 C3 sideyard setback 10 ft required 9.6 ft proposed that's existing
for 0.4 4 ft variance requested 170-99 C4 RAR setback 35 ft required 27.7 ft proposed 7.3 ft variance requested 17087 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed
37.7% var 7% proposed 7.7% variance requested >> thank you and just for the record I was not here at the previous meeting uh but I have reviewed the uh record so I am
able to vote uh Mr. Kenya was also not here. He was not able to review the record, but he can ask questions. He will not be voting on this matter. Okay. Uh one. Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. Welcome back. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Doster, you're going to be testifying on behalf of the applicant tonight, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Do you swear affirm tell truth for the zoning board tonight? So hope you got it. >> I do. >> Uh Mr. Doster, can you get closer to the mic and just state and spell your name for the record?
>> Absolutely. It's Michael Doster. D O S T E R. >> Okay. Uh chair through you, Mr. Doster has been uh qualified in the field of architecture at our past meetings. Uh and u Mr. Doster, your license to practice architecture in the state of
New Jersey is current and up to date. >> That is correct. and we can accept him as an expert in um architecture. >> All right. So, good evening everyone. Again, for the record, my name is Michael Doster and I'm the architect representing Jacen and Deept Taka Laali,
the owners of 106 Kimble Avenue in Livingston, New Jersey. The application was previously heard by the board on May 28th of 2026. And I do want to thank the board for bearing with us and being willing to uh to hear our uh application. I know it was a long
evening, but it was greatly appreciated. Uh following that hearing, we reviewed the comments and the concerns that were raised. We took those comments seriously, including my tie. I wanted to uh break that stereotype.
and we went back to the uh to the drawing board with the goal of making the proposal more conforming and reducing the number of variances that we were seeking relief from. So, as a result of that effort, we significantly reduced the size of the proposed
addition. Originally, each floor of the addition was 219 square ft. Uh the revised design reduces that footprint to 155 square feet per floor, representing a substantial reduction in the overall
size of the addition. The redesign allowed us to improve several zoning metrics as well as eliminate the need for a number of variances in which we were previously requesting. With respect to the riyard setback, the original proposal requested a setback of
27.7 where 35 ft is required. Under this revised plan, we're now proposing a rear yard setback of 31.2, reducing that variance by approximately 3.5 ft, bringing it much closer to compliance.
And I I do want to point out to to the board, and I apologize, we were in a rush trying to get that resubmitted. There is a typo on the bulk schedule. It still reflects the original depth but that depth is in fact 31.2 ft. There was
a reduction of 3 foot6 in on the overall addition. So in addition we were able to completely eliminate the need for variance relief related to building coverage and max maximum habitable floor area. We also reduced the overall
habitable floor area from 3,339 to 3,211. further decreasing the intensity of this proposal. The property contains several existing non-conforming conditions uh including lot width issues, lot area,
sideyard setback concerns. However, none of those conditions are being increased or exacerbated by this revised design. So in closing uh we took the board's comments made a significant effort to to redesign and revise as well as reduce
the amounts of variances in which we were seeking relief from the addition was decreased in size. Reard setback was improved as well as eliminating two other variances. In my professional opinion the revised proposal is appropriate for the property remains
consistent with the character in the neighborhood and will not create any substantial detriment to the surrounding area. So, for those reasons, I will respectfully request that the board approve this application. I greatly appreciate your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Go ahead.
>> I just have one quick question on the um on the plans. It still has the um proposed rear yard setback is 27 >> 27. Yes, that is correct. And that that was the typo. I I actually made the issue I made the revision on this. I don't know >> if we're able to
>> if we're able to bring it up as an exhibit. Uh I I I made the revision. It is 31 >> point2 >> 31.2 feet. >> So you you made the correction on that. >> That is correct. >> So if you give a copy of that to Miss Hollis. That would be great. Absolutely.
And mark it exhibit A1. >> Okay. That'll cover that. >> Um I want to thank you for making the changes. Appreciate it. We appreciate when you listen to the board. Um,
anybody else have any comments or questions on the board? >> No, I just reiterate, do you feedback and take appropriate action? So, thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Anybody else? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in the public want to make
a statement regarding this application? Does anybody on the board want to make a statement or a motion? I'll make a motion to approve subject to uh A1 being distributed with the revised uh hold on rear yard setback.
>> Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes.
>> Okay, Mr. Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Block 1703 L 5 uh.023 Franklin Avenue.
Application number 2026.20-V. James Amorosi. Applicant seeks approval for the new single family house in violation of the following section 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40t required 30 ft proposed 10 ft variance requested
1709 C3 left sideyear setback 10 ft required 5.2 ft proposed 4.8 ft variance requested 170-99 C3 right sideear setback 10 ft required 5.2 ft proposed 4.8 A variance requested
1709 C34 right yard setback 35 ft sorry rear yard setback 35 ft required 30 ft proposed 5T variance requested 1709C3 aggregated sideyard
30 ft 30% required 20.8% proposed 9.2% Two person variance requested 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 56.56 person variance proposed
26.56 variance per person variance requested. >> Thank you. And also just for the record similar to the last application I was able to review uh the record from last time. So I will be voting. Mr. Kenya will be allowed to uh ask questions, but
he will not be voting as he didn't have a chance to review the record. Council, >> yes, thank you. Attorney Rosemary Stone Dowy on behalf of the applicant. >> Attorney Rosemary Stone Dowardy on behalf of the applicant, Mr. James
Amarosce. Um again, thank you members of the board. We were here last time on May 28th. Um we appreciate the board's comments, some feedback. There were some questions um in regards to last application. So we did make some revisions. The key three points is we
eliminated the habitable attic space 100%. That is now completely eliminated from the application and is only accessible by a pull down stair. We also reduced the overall size of the house and we lowered the habitable floor area
ratio from 61.82% to 56.56%. At our last hearing, uh we did uh start with our engineer, Mr. Miola. He did stipulate that he would comply with the township engineers memo of March 24th,
2026. Uh he went through the the site plan. He also talked about the surrounding neighborhood. So, in the interest of Brevity and given the board's uh extensive schedule tonight, we were going to we brought Mr. Miola just in case there's an engineering question, but we were going to start
with our architect, Mr. Doug Azrael and then we were going to conclude with our planner, Mr. Nicholas Graviano. >> Okay. All right. Let me swear in uh your architect. All right. Do you swear affirm 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? >> Yeah. Douglas with two S's. Last name Asol. A S R A L. Um I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Can you just go over your uh schooling
and um and past history? >> Uh Bachelor of Architecture, New Jersey Institute Institute of Technology. I've been licensed since uh 2000 and also in the state of Pennsylvania. >> And Mr. Azro, you've also testified in front of numerous boards in this
capacity, correct? >> Yes, most recently in Paripity and Maplewood. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? And I assume everything's current and we
didn't ask that question. All your all your licenses are current. >> My licenses are current. Yes. >> Uh, there be no objections or witnesses except as expert in architecture. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Azrael, you prepared updated plans that are on you on the that are on the screen
behind you, correct? For this application this evening? >> Yes, I have. And just for clarity of the record, those plans are dated June 10th, 2026 and consist of two pages. >> Uh yes, they are. I'll just zoom into the um uh title block there on the lower
right corner. Uh there it is. Revision number three, June 10th, issue for board of adjustment. >> Okay. So, you were here at the last meeting, but you didn't get an opportunity to testify. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, why don't we start with the size of the house? Can you clarify for
the record uh what the overall square footage for the house is? >> Yeah, the overall square footage for the house is 2,828 square ft. Um I'll the breakdown of the uh square footage uh get to u
>> Okay. So the first floor >> Yeah. The first >> shown on your plan, 1264 square ft. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Second floor, 1564 ft. Correct. That's correct. Yes. Uh and that excludes the I mean yeah if you were to include the garage uh at the first floor level that
would be 2828 on both levels. >> Okay. And again you heard me in the opening we completely eliminated the attic. Correct. >> Yes. Uh there was over 400 square ft of uh pre in the previous application over 400 ft of occupiable area proposed. Uh that has been eliminated. It also has
brought the um ridge height down by 3 feet to 30.5 ft total. >> Okay. And again, the attic is only accessible by a pull down stair. Correct. >> Via pull down stair. There is no longer any stair access to the attic. >> Okay. And at this point in time, the
house is a four bedroomedroom, four and a half bath. Correct. >> Uh four bedroom, four bath. >> Four bath. >> Four bath. >> Okay. And just real briefly, succinctly, downstairs consists of >> consist and I'll zoom in on it just to
get to the image. uh consists of um yeah uh an o office um uh to to to the left, the garage to the right, um a full bathroom, laundry room, and then as you approach the rear, a kitchen and great room uh with a dinette
in the in between the great room and the kitchen >> and the second floor. >> Second floor. Uh there's the um the primary bedroom in the rear with its on suite bathroom. Uh uh three other bathroom, three other bedrooms and a hall bathroom and a laundry room. I'm sorry. I'm
sorry. Laundry rooms on the first floor. Uh uh there's there's two hall uh one on there's another onsuite bathroom uh to bedroom two and um um and then there's a hall bathroom. >> And that's really it, correct? >> Yeah, that's really it. Yeah, four bedrooms upstairs, two on suite, one
hall bathroom. And when you um modified the design and initially prepared the design with the applicant, you looked at the surrounding homes and were trying to come up with something that mimicked the style of the neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Uh yes. Uh full disclosure, I actually
designed the house next door at one Franklin. >> Okay. >> Which is a comparable design. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's it, Mr. Chairman. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this uh witness? Does anybody in the public have any
questions for this witness? >> Back to you, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. At this time, we'd like to turn it over to Mr. Graviano as our planner. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano, do you swear a firm to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Nick, can you just state and spell
your name for the record? >> Yes. My first name is Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V as in Victor. I A N O. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano has been qualified in the field of professional planning before this board on many occasion. Uh,
M. Graviano, your license to practice professional planning in the state of New Jersey is current and up to date. >> 53128. >> You've renewed. There you go. You remembered, Nick. Very good. >> The check cleared, huh? >> If I can if I can only get him to wear a
tie. Okay. Does anyone board have anyone on the board have any question um uh question objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in professional planning. >> Thank you, chairman. I hope there's some Nick's fans on the deis that experience
that joy. It's been a long time. I never thought I was going to see it. I'm I'm approaching 49. Thankfully, it happened. I could I could die in peace now. >> Yeah. But I'm I'm aging well. Okay. So, you know, the applicant, you
know, when they came to me with that this application, you know, I requested that they make some changes to get it, you know, closer to conformance. I think the applicants's done an impeccable job on designing a home. That's not only befitting of the site, but befitting of the neighborhood as well. Uh, this is an
application for block 1703, lot 5.02. Um, that is an undersized 5,000 ft lot in the R4 district. Uh the applicant is requesting uh relief with this application. The the highest order variance being the habitable floor area
variance. Uh 56.56 is proposed whereas 30% is required by code. Uh the applicant is also seeking front yard setback relief 30 feet where 40t is required, sideyard setback relief where 5.2 is proposed on both sides. Uh 10 ft
is required by code. uh the applicant is proposing a 30 foot rear yard setback whereas 35 uh feet is required. Then lastly the aggregate sideyard uh 30% is required the applicant is proposing 20.8%.
Um with this application I had an opportunity to dig deep in the neighborhood statistics and and setbacks and coverage of the like. Uh you heard some of that information at the last hearing. Um this this is a dwelling that is consistent with the established
neighborhood development pattern. Uh the neighboring house next door at one Franklin is 3,120 square ft. Uh the applicants coming in before the board tonight at 2828. So that's a comparable size house. Uh, additionally with the neighbor
neighboring dwelling, variances were granted for that uh, dwelling uh, for a 5-ft sideyard setback, a 30foot front yard setback, as well as a 30-foot rear yard setback. So, the applicant's proposal is in keeping um, with the
neighboring dwelling at one Franklin. So, this certainly would not be the largest house uh, in the neighborhood. uh looking at the F variance. Um as the board knows, it's the applicant's uh role to demonstrate that the site could
still accommodate the proposed use withstanding the request for the F variance. Here are the applicants providing uh very attractive front and rear yard areas is providing adequate off- streetet parking a as per RSIS requirements and will certainly uh
provide any drainage recommendations that required by the uh township engineer. So uh with respect to the D4 variance, this proposal certainly advances purposes of zoning uh a promotion of the public health safety morals and general welfare. Purpose G to
provide sufficient space and appropriate location for variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And then lastly, purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Uh moving on to the C variances. The C
variances are are are a combination uh of being required due to the exceptional undersized nature of the lot. um you know variance certainly could be reasonably granted under the C1 criteria. However, the C2 criteria is also very pertinent uh where the
granting of the C2 variances certainly could advance purposes of zoning AG and I similar to the uh request for the D4 F variance. Uh so in summary, this is a proposal that's in keeping with the established neighborhood setback
patterns, established uh variances granted by this board and both the D4 and C variances could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. Graviano. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> I do. >> Please. >> Um so I'm slightly confused. So I see on Z1 this version I see that there's a landing that looks like it's in total six feet in this distance coming out of
the house but yet on the this plan it >> uh I don't see a number on this one that's why >> one of two >> one of two but I don't know what number of the admin is >> it's a site plan >> the site plan
>> the site plan Okay. It has a five foot measurement and then a sidewalk beyond that. So, I'm not sure how big is this landing or whatever you want to call it. >> The the landing will be in conformance to ordinance requirements for the
protrusion allowed from the main facade separ. >> Okay. And there'll be no further deck or patio. >> No. >> Okay. >> You would agree with that being a condition of approval? >> Yes. Uh yeah, I have a couple of questions.
Um I know you said you you had uh done some research on the other houses uh that were on the street. Um you mentioned number one uh being a similar house and all at was it 31 3120 square feet? >> Yes, sir.
>> Does that house also have a attic? Finished attic. >> I'm not aware of the finished attic, but we we do not have a finished attic. I I'm just trying when you're comparing the 3120 I'm just trying to compare if that 3120 is with a finished attic when
obviously you have to deduct to make it even with this house. Um the other question is I know you're saying that the front yard setback at 30 ft is kind of like in conformance with uh number one lot six but the average if you're
going to look at the street because it's all within 200 ft of the property I mean it's like almost 36 feet because as you start going down Franklin you start increasing the setback up to 34.6 to 40 and 39. So
you're you're pushing it up on on that end to have those two further than the other houses, but then as you go down the street, they start going f further and further from Franklin. >> Well, I I see your point on that. However, you
know, with with the application on at lot on number one that which is lot six in the block, um you know, was determined by the board that the 30 ft did not cause a substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Um it's an existing dwelling. Certainly,
the presence of that 30-foot front yard setback has not caused a substantial detriment to the public good as well. Um, so you know, we certainly thought it was a proper design aesthetic to to match the front yard setback of of that dwelling.
>> And I guess the last question is if we're saying this house is kind of similar to number one, I know the lot seem to be the same size. Uh, is that correct? >> They are both 5,000 square feet. Yes. because I know on on number one you happen to have almost about five feet on
the one side and the other side is roughly about 9 ft. >> Uh the variance was granted at eight. You have five and eight on that house. Um I did examine >> uh the other homes on block 1703 some of which are on McCall Avenue. For the most
part all the ones on McCall Avenue are at 5 feet. So, um, we do have an established, you know, neighborhood development pattern where, you know, the 5ft sideyard setback is, um, a predominant condition. Okay. Well, again, that's on the first then three
houses. The other two are actually more 10 ft and above. So, okay. >> Um, I I have a comment actually. I have the same question as Mr. Sherman has and also I also want to talk about the side
uh side um sideyard uh setback. This is empty lot and I I'm trying to understand why the all uh four setback uh criterias are being pushed uh 5 uh 5.2 feet sight
back setback is really narrow in my opinion and I I understand you bring up the other houses on the block. Uh, one Franklin looks like it was like seven, nine years ago. Um, but I'm just looking at this case by itself. To me, I
just felt like the sideyard uh setback of five 5.2 feet on both sides are too narrow um for this uh 5,000 square ft. >> Um, you know, given the house next door, which is at at 4.8 and 4.9, you know,
we're at 5.2 and 5.2. Um, you know, I think in this case, the applicant provided a a building envelope which um meets the needs of of the current homeowner and the these variances are being requested due to the
extreme undersized nature of the lot at 5,000 square feet where you know 9,375 ft is required. So, I think the applicant um looked at, you know, neighborhood sideyard setback patterns, came in with a sideyard setback, which was reasonable for the neighborhood
while still providing a front yard and a rear yard at 30 ft, which is uh enough to provide ample green space and as well as to provide enough depth for the required off- streetet parking. And we have we have a lot here that's,
you know, over 4,000 square feet under than than what's required by code. Um, you know, looking at the house next door that's at 4.8 and 4.9, I I do do not think that the 5.2 and 5.2 causes substantial detriment to the public
good. I hear what you're saying. I am still just a little concerned we're just wedging another house in on that lot. Um I know the there's kind of a pattern there. Um the
subdivision was done by the owner. Um it's a difficult one. Um I I I'm not I'm not have a question for you even, but um it's just uh >> I know the board's grappling with this
application, but I think if you do look at the block 1703 and the amount of homes that have 5 foot or less setbacks on on the sides, this this application's certainly in in keeping with the neighborhood
>> just Yeah. one. Well, my only thing with that is lot is number seven which which is the you know two houses away is the newest house that happens to be built on the block and it's actually was the most conforming house that was put on the
block. So which was done the most I mean I think it was just built within the past year. So, uh it I don't know makes it, you know, on some of these smaller lots that I see around town, they are these smaller houses that are now being built on these
lots because the overbuilding that happened on these other these size lots in the past. I mean it's a it's an issue >> that you know that that house is at approximately 2300 square ft which you
know in today's standards I would say is small I'm sorry >> 2300 or 2800 it's 2800 >> no the house he's referring to >> Mr. Sherman was referring to the newer house which is at 2,300. You know, I
would I would say in in in today's standards that's, you know, that's a small house. >> It's not showing. I don't >> house also, you know, they they detached the garage. So, um, you know, it added to building coverage by, you know, that doesn't
count towards the F. But, you know, if you added that to the house, it's not that much different than what we're proposing this evening. Now, if you look at this house and you look at the the the neighborhood streetcape, this is certainly a house that's in keeping with the neighborhood.
Can I can I just drill down on that a little bit because I'm I'm grappling with the having a hard time and I'm on the fence here and when I tore the if if this was any other neighborhood I I this I don't think the arguments would would pass water but I driving around it it it
does seem like it that's the neighborhood which nothing's conforming. So I'm trying to get a sense from you Mr. Graviano because you're the expert um of whether we're just sort of tolerating these this or it's due to the
hardship because I think they could build a house um you know that's conforming because they're starting from scratch or is it more your testimony that this is the character of the neighborhood so that we should put a
house consistent with the other houses all who seem to have at least on one side some sort of average setback of about five feet on one of the sides. So that's what when I was driving around that was my question of you know what
should be done here from a planning perspective. Did do you get my question? >> I certainly get the question. I I just want to note this is the last lot on the block. So this is almost like the missing two as you get to the end of the culde-sac. Um, you're right. The established
neighborhood pattern is consistent with what the applicants proposing before the board this evening. Frankly, I think a wider house looks better when you have an attached garage because all these houses have garages. If you had a 30-foot house with an attached garage,
the the front set the front facade is dominated by the garage. With a wider house, the gra the garage is more reasonable within the front facade. And you'll see that on the houses in the neighborhood. It it looks better from a facade standpoint to have a wider house
with that attached garage. So it's not a situation where the garage takes up half of the front facade. Here the the garage is way less than half of the front facade and it creates a better design aesthetic. So,
I feel like after hearing your testimony and as Mr. Mr. Weisman said, like we're sort of and you hear us like we're all grappling like some things are just easier that we're all grappling with this because this is, you know, this is a large house. It's a 5,000 square foot
lot. We know it was subdivided. Um, but we're grappling with the size and I think that everybody on the board has probably chimed in and said the same thing. So, um, I honestly I I don't know. Um, I wish it
was easy to make a decision. I still believe the house is too big. Um, but like you said, it's the last piece of the puzzle. >> The way I look at it is you you have one Franklin that's at 3120. It's a beautiful house. You know, it's a
nice neighborhood. This house has not caused a substantial detriment to the public good, nor has it create a substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. That house exists. This house is designed by the same architect. It's very similar.
So, I don't see how that can exist and not be a substantial detriment to the public good. And this house will be, which is this house is less square footage and doesn't have that finished thirdf flooror attic which was also granted by the board. Like this board granted all the setback relief that this
applicant's requesting at a bigger habitable floor area ratio and and I I don't see how conditions have drastically changed since the granting of that variance. >> Well, two things. one the on number one
um the thing that changed was that there was an ordinance on the books that you can convert existing space um into habitable space if you don't change the exterior. So if the house was built with that attic space that was there but wasn't finished at the time, it could
have been finished then later. So that ordinance has gone away. So that's one thing. >> Well, just Mr. Sherman, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to highlight that point. >> Yeah. That application was granted with an F of 6% higher than what we're requesting this evening. So that space had to be
part of that application. Okay. >> Otherwise, their F would be at the same number that we're requesting this evening. So that was part of it. >> I understand. My only point with that would be that it would be something that would be able to be done even if they left here. So at the same token, it would have happened either way. um can't
be can't happen today because that ordinance has been removed, but it would have been doable at the time. And as far as the the notion that this is the last piece of the puzzle, what about lot number two? Lot number two could be subdivided into two lots of 5,000 square
feet each and that'll be another two lots that come before us also on this block. It's an older house. Same thing's going to happen on lot two. So, I mean, I would be doing it if I was lot two. You know, it's you've allotted
on every other lot that's been here. So, >> I don't I don't see this being the last piece of the puzzle. I see that there's another there's one and two more lots to come. >> That is a corner lot. It's a little bit of a different situation, but um yeah, I I see your point.
Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Um, okay. Um, I'm not sure if we're where we are and
if I can give you any guidance at this moment. I think there's a lot of questions from this board. Um and um I don't know you do you have any questions for us or any I I don't know
what if you want to go forward I don't know where it's going to land I guess is what I'm saying. >> I guess really the procedurally the first question should be whether or not uh council has any other um any other further uh testimony from Mr. Graviano or if she has any other witnesses that
she wants to present or if she wants to respond to the chairman's inquiry. >> Right. My request would be if I could take five if I could take five minutes and discuss with my applicant um and
then reserve that I might be recalling Mr. Graviano or asking additional questions. >> Certainly. No problem. >> All right. We're in break for a few minutes. I'm going to use it wisely. >> Okay. Thank you.
Okay, I think we're back in session. >> Yes. Thank you so much for your courtesies. I had the opportunity to speak with the applicant and the professionals in the hallway and we'd like to amend the application as follows. We will stipulate that the one
sideyard will be 5.2 which will be the one adjacent to one Franklin and the other sideyard will be eight. Good. Okay. I saw the finger so I stopped. >> I'm I'm sorry. Um council just you you
said the one sideyard. Can we say is it the right or left sideyard? If you're looking at the house, it'd be the left sideyard would be 5.2 ft, which is what is proposed currently. Um, and then the right side yard would be moved to 8.2 ft
to be cognitive of the neighbor adjacent to us, which is under five feet, but also to give us a larger overall sideyard combined setback than the other house that was referenced. It also reduces the square footage to 2588
which in return reduces the habital floor area to 51.76 >> 51 >> I'm sorry Mr. Runel >> 51 >> 51.76 >> for the F. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I I would also like to note that the
aggregate sideyard would go from 20.8 to 26.8. 8. >> One more time, Nick. >> That would be a >> The aggregate sideyard uh would be 26.8. >> So that' be a 3.2% request.
>> Yes. Going up from 20.8. >> Jackie, if we all agree to that, they don't need to come back with new plans for us. That's good. Right. Right. They would submit that. >> They will submit to you. But we we would if we vote positive that's acceptable,
>> right? It would be I'm sure you agree with me. It' be condition of approval to provide >> uh revised plans in accordance with those representations that council and Mr. Graviano had made. Right. >> Correct. Yes. Site plans and architecturals.
>> Okay. Um does anybody want to make a comment on that? I mean, I'd prefer to continue it and actually see the plans that I'm going to approve. >> I don't think we need to, though. But >> Mr. Horn, I understand your concerns,
but you know, to to summarize this, the the applicant is shaving the house down by three feet. The house is now three feet narrower. Um the the program is going to remain similar. None of the other um the front yard and rear yard
are going to remain at 30 feet. Um the applicants increasing the one sideyard from 5.2 to 8.2 as well as coming in the closer conformance to the aggregate sideyard setback. I think the board this could be handled through
resolution compliance >> and the the height will not be any higher than in the latest the 31.5. Right. >> Correct. As long as Miss Hollis says that it's okay, then we should Okay. Okay. >> Okay. I would like to say I appreciate you taking the time and making this
change. I'm a lot more comfortable with this application at this time. I'd like to hear from other members of the board to >> I'll just um confirm what my colleague is saying. Thank you very much. I think this will be um it'll fit the um lot
more appropriately. And um thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate you're willing to um set up increase the setback by three feet on the right side for your neighbor >> and I will concur as well.
>> Okay. Does the last thing I Does anyone in the public want to make a comment? >> Good. >> Um do you have any other closing remarks? >> No, Mr. Chairman. We just appreciate the
board's time, deliberation, comments, and hopefully the board appreciates the efforts we've made. >> We do. >> Thank you. We do. Would someone like to make a motion? >> Okay. I'll make you >> I will make a motion to approve this
application with Okay. Um the right sideyard setback will now be 8.2. Right. The aggregate sideyard will be 26.8. with a proposed 3.2% and the new square footage will be 25.88 and the habitable
floor area ratio will be 51.76. Did I miss anything? >> Pull down ladder. >> The attic. Oh, the attic will have pull down stairs. >> Yes. Okay. and Miss Khan that the as they indicated before that there would
be uh conformity with the uh landing in the rear with the ordinance and there would be no uh uh additional patio >> or uh or outdoor space added. That was one of the other conditions of approval >> as well as the general condition of
approval along the lines of those revisions to provide updated uh engineering and architectural plans is applicable to Miss Hollis uh within the near term. >> Yes, councelor. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I need you to say that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Would someone like to second the motion? >> Only because of this very unique um neighborhood in my opinion. I'm going to second this. Okay, Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Okay, Mr. Weiseman. >> Yes. >> Okay, Mr. Horn.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> And Mr. Bear, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Okay.
The new business uh block 2902 lot 4586 Martin Road application number 2026-31- 86 Martin LLC applicant seeks approval to construct new single family dwelling
in violation of the following section 17087CC3 habitable Floor area 21 person allowed 22.68 person proposed 1.68 person variance requested. >> Welcome. >> Got to go green. There you go.
>> Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Diana McGovern uh from the law firm of Gasho and Pamako on behalf of the applicant 86 Martin LLC. Um, we are here, my client 86 Martin LLC is the owner of 86 Martin Road, which is
located in the R3 zone. We are seeking to demolish the existing old house and build a new one family home. The house we are proposing will be four bedrooms with a pull down attic and presents habitable floor area ratio of 22.68%
where 21% is permitted. In other words, we need a variance or we're requesting a variance of 1.68%. No other variances are requested. Um, tonight I have with me um the managing member of 86 Martin LLC, Mr. Jeff Rosen
Blum, and also um our planner, Nick, Mr. Nicholas Graviano, who um I think we'll start with Mr. Graviano and if the board needs to dis have any questions with my client uh we can make him available. I I know Mr. Graviano is fully familiar with
all of the issues. One last thing we would like to just stipulate up front that we will agree to all the conditions set forth in the engineers report dated April 21, 2026. >> Okay, Mr. Graviano. >> Uh Mr. Graviano, I swear a firm tell truth for the zoning board tonight.
>> I do. >> Okay, Mr. Graviano uh mere moments ago or maybe 25 to 30 minutes ago uh was uh qualified in the field of professional planning. Uh no email since that time. Nick, >> no. >> Okay, chair.
>> There be um we can accept you as the expert in um professional planning. >> Thank you, chairman. I'm going to keep this very brief. The applicants here tonight for a specific piece of property known as block 2902, lot 45. That's with a street address of 86 Martin Road. Um that is a slightly
oversized parcel in the R3 district. Uh the lot comes in at 15,521 square ft. Uh the applicant is proposing a dwelling which conforms to all of the required setbacks. Um the applicant is actually exceeding the rear yard
requirement by 21 ft. Uh the home is coming in at exactly the habitable floor area ratio requirement 3520. Uh the applicant is requesting a 1.6% 6% increase from the habitable floor area ratio. Um certainly uh this is like I
said an oversized lot slightly. Uh the applicant is meeting all required off- streetet parking requirements. There is a twocar garage as well as a a twocar driveway. Uh so certainly uh this coupled with any required stormwater management uh techniques uh from the uh
township engineer uh the D4 F varants uh can be granted advancing purposes of zoning a G and the municipal land use law without substantial impairment to the zone plan zoning ordinance uh or the public good. >> Mr. Graviano, could you compare the
proposed house and maybe we want to show the board the rendering because it is really pretty. uh compare that proposed house to the neighboring properties. >> Just looking for the rendering >> that was submitted. I think it was >> so you you you'll see it's very
impeccably designed uh traditional style house. Um the applicant um you know went into great care in crafting this facade with you know varied roof elevations as well as window treatments and other decorative elements which um are
befitting of a home of this ilk. Um in terms of the surrounding properties um there are uh additional houses within block 2902 uh which which are very similar in size uh to the applicant's proposed property.
Um, all the houses within the within the block are over 3,000 square feet. So, >> and the existing home that's there is is it outdated and um this would be a much of an improvement to the neighborhood? >> This is certainly a better uh home built
to current uh standards with a very attractive facade design. >> Um, have we satisfied the negative criteria? >> Yes. And um if this grant if this variance is granted, do you think that the proposed use would impair the intent and purpose of the zone zone plan?
>> Certainly do not. >> Okay. >> This is an this is an R3 house uh built at the square footage permitted for the uh R3 district with a very slight request for F variance. Um and and there is a a double foyer which is counted
with that uh calculation. So, this is a house that's pretty much right on the mark except for the little uh deviation in the F math. >> I think the board may have some questions. >> Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness?
>> I I have a question and it might not be your question, Nick, but you put the rendering up first. We have to mark that as A1, I believe. >> Um, submitted. >> It was submitted. Okay. I didn't have in my packet. That's fine. So, we do not have to mark it as A1. Um, the roof
height is stated at 35 ft, but then the the watchtowwer um exceeds that. Um, I don't I couldn't find anything in the code that allows anything over 35 ft. >> If it's an issue with the board, we will
remove it. >> Okay. Um, see what everyone else has to say. Um, and how much room is in the attic because it looks quite >> tall. Want to make sure it's not usable. I don't know if you have that information off hand. >> Um, let me see if it's in the plans.
>> All right. >> While while he's looking for that, I see the roof tower is depicted on the plans. And would not wouldn't that have been picked up by >> I don't know. Right. I did not have a chance to talk to any of the officials, but I just double checked the
um the code. I can't find anything. >> We we would submit we would remove it if it if it required a variance. We don't >> The applicant's going to remove it. >> Okay. >> Um >> but it's pretty.
>> Come on, Nick. A lot of pressure here. Yeah, >> I I don't have an attic height, but uh as the applicant stated, it will be a pull down and will be a condition of approval that no stairs will go to the attic. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have Oh, do you have one? >> I just have I mean, this has nothing to do with the application, but um at all, and I probably shouldn't even really say this, but you could put your cupula on your garage. Oh, that's a good idea. >> You could put what?
>> The the >> That's a good suggestion. >> Couple I don't know how to say it. >> The watch tower. >> Koopalo. Koopa. >> Koopalo. That's a good suggestion. Thank you. >> I live in this neighborhood, so it'll be nice to see. >> Okay. I'm not redesigning it, but I'm just >> That's a nice idea.
>> It is. >> Yeah, >> because it's a nice little detail. It really is cute. >> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this application? >> Back to you.
>> Uh we unless you would like to hear from my client, which I'm seeing no. Um we we do we submit and we would urge that the board um grant the variance. >> Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve subject to the poll downstairs and subject to the
removal of the watchtowwer. I'm not really sure what that thing is called. Koopa. >> Well, I would just like >> Koopa was warned possible relocation to the garage. >> I'm okay with that. >> Just just from the high relocation, either removal or relocation of the
Koopa to stay within the 35 ft height requirement. >> Perfect. I will second your motion. >> It's only like 30 some years since I graduated law school. It still works. >> Okay. >> Mr. Hard. >> Yes. >> Approved. >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha. >> Yes. Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Block 3502, lot 8141 East Cedar
Street, application number 2025-106-V. Melissa and Peter Hull. Applicant seeks approval for the second floor addition in violation of the following section 170-99 C2 front yard setback 40t required 38
30.8 ft proposed 2.9.2 variance requested 1709 C3 right sideyard setback 10 ft required 8.7 ft proposed 1.3 ft variance requested.
>> Welcome. Hi, good evening. >> How are you? >> Okay, thank you. >> Good. Don't be nervous. >> Okay, >> we don't bite. >> So, not mostly. >> So, um you are the owners and applicants, correct? >> We are. Yes.
>> Okay. Can we uh have your names each of you give your names and say and spell them for the record? >> Sure. Melissa Halib, M E L I S A H O L U B. Peter Halib P E R H O L U B.
>> Okay. I'm going to swear in. So just uh do you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh and uh you're going to be the only people testifying on this application. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And uh chair up to you. Tell us what you
got. Billison. Um, our project will include reconstruction of the existing second floor to include full height rooms over the existing firstf floor building footprint, allowing adequate space for three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Relocation of the laundry room and a bonus office homework room space. Uh, the second floor will can lever over the existing right side wall. Exact dimensions can be found on the design floor plan. Um, the second floor will
have 8 foot high ceilings and a new attic space accessed by pull down stairs for limited storage and HVAC air handler. The existing interior stair will be reconstructed to accommodate for new floortofloor elevation.
>> Let me get that. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> So, um, just to add to that a little bit. >> Thank you. You have a front yard setback variance you're asking for and that's not changing. That's pre-existing. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And you have a sideyard setback that you're asking for that's also
pre-existing and not changing. >> That is correct. >> So, you're just building over what you got. >> That's exactly it. >> Does anybody have any questions for this witness or these witnesses? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. cuz I see a little a little addition that you're jutting out to the to the
right, >> but that's could but that's within the the setback, right? So, you are building there. It's just that you don't need a variance for it. Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. >> Yes, that's correct. >> No, I just have a comment. Right. I think you know the h the lot is narrow
but overly big this way. You're staying well within the square footage and from it sounds like trying to make this home more suitable for a family in Livingston. >> That is correct. It's currently two bedrooms. We need another bedroom.
>> Does anybody else have any comments or questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in public have any comments for this application? >> Would someone on the board like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. I'll >> second.
Mr. Kenya, >> Mr. Kenya, Miss Young. >> Yes. >> M. Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Mod. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Say, you did it. >> Thank you all very much. >> Block 4402, lot 73 310 South Livingston Avenue. Application number 2026-33-V Evelyn Compo. Applicant seeks approval for 10x 20 shed in violation of the
following section. >> Yeah. >> 170-98 7E1 F4 shed 200 ft or 5% of the rear yard. >> Yeah. >> Allowed 99 square ft. Uh 200 ft proposed
101 ft square requested. >> Yes. Good evening. >> Welcome. Okay. >> Hi. Thank you. >> So, Miss Campo, you are the uh applicant. >> Yes. >> And the owner, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, why don't you state and spell your name for the record? >> Yes. My name is Evelyn Campo. E V E L Y
N C A M P O. >> Okay. And you're the only person that's going to be speaking on this application tonight. >> Okay. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear from Tell Truth for the zoning board? >> I do. >> Okay. I knew you would. Okay. All right. To you, >> All right. It's up to you. Tell us what
you got and why. Okay. So, we have a small property right here almost across the street from town hall. Um, we don't have a garage, so we're requesting approval for a 10 by 20 shed um for storage basically. Um, we don't have
anywhere to put a snowblower, blow more, or anything like that. So, that's basically what we're asking for. >> Okay. And this is going to be used as a shed only, not a garage. >> No, it's just a shed. and describe what's to the right of your
house. If you're looking at the front of the house on Livingston Avenue, to your right is >> why >> to my right would be a property, >> which is what are they building? They're building >> the Y there, right? You're next to the YMCA. >> I'm sorry.
>> The YMCA. Yes. >> Yes. So, that's a commercial property that really won't be affected by your garage so much, right? >> Yes, that's correct. >> I'm trying to lead the witness. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Shed. Sorry. Shed. Strike the garage for the record. Okay. Um,
does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? >> I just have a quick question. So, right now it's sitting like on a pallet. What is it sitting on? >> So, it comes It's an Amish shed. So, it was already delivered as is. and is sitting it is like a pallet but it's a
part of the shed >> and that could be moved. >> Yes. >> Okay. And that would be moved towards the rear of the property like where where would where are you planning on? >> No no no it just sits there because it's just sitting on it. So if we were to ever one day later on in life decide to move, we could take it with us.
>> But where it is right now, it's going to stay where it is right now. >> It's on a slab. It's on a slab. >> It's on that there's a cement slab there. Yes. Okay. So where it is right now, it's staying. That's where it's staying. So it's not going anywhere. Okay. And the machine that's in front of it, was that what was using that was that what was >> that's ours our machine.
>> Okay. Okay. That has nothing to do with the >> Nothing at all. We actually bought it when we bought the property. The property was infested with bamboo. >> Um it was full of surprises. >> So you like excavate the bamboo with that?
>> We Yeah, we did our everything on our own only because when you rent a machine like that, >> it's very expensive. >> Yeah. So now you own it. >> Okay. It'll go in the shed. >> Anyone in the p in the public has bamboo issues, you know who to call.
>> Does anybody else >> a lot of experience >> have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Would anybody in the public like to make uh any statements regarding this application? >> Would anybody on the board like to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve. I'll >> second it. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer,
>> yes. >> Motion carries. >> There you go. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. Have a good day. >> Okay. Block 4401, lot 178, Berkeley Terrace, application number 2026-23-V. Camila Leu. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence
in violation of the following section 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area 30% allowed. 34 person proposed 4% variance requested. >> Good evening Lou. K A M I L L A L I.
>> Um so today we are here for a variance um to increase focus. >> One second. One second. So, uh you just so you are the owner and the applicant, correct? >> Yes. >> And who do you have with you? >> So, uh he is my architect.
>> You have your architect with you. Okay. So, you want to make you want to make a statement for the record and then you want your architect to speak. >> Correct. >> Right. Yes. >> Okay. So, here's what we're going to do. We're going to swear you in. >> Okay. >> Do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. So once you uh through you chair,
we can have Miss Lou start over again with her statement. >> That would be a good idea. >> Right. So just slower and louder into the mic. >> Uh sure. So my name is Camila Lou. First name is Camila. K A starting with a K.
Uh K A M I L L A and last name is L I U. Good. Okay. So, um the existing house um is kind of a old uh construction uh
structure without a basement and um which is uh not good enough like no longer functional for uh uh modern family living. So as part of reconstruction
uh we are proposing a basement which allows us to place mechanical equipment uh storage and uh recreation space below grade uh rather than expanding further
above ground. Um so we work very closely with our architect Mr. the plan uh to design a home um that is consistent with the surrounding uh neighborhoods and to
minimize the amount of uh variance requested. So tonight we are requesting for variance of 4% and then I will leave my time to Mr. Fan. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh chair, before we go to the architect, do you want to see if anybody has any questions or we just want to go to the architect? Okay. All right. Um sir, why don't you raise your right hand? Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell
your name for the record? >> My name is Bing F B I N F NG. I'm a project architect from Atlafon LLC. >> Okay. And uh why don't we get your qualifications on briefly as an architect?
>> Sure. Uh I'm licensed in New Jersey and New York and uh I've been a practice in New Jersey since uh 2022. >> Okay. And your license is uh up to date? >> Yes. >> And uh your educational background?
>> Yeah, I have a a master degree from Washington University in St. Louis. uh and uh I graduated 2015 and I've been uh in New York uh metro area u been practice for more than 10 years. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Um does anyone board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. And just for the record, once you're sworn in, you can leave your hand down.
>> Thanks. All yours. >> Okay. Um so uh so so uh today uh today today I'm here to present a design that require a a single uh modest virance to achieve a super a
superior site layout. We uh we cautiously choose a slightly tire more efficient building footprint. So we uh we require like a 4% virus for the uh uh for the uh
for uh so so the the final virus we're requesting is for the habitable floor area under code section 170 uh 87 CC4. The a uh the audience limits this to 30%
and our design sits at 34% uh repres representing 4% virus. on paper uh 4% maybe sounds significant but um I just want to point out that uh based out on our uh 9,3 uh 375 square
foot lot uh we are talking about 398 uh square foot which is about the size of a standard twocar garage. Uh what's more importantly we're are not horizontal uh sparrow but it's h does not push the house uh close to the
street or the neighborhood. Um in fact the minor four uh 4% increase in HFA allows us to push the building inwards. Uh so so you can you can find
that the existing structure sits sits at 11.6 6 feet and 11.4t from the side property lines. We are proposing increasing those setbacks to 14.1 ft and
13.3 ft respectively. So uh by considering our footprint the design provides s significantly more light air and breathing room for the adjacent neighbor neighbors than the
existing structure. The other thing I want to point out that is uh as we we are increasing uh uh we are increasing 398 square ft
within that 132 square ft is a is a a pentum space. It's a double height uh foyer that's a uh which is about 33% of the total request
of virus increase uh is tied up entirely in the vertical volume of the double height internal foyer and uh um yes that's a uh that's pretty pretty
much our argument. I think u uh uh this 4% increase uh uh will be uh will be uh I mean uh it's uh we increase our
side back to the neighbor and uh and the majority of the uh increased area is by the double height space. So I think it's a reasonable request. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Go ahead, sir.
>> Uh just two questions. >> First, uh I I just think we need your testimony that this you feel that this house the use of this property to have this house um and that this lot could accommodate such use a house of this
size can accommodate the the the use of of of this size house on on that lot. I'm not saying this right. That's the the standard being that that this this lot can accommodate this size house.
>> Is that your opinion? >> Uh is that a question for me? >> Yeah. Oh, >> yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh the other thing is I was just curious. It said crawl space under garage. Was that a I assume that's a typo otherwise like I assume it's filled underneath, right?
>> Yes. Yes, that's that's right. Okay. Does anybody else in the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? >> Does anyone on the board want to make a
motion? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Miss Yan, >> yes. >> Mr. Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Rati,
>> sorry. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Okay, motion carries. My bad. >> I know we look alike. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Block 2700 LA 1445 South Livingston
Avenue. Application number 2026-35-3. Gun Gunsham Daga. Application applicant seeks approval for the fence in violation of the following section 170-91B2 B front yard fence 4T uh height and 50%
open allowed 6 ft height and privacy fence requested 170-91B4C rear fans 50% open allowed privacy fence requested >> okay give me one minute I have to take a phone Paul, I'll be back in one minute.
I apologize. Make sure. Okay. >> Oh >> boy. Huh? >> Everybody scatters. I'm a leader, not a follower. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um
All right. So, uh you are the I'm going to make a wild guess and you are the owners and the applicants, correct? That's right. >> Uh, can we and can we have your names please state and spell your names for the record? >> Sure. My full name is Ghanam Daga. G H A
N S H Y A M. Last name Daga. D A G A. >> My full name is Anurraha Daga. A N U R A D H A D A G A. >> Okay. So, why don't we swear you in? Do
you swear firm and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, uh, and you're the only people that are going to be testifying tonight, correct? >> That's right. >> Okay. Through you, chair, we can have the Daga's, uh, story. >> Yep. Yeah. Go for it. Tell us what you got.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> Good evening, members of the board. My name is Ghanam Daga and I own 445 South Livingston Avenue. I'm requesting two variants for a privacy fence on my property. My home sits on a corner lot
at South Livingston Avenue and Ward Road, which gives me two front yards instead of typical one. The first variance is to allow a 6-ft solid privacy fence in what's technically my front yard along Ward Road. The second
variance is to allow a 6-ft solid privacy fence in my rear yard where the ordinance requires board-onboard construction for fences over 48 in. I'm requesting these variances for several important reasons. Number one, safety
and security. Couple of years ago, my home was broken into. The exposed nature of a corner lot was a contributing factor. Our property is highly visible from two streets, making it easier for someone to observe the home and approach it. A proper
privacy fence would significantly improve security for my family by limiting visibility from the street and creating a clear boundary around the property. Second, privacy. Because my property is a corner lot, my entire backyard is visible from Ward Road.
Cars, pedestrians, headlights, and traffic noises all impact what would be private outdoor space for any other homeowner. Third, the existing fence is deteriorated and needs to be replaced. As you can see in photo I submitted, the
current fence is falling apart and no longer serves it its purpose. Fourth, the proposed fence matches the character of the neighborhood. Many of the homes in the area have similar privacy fencing. I would also note that the township
engineering department reviewed my application and had no uh no objections. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> I got two questions. So, on the front
yard, uh the picture you have with the with the little portion of the uh fence in the front that currently that fence is how tall? >> The the Yeah, the one on the right the >> six feet. >> Six feet. And then the fence on the side, the white fence, that's your
neighbor's fence or that's your >> Yes, that's my neighbor's fence. >> Okay. And then on the other on the bottom picture, which is the garage uh side, >> I saw that the neighbor behind you happens to also I don't have a picture of it here, but your neighbor behind you
happens to have a fence also. Uh it's a PVC fence and it happens to be facing the same what would be your the sideyard. Um that fence looks to be the same height as yours like six feet. Okay. Yes.
>> That that is facing the street. Okay. >> I have a question. So the front face to South Livingston Avenue, that would be vinyl. >> Yes. And then on the side, is it wood on the side? Unless I'm not reading the plans, right? Is it vinyl on the side? >> So on the side, if on the right right of
that property, right? Uh right of the picture, if you see >> the vinyl on the side, right? That's my neighbor's fence. He has put in. >> That's his. Okay. That's his. Right. But then on on the other side where you have the wood, you have you have >> Yeah. The wood over here. You're talking. >> So are you repl you're replacing that with vinyl? Yes.
>> And it'll be white. So So this way you don't have to You have your neighbors, which is yours. So >> Exactly. Yes. It's consistent across, >> right? Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Um, fences are difficult because we have strict rules for them for strict reasons
and the way we want our town to look. Um, I'm in my head, I'm going to split the two. Let's just look at the front one. Um, because I think there's different situations here. So, the front one, you have this white fence next to you that
they put up already. Kind of kind of setting the stage a little bit. Um, it's a small fence in length. Um, can can I think we're supposed to have plantings in front? >> Yeah, I'm looking at I'm looking at the
um ordinance right now. So actually the the fence should be screened by from public view with evergreen plantings. So would you be willing to plant green giant arborite along the side of your fence and actually that would end up giving you more privacy because those would grow very tall. They would grow
taller than six feet in a couple years but you would then you know cover your fence with with with plantings. >> Sure. So just so that I get this correct I don't want to say something incorrect over here. So what you're asking me is in front of those fence right on the
right hand side of the picture where it's a small wooden you want I can replace that with vinyl and then you're asking me can I put abroite over there >> right >> I don't see a reason why not >> okay does anyone on the board have any
questions regarding this fence right now >> no >> and everyone's comfortable with >> putting evergreens in front of it of some sort I'll get this side in a second. I'm just want to I'm trying to pick it apart because it's they're different in a way. Um everyone's
comfortable with putting um evergreens in front to screen so people driving past don't see the white below. Yes. Go ahead. >> So the front of our house is already having boxwood.
>> Okay. I mean you want to continue them maybe >> this side. I would like to use it for some flowers and everything because >> the neighborhood is completely restructured as you can see. >> Yes. >> And it's been uh you know so this side
of the portion of the house >> man we got to be by a microphone. >> This one >> that's where you're looking for. >> Yes. Because the fence has to be screened. The fence is also supposed to be open 50%. Right. >> So the door is already small enough.
It's not that big. If you happen to see, we don't have much room then there. >> Is that a gate? That's a gate. That's a gate. Just a gate. >> Oh, that's a gate. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Gate you don't >> you don't need for a gate. >> What do we need to have a gate there?
>> I mean, you see the problem is a front yard fence supposed to be 48 in high and 50% open. >> That's >> right. Right. I'm just explaining to Right. Right. So, you know, we're going from 48 in, 50% open to 100% closed and
72 in. And then we're trying to at least screen it so people don't see it and don't come running to us saying we want to have the same fence. Um, so, um, any ideas or thoughts? >> Okay. Sorry, just a question. So,
you said before you and I understand you have two front yards effectively. So this front yard, the moment that we're talking about here, this fence, is that Livingston or Odell? >> It's at Livingston. That's facing South Livingston. >> Okay. >> But Okay. But that really is mostly a
gate. >> Yes, it's a gate. >> Okay. Is there is that the only gate into the backyard or is on the other fence an additional gate into the backyard? >> The primary gate is on the garage side.
the second picture. >> So, so >> the garage side is on water. >> Yeah, this the Yeah, it's on the warden. >> Gate, >> that's the gate uh for the lawnmower to get in and get out
>> on the on on the Wardell side. What's I know you have the driveway. What's behind the fence? Does the driveway continue >> behind the fence? It's garden. >> Garden. >> Okay. So, would you be trying to find a compromise here? Right. I get the Ward Dell side because where people are
driving by it's a much longer section of the fence and you're looking for the privacy and all that stuff. The section of the fence here is not that big. So strike trying to strike a compromise and it looks like if I
read this correctly this fence of your neighbor this current fence is four feet. >> No, they all six feet. >> That's six feet as well. >> Yes. Mhm. >> Because it matches the fence. >> Yeah, >> that's Yeah. >> Yeah. But it matches the next door.
>> Right. That's But as long as you blow >> And you're going to basically do a white fence similar to what's already there. It almost looks like it just continues to wrap around. >> Yes. >> Do we have Do we I mean, >> we want to, >> you know, >> we're violating like three things.
That's the pro the problem on each of these. The one thing I'm going to say is that if you plant a green giant arborite in front of that, it's going to be so huge in a couple of years. I'm not even sure that's the right thing to put there. >> Going to be a risk to the people. >> Well, it could be it could be it could
be any any evergreen. It doesn't have to be a green giant, but it could be any it could be like a Yeah. big boxwood or something. >> So, just to let you know, not near the door, but near the So, just in front of the my house, there's a bus stop, right? And there we already have lot of bushes
over there. That's near the bus stop. >> Is it on your side of the street or >> on my side of the street? On my side of the street. Right. So, if if you're on the South Loving Avenue, you get down on the bus, right? There's a big uh bushes over there already. So, it's not showing
you on this picture because I never thought that would be important. >> I can't remember either. >> I I just have one question. So, just on here, I I see that on the I think it's the Livingston Avenue. I guess doesn't really matter, but on Livingston Avenue, it's like eight 8 feet. Is that what it is? eight feet from the house to the to
the that that fence the brown on the right side. >> Just give me one second, sir. I can tell you. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you have a 4ft gate which I assume you're going to put on the >> one side or the other. You're going to have the gate, right? I would assume probably on the
>> white PVC fence side because you have the the chimney on the left side. >> So, could we at least do evergreens on the 4ft panel that's there? Whether it's boxwoods or something. I mean, you could do evergreens and put flowers in front of it. I, you know, I don't care. But at
least some evergreen, not where the gate is, but on the other 4 foot panel. And then that way you >> It's good. >> Oh, four feet. >> Yeah. Oh. Oh, right there.
>> Happy joint. >> I can't see pictures. >> Yeah. evergreen. He said no. He said even flowers. We'll confirm that. >> Yeah. Something. >> Yeah.
>> Sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> Yes. Yeah. Exactly. Over there. Yeah. we can put as long as it doesn't impact the neighbor that's all that matters. >> Yeah. So, so if what you are asking earlier, right, if we can put some
flower plants over there, not on the door, but uh but the remaining part, right? That's what you were asking earlier. So, we can do that. on the side. >> No, he was talking about the South Loving right now. That's what he was talking about. >> And that you would believe that you
would get rid of the gate in the front. >> We will leave the gate >> because that's a privacy. We need the gate. >> So that part the door obviously we we can't put in front of the door anything. But whatever remaining part is left, right? What we can do is we can put some
flowers what he was asking for that's fine with us. Um, >> would you consider doing a g a fence that had the top part of it um open? Like they have the lattice the fence with the lattice on the top and then
it's solid and then like the top foot would be like a latticey >> two feet. >> What is it? >> So you know like a l it's like you know like X's, >> right? And it's so it's open a little bit. So if you did four feet solid and what uh vice chair is saying and then
the top two feet would be more of like a lattice look so that some light can get through and it leaves it a little bit open. So kind of >> we're trying to split the difference here >> because you can't you can't plan anything in front of it because it's a gate. So it's just trying to come up with some sort of compromise, right? So
if it's six feet having four feet solid and then the top two feet or whatever it is like an open so it does let more light in and it doesn't just look like you know solid white vinyl. >> Understood. >> So my only concern over here is because >> one foot. Yeah.
>> So like so it's only one foot but it would but it would look it would appear to be more open. >> Understood. So just food for thought over here >> in front of the uh something like this. I see that >> like that. Yes like that. We can definitely think about it.
>> Thank you. We are new to all this. >> Boom. That was quick. >> So, what the the bus stop is over there, right? So, that was the only concern. Again, uh I'm just putting my point over here. I'm not trying to argue. >> No. No. No. No. No. We're trying to find
We're trying to help you. We want We want to help you. >> Thank you. So, my only point was this is already six feet. We are not It's already there, right? And we can put five and what the picture was shown over there. We can look into that >> or the only consideration what I'm
requesting to the board over here is >> it's in front the bus stop is there right? So everybody gets down to my front door. >> So everybody gets down over there and we already had a breakin. So that's why I'm always a little bit concerned about it.
So I would rather prefer whatever it is right now. >> It would still be six feet. It would still be a sixft fence. It's just that >> Okay, I see what you're saying. So just have that one ft extra. >> Right. So at least it's >> right just a little bit so it doesn't look like a solid piece of white vinyl. >> Okay. >> Okay. So we're good on the front.
>> Yes. >> Better structure. >> Now let's go to the side. >> Thank you. >> One down, one to go. Um, so we are we're back to the same requirements on the sideyard because
it's essentially a front yard for you guys >> because you're a corner lot. Um, can we I'm just I'm just thinking out loud, but I know the neighbors fences are a little
further back. Can you set the fence maybe that same type of fence that we talked about the front so it matches? You're buying the same thing. Set it back a foot and put some bushes in front of that on that side so it looks prettier. >> Set it back.
>> Maybe a foot, a foot, two feet, whatever the number works out. and have a row of hedges there. And then with the with the opening on top, you still get your privacy and your security that you're worried about, but we're gonna now have it partially hidden by bushes, and you
only lose, you know, let's say 2 feet of your side yard. So, and it'll be more in line with the neighbor's fence, which is back a number of feet, I noted. So the problem I I like your idea but the only problem is behind that door right she
has already she has a big garden bed immediately and there is already a big plant over there so I will have to kill all of that to make it happen so if there is any other way we can figure out right >> can you put the fence behind it can you put the f keep the garden and put the
fence like have the garden and put the fence on the then you wouldn't see it >> but like to have the >> yeah it's a big it's it's a raised 3 ft raised garden bed. >> Okay. And additionally, it's aligning with our garage. >> Drag it on. Anybody
else have any thoughts or comments so we can wrap this up? >> Please, >> sorry. My opinion is I get it right. You're on a main road. You got traffic on the side. I like the idea of the feds that has the opening time. Do the same
thing all the way around. I'm good with that. >> And then you still have your privacy just at the top. It's >> right. So the fence we talked about for the front piece, it's effectively five feet with that foot of a decoration at the top. Same exact fence along the side
as well. It matches. Gives a little bit of that light of opening. >> Is that wood? >> No, >> the vinyl. >> Violet. Whatever you material, whatever you're using. Same. >> It should be really pretty. >> Yes, it is. It's just a little dollars you need to spend. >> I'm fine. >> You'll make it look better. >> Yeah, >> I'm fine with it.
>> Okay. >> Is it good? >> Okay. Do we have a motion? Thank you >> for designing it too. >> We don't want to design it. We just wanted to make it so it was like aesthetically pleasing but also you know according to >> Sure.
>> I just don't want a big white lot. >> Okay. >> Do we have to ask question? We're ready for a motion. >> I asked for a motion. >> Okay. I will make a motion to approve subject to attorney. Please help me. >> Okay. So the so with the condition that the fence
that is that is used to replace the current fence is no the solid piece is no higher than 5T and the upper portion is open whether lattice or >> the upper one foot >> the upper one foot
>> is 50% open >> six foot six foot maximum five feet solid one foot broken up by a lattice or similar pattern >> some design over there. >> Right. >> That's my motion. >> Okay. I second this.
>> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Uh, Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Block 3,800, lot 1831, Mount
Pleasant Parkway. Application number 2026-36-E 31 Mount Pleasant Parkway LLC. Applicant seeks approval for a new single family house in violation of the following section. 1709 C2 front yard setback 40
ft required 26.5 ft proposed 13.5 ft variance requested 1709 C3 aggregated sideyard 30% required 20.84 84 person proposed which is existing 9.16 person variance requested
1709 C3 right sideard setback 10 ft required 5.2 ft proposed which is existing 4.8 ft variance requested 170 99 C3 left side setback 10 ft required
5.22 22 feet proposed which is existing 4.78 ft variance requested 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 38.87 person proposed 8.87 person variance
requested >> hold one second your mic is not on all kinds of signals from the back >> try that again >> all right >> good evening Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board, John Barbarula appearing on behalf of the applicant tonight. What we have is I have the architect and the and our planner. What
you have before you is a reconstruction. It's a partial demolition and utilization of part of the subject premises which our architect will go into to explain how what parts we're keeping. And that's the as was uh explained in the opening by by your
board member that that makes some pre-existing uh prior conditions that uh we are maintaining. So at this point uh if Mr. Wel could uh swear in our architect, I'll have him state his name and I'll run him through his qualifications.
>> Okay. When we swear when swear you in, do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Please state and spell your name for the record. My name is Hike Eshian. Uh, first name Hike, last name Xian, E Kh I A N. I am a licensed ar. Can you
hear me? Okay. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. Um, I u I graduated from NGIT and with a bachelor's of architecture. My license is current. Uh I've appeared
in front of this board numerous times in the past. >> And uh you graduated from NJIP with what year? >> 2008. >> 2000. And you've been practicing in architecture since >> um I think as as a licensed architect.
I've been practicing architecture since I graduated as a licensed architect. I've been practicing for about uh third I got my license in 2012. So about 14 years. >> Not too bad. About 14 years. Even though
you look look so young. You're 14 years. Mr. Chairman, I submit him as a uh expert in architecture. >> I have ties that are older. Um yes, we can accept you as an expert in architecture. >> The fact that you have ties. >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Could you you uh you
developed these plans and you before you developed these plans, you you examined the subject property. Is that correct? >> Yes, I did. and you made a a determination that of uh maintaining certain portions of this property and modifications and modifications to it. Could you
please give the board the benefit of your uh design uh play uh pay particular attention to what is remaining? >> Right. >> And therefore that was one of the reasons why we have pre-existing variances. >> Right. Thank you. >> Um yes. Uh so the existing house is uh
an older home. uh dilapitated. Uh the foundation is in good condition. Um so we've decided to reconstruct the first floor, second floor of the home and and make a an addition towards the back of
the house. currently. Um here on our drawing on uh drawing one on A1, you can find the existing site plan with the existing home on the property. And as you can see, the existing house is well
over the um front yard setback, which is the requirement is 40 ft, and we currently have 21.75 ft. Uh we're making some improvements here by removing portion of the house and the front and
bringing the new home back uh to 26.5 ft from the front uh property line. So that's about uh 5 ft of improvement in the front yard. We have an existing garage towards the back in the backyard
with a driveway stretching all the way back there. Uh the existing garage size is about 11.75 ft wide, 16.51 ft deep, making it um not usable as a garage. It's not large
enough. And it's placed about uh 3.74 ft from the sideyard property line. So, it's also an eyes sore in the backyard that can be seen by the neighbors taking away um backyard space and
you know replacing it with driveway. So, our proposal is to take remove that garage that's not usable and bring it forward next to the house uh about 5.22 feet in the back and 5.81 ft in the
front. Also making it large enough for a car to be able to park in. We're bringing it uh to conform with the town ordinance of 12 by 20 ft space. Um so a a decent size car, a large size car will
be able to park inside the garage. Uh we're also keeping this garage one story so not to be intrusive towards the neighbor. Um, and the above the garage, we're just
taking a little bit of space for um, bedrooms, closets, which I'll get into on the next sheet. And the remainder, so this line represents where that bedroom ends, and the remainder of the space is um, crawl space. That's that could be
used. It's less than 5 foot ceiling height. Uh it could be used for um plumbing, duct work, or storage. Um and we're making an addition towards the back, but
we're not encroaching any further to the right than the existing building. Right now, we have uh 5 uh two feet uh sideyard setback on the right side and the house angles away from the right
property. So, as we um extend the house backwards, we're moving away from the side side property. And um in the back side, we have 6.37 ft of uh sideyard setback >> and that's those are pre-existing
conditions based upon the maintaining of the basement. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um and in terms of rear yard setback, we're not asking for any variances. Uh we're well within the rear yard setback requirements. Um
now >> go into the uh your first floor and the rest of the floor is going to explain this the size of this house versus >> So we're proposing a modest sized home. It's about 22 uh 2,200
um 80u uh 87 square feet. Um it is the existing property is undersized. Currently the requirement is 75x25 and we have uh 50 ft by 117.92
ft which is creating our uh the reason for our hard f hardship. But we're still um we're we're proposing a a modest size um
home uh still very close to the um FA F uh only over by 8.87 uh percent. Um >> and we're under the maximum law coverage. >> Uh yes, we are. We we did we made sure
to uh stay under the maximum lot coverage um which is which is 1,459 and we are right under it at 1,437 square ft.
>> Thank you. So, just to walk walk you through the uh floor plans. On the first floor, we walk into a decent sized vestibule with an office space to the right. And then the rest of the space towards the back is
open. Uh we have a a decent size dining room about 15 by 12. And the backyard is a open concept family family room kitchen. Uh that opens up to the backyard. Um, from the kitchen, we have
access to the onecar garage through a a mudroom uh slashpantry. And also on this floor off of the vestibule, we we placed a powder room. Um, we have the stair placed right off
of the garage. And on the second floor, we made a cut in this um roof to put place a window and bring in light into that stairwell. The stairwell takes you up to a, you know, a short decent size
hallway that gives you access to three bedrooms. Um, so this is the bedroom over the garage that I was referring to earlier, bedroom number three where we dashed in the lines where the 7 foot ceiling height and 5 foot ceiling
heights are shown. So this is well within the setback line and not intrusive um towards the uh neighbor on the side. Um on the right side we have two bedrooms and all all three bedrooms
share a hallway bathroom. Uh in the back we have the primary bedroom, primary suite with its own bathroom and a and a walk-in closet. Um there's no um the stairs do not extend to the attic. Uh we
will access the attic space with a pull down stairs. Um and it's going to be used for mechanical equipment and possibly storage. On in the basement level,
we come down to an open wreck room area. We have an office space, a bathroom, and a walk-in closet that could be used as a storage. As it's a small house, we we will need storage um for this home. And
we also placed the laundry space down in the basement as we didn't have any space on the second floor. We t where we typically uh place the laundry. Um, and the front of the house will have our mechanical room where all the utilities
come in and and it will be routed from there. Um, on this third page on A3, you can see the elevations uh of the home. We're proposing um hardy board siding, synthetic um
adhered stone on the f uh on the foundation level. um ASAC board and panel at the gables and um shaker style Hardy um at certain port parts of the
house. Um this is the left view of the um the four side elevations. the elevation that's showing the side of the garage and the cutout of the um roof where where we're placing a window uh to
light up that stairwell. And I think the rest can be better explained with the renderings which is on the last page. We did model the neighboring houses on the left and right. And as you can see, our proposal is in uh is fits just right in
uh it's not larger than the other two homes. We're staying um low towards the neighbor on the left side and we're not coming any closer to the neighbor on the right side. Um I think it it fits well
within the streetscape and um and it just fills in with the goes with the character of the neighborhood. Um if you have any questions, I'll be happy to. >> So we had significant improvements.
We're getting rid of a freestanding garage in the back which dominates the backyard and affects the the aesthetic view of the neighborhood. We also are increasing the front yard setback of the pre-existing home even though we're using part the even though we're using
the basement, we're able to pull back the existing home and give it a better uh distance in the in the front. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> I got to submit the architect for any questions at the board meeting. >> Um I have a I have a question here to comment. So, the area above the garage,
right? It's this weird kind of angled thing. >> Yes. >> What is that? Is that accessible? Is that attic space? >> So, up to a certain point like about here um where it turns into where the ra from the floor finished floor to the
bottom of the rafter is five feet is the bedroom and the primary walk-in closet up to here. And that the remainder of the space is goes from zero to about five feet. And that just uh unfinished attic space.
>> Is it where is it accessible from? >> Uh it would be accessible with that access door from uh from the um walk-in closet and and the bedroom. >> Okay. So you would agree to stipulate that there remains uninhabitable attic space. >> Absolutely >> correct.
>> Okay. And second of the comment, you know, I appreciate you have a massively undersized lot and you're uh attempting to build a home that isn't trying to knock up to the edge of the square footage. So, I appreciate trying to
build a modern home that you think goes for modern needs without trying to use every possible square footage in what is a very small lot. So, I appreciate that. Mhm. >> I would just like to reiterate that because it's a be it it is um you did a superb job um accommodating the house on
the lot. Um and I think it really fits in beautifully with the neighborhood. So, thank you very much for presenting such a thoughtful design. >> Thank you. >> At I have an attic related question. So, the second floor uh stairs the access to
attic is that through a walk up stairs or a pull down stairs? It'll be accessible through a pool downstairs that's in the hallway. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Anybody else? Okay. I'll add well done
design. I think you fit you fitted in very well. Um, does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Back to you, counselor. >> Thank you. At this time, I have some planner. I don't know if you notice, man. I'm going to call our planner
>> if you could face Mr. Wel and sworn in. >> Do you swear for Intel truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Graviano approximately maybe an hour ago was uh qualified in the field of professional planning and remains. So, chairman, >> we can accept him as expert in
professional planning. >> Thank you, Chair. I I'll keep this brief. It seems like the board's pretty satisfied with this application. It's a uh request for relief at block 3800, lot 18, 31 Mount Pleasant Parkway. Uh the applicant is requesting relief for the
front yard setback. 40 ft is required whereas 26.5 is proposed. That's an increase from the 21.75 ft that exists today. Uh the applicant's requesting relief for the aggregate sideyard setback. 30% is required. 20.84%
is proposed. Uh the applicant is requesting relief for the extension of the right side setback. 5.2 2 um is existing and proposed. Uh the applicants also requesting relief for the left side setback to accommodate the attached
garage whereas 5.22 ft is proposed. And lastly, uh the applicants requesting relief for the habitable floor area ratio. Uh 30% is permitted whereas 38.87 or is being requested before the board this evening. Um, as stated previously,
this is an undersized lot, 5,883 square ft where 9,375 ft is required. The applicant is proposing a modest dwelling of 2,287 square ft. Um, you heard the benefits of the application, the increased uh front
yard setback as well as the removal of the rear yard detached garage to create a rear yard space in excess of 40 ft. Uh given all those factors combined when looking at the D4 F variance um this relief certainly could be granted
without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance uh promoting purposes of zoning AG and I. Um in terms of the C variances uh they could be granted with a mixture of C1 and C2. C1 this is an existing condition
affecting a specific piece of property. uh in terms of the C2 could be granted uh that it relates to a specific piece of property advancing purposes of zoning AG and II without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. >> I submit the planner testimony to the
board. >> Does anybody have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public want to make a statement? Does any anyone on board have any final
questions regarding this application? >> You want to make a closing statement? >> Appreciate your time and efforts in this matter. Uh this very clean application you say see this is really fits with these when you see that picture and the rendering and you see the house on the
left and the right you would say that this is absolutely perfectly fitting here. the the fact of the the particular size of the property being so undersized. By by maintaining the foundation and by removing the front, you make a better front yard variance
and you make an extremely much much better rear yard aesthetics by getting rid of the single structure of the garage. So, I think that you have more than sufficient reasons to grant the FAR variance and that all the other exa uh
variances are pre-existing and I'd ask for your approval. Thank you so much for your attention. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve subject to the condition of the uh attic space remaining uninhabitable. >> So, stipulated.
>> Any seconds? >> I'll second. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenyan, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Pier,
>> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of board. Have a wonderful 4th of July and happy 250th birthday to the America. >> You got it. >> Good night. >> Have a good night. Feel well. Block 60001 lot 629 Tower application number
2026-26-V Tao Zang applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following section 17097 C2 front yard setback 6 ft required 40 ft proposed 20 ft variance
requested 17097 C3 right side yard setback 15t required ired 13.25 uh ft proposed 1.75 ft variance requested 17097 C4 rare yard setback 50
ft required 17.25 ft proposed that's existing 32.75 ft variance requested 170-87 cc2 habitable floor area ratio 18% allowed 32.6 person proposed 14.16
person variance requested Okay, welcome. >> Good evening. >> Okay. Uh, you are the architect. >> I'm the architect and uh my uh applicant actually authorized me to represent him tonight. He's not feeling well to talk
tonight. So, I'll be the only one testify and um present tonight. >> Okay. Let's swear you in. Do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And can you please state and spell your name? Sure. Um, my name is Chong
Wu, first name Q I O N G, last name Wu Wu. >> Okay. And we qualified you in the field of architecture, I think, at the last meeting or the meeting before, correct? >> Yes. I've been to the uh I've been testifying in front of this of this board a few times in the past,
>> right? And um your license to practice architecture and state New Jersey is current and up to date, correct? >> Yeah, license is current and with good standing. Does anybody on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in architecture. All yours.
>> Thank you. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> 14300. Okay. Good evening, uh, chairman and board members. Um, so tonight I'm pleased to present, um, our proposal for a new, um, single family home at Night
Tower Road. Um, the property is in a 10,890 square ft lot in R2 zone. Our plan is to replace an aging outdated structure with a beautiful um highly functional 3,548
square ft modern home. So tonight we are going to seek uh seek four variances. Three of them they are setback variances. One is uh habitable uh floor area ratio. So let me try get to the
zoning table. So the three setback variances we are going to request includes the towers road um front setback. The ordinance requires 60 ft
setback and we are proposing 40 ft um which is a 20t uh variance. Um and based on the data the surveyor um our surveyor measure on adjacent parcels the front
setback for the house uh number seven which is adjacent to us on the right side of us and also uh that's around 35 ft um of the front setback and the house 11
um is around 40t and the average setback along tower road is around 40 ft. So we think um our proposed 40 ft front set back uh perfect blends in the neighborhood for that variance. And the second
variance we're going to seek is the right side um right side setback. We request a side setback where from the property line to um a proposed stack. The ordinance
requires a 15t setback and we are proposing a 13.2 uh 25 ft which is a minor variance of 1.75 ft um which is the right side you can see here
to the deck the corner of the deck the the lot actually uh taper in the back. Um and then the third setback variance we are going to seek is the rear yard setback. We request a rear
yard setback of um 17.25 ft on the first floor only. Um and which is already an improvement of the existing condition 14.5 rear yard setback of the existing house. How however compared to the audience
um require 50 ft setback we will have a 32.75 ft. Uh but again um our building is the L shape. So um even that 13.25 is the narrow side and the the uh the
property light of the rear yard actually also angled in the back. So moving to the last variance we are seeking which is the um the floor area ratio. So uh the audience the ordinance limits
the floor area ratio to the floor area to 4,870 square ft which is an 18% F. We are proposing the area to be 3,548
feet square feet which is um equivalent to um a 32.6% uh floor area ratio. Um in that case we are we can still fulfill the 4,870
square ft um floor area limit required by the code but zoning and um but just with um 14.6% variance for the floor area ratio. Um so I would like to explain a little bit
about the floor area ratio that we the reason we request for that. Uh one thing is um our house is located in R2 zone and the R2 zone actually has a lot size hardship. The existing lot size we have
is 10,890 square ft. It's a lot smaller than an R2 zone required um 25,000 square feet loss size which created an hardship on um floor area ratio. So if
we strictly follow the required uh floor area ratio, we can only build a very small house which cannot accommodate the modern family needs. And uh we also think um by building this u modern family home, a larger house with
reasonable height and setback um would would not uh provide functional would not only provide functional um interior space but also have um a possible positive impact to the
neighborhood and the community. Um, and in fact, our proposed house is 3,548 ft, which is already 1,322 square ft less than 4,870
square ft required by R2 zone. And we um when we walk by the neighborhood, we see some newly built houses. um they're larger and comparable size to our proposed house which um there are few on Tower
Road. The closest one is the 14 Tower Road um the just right across the street from us. So um we we don't think our proposed house will be awkward on this road and in this neighborhood. Um and
also by uh we try to mitigate uh the massing impact to the neighborhood as well. So instead of creating a house that's uh rectangular or um square, we try to make that an L shape. And also with the second level actually um step
back so smaller second level. So in terms of messing, we don't think there will be um an active impact to the neighborhood. So, um, in conclusion, we we are not proposing an oversized
mansion, but, uh, we propose a standard modern family room home that's entirely consistent with the market and the surrounding neighborhood. And, um, the proposed design provides a beautiful um, compliant architecture form without
causing any substantial um, impact to the zoning plan. So, which I can walk you through the floor plans in a minute. So,
for the basement of this new proposed house, uh we have one bedroom, one bathroom, um playroom, and also that's the outdoor deck in the back. and the first level. >> I don't think we necessarily have to go through every room.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, we get the general idea. >> Okay. >> Because we really can't even comment on what rooms you put in there. Okay. >> So, six bedrooms or 23 bedrooms, that's your call. Um um if there's other global stuff you want to talk about, please.
>> That's the the major um Okay. >> arguments. So, yeah. I'm >> Does anyone on the board have any questions? >> No, I have comments. >> All right. All comments. Go ahead. It's gone. So the Tower Road is really like an anomaly in Livingston because even
though it's an R2, the lot size of all those houses really um it's a little bit larger than your R4, >> right? So when we and we this is not the first time we've seen applications from Tower Road and we have the same conversation every single time. Um and
it's hard for us to look at this and think that it's an R2 and we should be looking at it at a 400 4,800 foot home. Wow. >> Um, so the home that you've actually presented to us um really even exceeds the um square footage for um an R3,
>> right? So it's it's basic it's it's a pretty large home. >> Um and I'm not quite sure that it um it's appropriate for that size lot. And we've had this conversation many many times. >> Um so I I'm just curious as to why. I
guess it is sort of a little bit of a question. Um, I'm curious as to why you I mean I I I understand why you did it, but to me looking at this home um on a 10,000 a little bit more than a 10,000 square foot lot and a house that's more than 3500 square feet um it does not seem to
fit, you know, properly on the lot. >> Yeah, I just fully agree with my colleague and I'd add on to it. Right. You are pushing 20 feet towards the front, right? Still going further to the back. So from a land perspective, right,
you're you're pushing both extremes on uh as my colleague said, right, a lot that is much much closer to an R4 than an R2. I just feel it's too much house for the size of the lot that it is.
>> You mean this the front setback that's >> I mean if you look at the right the front setback, right, the the required is 60 and you're going 40, right? So you're going 20 feet up. >> You're asking for another 1.75 I think in the back. So you're pushing
the envelope both front and back. And >> again from a square footage perspective, you're going bigger than an R three, yet your lot is closer to an R4. Right? So I just think what is being proposed from a
coverage of the lot and from a square footage in my view as large as I would be comfortable for the size lot that you have in that zone. >> I'd uh concur with both my colleagues. Um I mean yes you you you moved the
house off the back you know property line like foot and a half two feet whatever but I mean there's that house was set too far back to begin with. Uh, I mean, all the other houses are are up further. You did push the house up, but then left it all the way back, which
which just doesn't make any sense. Um, the, you know, that that rear yard setback definitely is is a problem between the the house and the deck. Even though I know the house is one story, it's still, you know, just being 17 feet off the property line is is um, you
know, for a new construction house, it's just it's it's too big. Um if I can add one comment of the the R2 R4 um is one thing is we noticed this is um the R2 actually requires the the
lot a lot larger and then um the house will be a lot smaller but then um we noticed kind of that's a like the trend of the neighborhood and if we compare our like uh data with R4 um if the last
size is I think R4 usually the the area limit is 3,220 square ft. So um like I'm just trying to think if it's possible to compare this lot since the lot size is similar to R4.
If we compare the um the floor area ratio which for R4 is like 30% as uh the limits if we see this condition that way um maybe we only have
like >> I I will tell you I mean we we look at each application in a vacuum we don't look at we don't compare application to application but I will tell you that this is one of the largest homes that we've seen in on Tower Road. Mhm. >> It's large. It is It is one of the
larger ones on the same size lot. >> The the one actually the um 14 house 14 is actually quite large across the street. Um >> I don't >> That's 3,300 square feet across the
street is 3,300. >> 3,300. Okay. >> Same thing. 10,454. And to your point anyway, if you were going to look at it that way, you'd be talking 30% of of 10,000 anyway, and it's that's 3,000 square feet. So, um,
you know, if you're going to look at the the ratio for your size lot, you know, of an R4, you know, wouldn't be 30% of 25, it would be 30% of 10,8, you know, 890. Um,
I mean the big issue too is we're just not correcting any of the problems that exist with the current house. We're just leaving basically the same setback problems and exacerbating it by putting it a bigger house.
I I I have to agree with my colleagues. Um that the lot size is 43% of what's allowed, but we're we're shooting for 73% of the habitable floor area. I think that's where it's starting to get into trouble that there's such a great
difference between the ratios and that's what makes us I think start to look at the lot getting crowded. >> So you've heard from a lot of board members. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think um I'll need to discuss
with the clan because that's clan that's clan's need. So we trying to >> So we should adjourn. You want to come back? >> Yeah. >> Okay. We have Jackie, we almost made it through without in German. >> When would be the next time they can come back? >> That Mr. Chairman, that date will be
Tuesday, August 25th. >> You said August 25th. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just So that'll be August 21st. 5th. You don't need to renotice. >> Okay. >> It's just a continuation. >> Okay. >> Um, thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Agreed. >> There you go. Congrat. What was it? August.