Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is March 24th, 2026. If you're an applicant for a DOU variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons for the
grant of that variance exists and the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you'll require a firm vote of five members of the seven member board of adjustment. Other variances require a majority of four
members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have a right to appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're an
objector to any type of variance 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 that you please provide a copy of your complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollers.
Pursuant to the requirements of the open public meeting act, also known as the sunshine law, adequate notice of this meeting has was provided to the star ledger and west tribune and a copy was also posted on the bull board of the municipal building. In addition to having notice posted, notice of this
meeting was placed on the township's website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you would 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 decision based on the township rules, state guidelines, as well as rulings issued by the New Jersey courts. We are very happy when the public comes forward and ask questions and or make statements. In fact, this board always encourages it. However, as a board, we
are not going to discuss how we reach our conclusions and how or why we voted for or against an application further than what is required by law. Additionally, over the past few months or so, members of this board have received emails from the public to both our work and home emails, and one member
received a phone call at their home. We are volunteers, and these actions are inappropriate, improper, and intrusion into our personal lives. Going forward, they report it to the proper authorities as harassment. Thank you for your understanding. We now call the role. Mr. Kenya.
>> Okay, Mr. Kenya is here. Mr. Sha, >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Yon >> here. >> Mr. Tombati >> here. >> Okay. Mr. Beer >> here. >> Okay. We have quorum. >> Councelor.
>> Okay. Uh before we begin hearing matters, I want to inform the public of a couple of items. Number one, as you can see, there are six members of the board present tonight. Uh there are a few applications tonight which are for
habitable floor area ratio that is a Dvariance. Because it is a Dvariance uh those applications in order to be successful need to secure five affirmative votes of the board. Normally
when the board sits in its full capacity of seven members, uh that means the applicant would need to get five of seven. Because we have six tonight, the applicant would still need to obtain five, but that would be five of six. Uh
some applicants uh may decide to proceed forward or to uh to hold over to another meeting. that is the applicant's uh uh sole decision. The board is ready
to hear those matters. Uh let me also make a statement. Due to a recent change in the law regarding notices, uh applicants up until very recently
were required to do a 200 foot um certified mail notice. uh that remains a requirement. In order for this board to have jurisdiction, the applicant must provide proof that they have uh provided
at least 10 days in advance of the hearing uh individual notices to those uh owners in within the 200 foot zone of the property affected. The other requirement was a publication in a
locally circulated newspaper once again 10 days in advance. The law recently changed as of March 1 that uh there is a new methodology to utilize which is the
township's dedicated public notice page. Because of the ch the very recent change in the law, uh applicants made uh notices in the paper which at the time of the application made by these
individuals that was the appropriate methodology and provides this board with jurisdiction uh in speaking with uh township officials. The public notice section is going to be made available for future applications uh for those uh
new applications coming up in April and forward. So the board should be aware that that's where those notices are now going to occur. The applicant still has the option, should they wish to to publish in the
newspaper. That's their own choice uh if they wish to do it. but they're no longer required to do that. Uh so just so you know when you look at your files when you see if there's no newspaper notice uh the reason is because now
we've moved to the post newspaper world. But as far as the applications who are are here tonight, the board does have jurisdiction. Notice has been um uh substantiated for each of these applications. You uh would you'd like to call the
first applicant, please? >> Okay. Block 4803, lot 1940 Barnett Street. Applicant number 2025-110-V, Felix Flores and Rachel Mandi. Applicant seeks approval for addition in violation
of the following section 170-9 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 18.63 63 proposed that's existing 21.37 ft variance requested 170-87 L1D
front SL site corner yard setback 20 ft required 14.61 proposed which is existing 5.39 variance requested 170-87E1E accessory garage sideyard setback 5T
required 2.2 2 uh 2.31 ft proposed. That's existing. 2.69 ft variance requested. >> Welcome. >> Okay. >> You need to push the little button so we can record you as you There you go. >> There you go.
>> All right. So, uh I'm going to make a wild guess here that you're uh Rachel Mundy. >> No, I am actually their architect. >> Okay. Well, there you go. See, that's that's why I said it was a wild guess. >> He's a lousy guest architect. Lousy guessing have a bow tie on. They couldn't figure out.
>> Right. Right. Okay. So, um the uh applicant is is here. Are you >> No, they're not here. They're traveling. They they were here last month. Uh and I we submitted a letter giving me authority to represent them tonight.
>> Okay. Very good. All right. Uh why don't we get you sworn in and we can proceed. Uh you swear from tell truth for the zoning board tonight. Yes, I do. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> Anna A N A Sanchez. S A N C H E Z. >> Okay. Miss Sanchez, you just indicated that you're an architect for the qualification for the benefit of the board. Can you just briefly give us your qualification as an architect?
>> Uh I have been a registered architect for the last 30 years. I am also a historic preservationist. I work mostly on residential projects and I have a practice in Hoboken, New Jersey. I have
um testified in front of zoning boards in the past. >> Okay. And you uh where did you receive your uh degrees? >> Uh New Jersey Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania. >> Okay. And uh your license to practice in
the field of architecture in the state of New Jersey is current and valid. Correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay, chair. Uh does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. >> Thank you.
>> All yours. >> Should I show the drawings or should I >> Yes, sure. You can. And that mic is always on, so you don't have to worry about that. >> Just got to pull closer to you so we can get you. >> All right,
>> go ahead. >> Okay. >> Man behind the curtain is working on it. I'm sorry. How I clicked >> Okay. >> All right. So, my name is Anna Sanchez, as I stated, and I'm here to represent Rachel
Mundy and Felix Flores, uh, for the proposed expansion of their house at 40 Bernett Street. I met Rachel and Felix when their home became a little too small. They have two they have two small children, Sam that's five, and a budding
architect, and Esther that will soon be two. Um, to my best guess, 40 Bernett Street is a 1930s bungalow style house set in the corner lot. The existing building is a two-bedroom
house. Its construction predates the Livingston zoning ordinance by approximately 60 years. And this is what brings me here. Um, as we knew that we needed more room, we actually decided to raise the roof on on the existing house
and we came across existing non-complying um conditions, which is what we're requesting C variances for the expansion of these non-complying conditions. The first is the front yard setback,
which would be somewhere around here. the front yard setback which exists at 18.63 feet versus the 40 that are required. The second is the side um sideyard setback existing at 14.61
ft versus 20 ft. And finally the sideyard setback for the garage which is at 2.31 ft and we need five. Um, as I said, the proposed project is to increase the usable footprint of the
second floor by raising the roof. Uh, not completely. The main ridge of the building will remain uh throughout the project, but we will introduce two shed roofs um that will allow for the square
footage on the second floor. These are the existing plans. the first seller. Actually, you could see a little bit. This is a cellar, which stays the same. The first floor that had three rooms and
a large deck. And then you could see how tiny the second floor is. I suspect that originally only had one bedroom and the second one was carved out. These are the proposed plans for the
house. Here we go. The main floor is going to remain largely intact. Um, basically what we're adding is at the rear at the rear you
can see that we're adding a screened in porch that will give them access to the backyard and replace the existing deck. Uh the other change are the front stairs feel like a later addition that are masonry and they're seriously
deteriorated. We're going to remove them and introduce uh a staircase and a small porch at at the entry. Um most of the work that's going to happen actually happens at on the second floor. Uh I the
drawings seem far away. I don't know how much you can see it, but the second floor in the front, we're creating one shed roof that's going to create the two small bedrooms for the children. Each of them is about 10 by 10. Uh in the back,
we we have a second shed roof uh along with a bay window that ties into um to the porch below and so forth. We also have the opportunity to add a bathroom. So, at the end, the house will have three bedrooms, um, two full baths in on
the floor on the second floor and a powder room on the first floor. Um, if I go to the elevation drawings, you could sort of see the changes on the top. You could see the front facade where it has a steep roof that
comes down. This is basically the area that we're introducing. We're raising the wall at the same plane as the existing living room uh in order to create the bedrooms. On the side, you could see the profile of the two of the
two shed roofs and a little bit of the bay. But again, it was important that the main ridge to the house remains the same. In the rear, you again, you can see that there was an existing dormer that is going to be
replaced with a second shed roof in order to pick up the the floor area uh and a bay window to have add some space. It comes down and it ties into the eaves of the screened in porch and you could
sort of see that from the side profile. So, we're maintaining the the gable, the existing gable of the house, removing the dormers, and raising the roof in order to get the square footage that that we need. Um, the lot
coverage that we're increasing is really minimal. It's 230 square ft. Uh, but the increase in habitable space on the second floor is actually 500 square feet. So, I'd like to end saying that Rachel
and Felix really love this quirky old house, and it was nice to meet them because the first floor really worked for them uh in how they lived. They really just needed space on on the second floor. It was important to them as we went through this that we didn't
lose perspective or scale for the house. uh so that the top floor in the new bedrooms would be would sort of fit in with what was happening downstairs. Uh and I I actually feel that that we did we we're still the habitable habitable
uh square foot ratio is is.3 which is what uh Livingston allows uh and it was increased from point uh 23. Um, one of the benefits as we request for these three variances for the project is that this will allow them to
stay in their house and stay in their long term as their kids grow. Uh, we really believe that home ownership and and long-term residency are an asset to all neighborhoods in this neighborhood in particular. Uh, also by allowing the
house to be three bedrooms, we suspect it'll give it a longer life because three bedrooms is more in keeping with the trends that we see in Livingston and and with basically how contemporary families live. So, I I thank you for
your consideration. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness, >> please? >> Yeah. Uh I have a um kind of clarification I need for uh in your application uh for side street
corner lot setback uh the code section you're referring to is 170 87 L1D. >> Yes. >> Uh if it if the required is 20 ft and I think I looked at the R4 requirements. I
think the code section should be uh 17087 L2D. >> Let me see. I I'm not going to question that. >> We can always uh we can always correct that if if the board were to look
favorably on it. I'll double check that the that the reference is correct. But most importantly that uh the applicant did identify Yeah. the nature of the variance. >> Yeah. >> Well, we'll we'll we'll double check
that. Should the board look favorably on it? Okay. >> Put the right reference. >> Right. >> I'm sure Miss Sanchez would agree with me on that. >> Yes, I >> I knew she would say that. >> I have a quick question on your second floor plan. In the middle says attic
steps. So I assume that's a pull down ladder on the left. >> Yes, that is a pull down ladder for the little bit of area that's left in the ridge. >> Right. So it's not it's not livable, usable, or anything. >> No, they won't be able to stand up.
>> Okay. Only very short people. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody else 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 a statement regarding this application?
>> Would you like to make any closing statements? >> Um, no. Other than I I I I hope that we've been respectful of really what is a lovely old house and and of the neighborhood. >> So, >> um, would anybody like I'll make a quick
statement actually. I think you did a lovely job to make it all fit in and, uh, to improve this property. So, I thought it was a nice design. I'll I'll second that. >> Wait, is that a motion? >> No. I got excited. >> Secondly, >> does anyone would anyone like to make a
motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay, Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Rati, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. Block 601 lot 1014 Blackstone Drive application number 2025-117-V Sajiman Anthony applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence violation of the following
section 17087 BB2 habitable floor area 4870 allowed 5129 proposed 259 ft variance requested 170 87 -87ccc2
habitable floor area ratio 18% allowed 22.21 person proposed 4.21 21 person variance requested. >> Welcome aboard. >> Good. >> Go ahead and uh identify who you are. >> Yeah. Okay. Good evening. My name is
Sajimon Anthony. I'm the owner and applicant. I'm today I'm with my architect Ulis and then Mr. William Scott is engineer and uh you know I'm a resident for the township for for almost two decades and uh uh we are requesting
this variance basically you know we have two hardships C1 and C2 under lo under under size load and no significant detriment for the property and uh the reason is uh basically speaking uh even though it is an R2 minimum should be 25,000 the current one is property size
is 239 92 uh especially the front edge is 125 uh 113 instead of 125 and the length instead of 200 it is 188.5 uh because of that you know the size is uh slightly we are requesting for two
slight variances uh one is a uh habitable floor area uh instead of 4 4870 we request 5129 actually that 5129 is coming from the attic space basically uh last recently I
think there is a township there is some changes there in the attic floor area anything above 6.5 ft has to be counted on the square footage or Olympic space or something like that uh if not that not considered it is under 4870 uh that's the reason we are here for
that >> okay and you have a couple of experts here tonight so who are we going to who are we going to start off with >> uh so you will >> okay you can you can sit down. Sorry. It's okay. >> Yeah.
>> I'll need your help, I think. >> Okay. So, why don't we >> I'm sorry. >> Why don't we swear you in? >> Okay. >> Do you swear affirm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Uh, my name is Yuval Wellish. That's Yu
Vl. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey for the past 25 years. I've appeared Once you get closer to the mic. Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, that's good. >> Oh, you can hear me now. >> Perfect. Go ahead. Okay. You're a
licensed architect in New Jersey. The license is valid and in good condition for the past 25 years. >> Um, >> and you've uh you've testified before >> many times before. I recognize >> many many many times. >> Right. I always tell the architects no
ties. Okay. Chair. >> Um, can we just confirm uh your schooling just for the record? I'm sorry. >> Your schooling, just for the record. >> Oh, uh, the Israeli Institute of Technology. >> Beautiful. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions? I'm sorry. Um, does anyone the board have any questions or
objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness accepted as an expert in architecture. >> All right. Well, the the plans are going to be coming up behind you in a second. And why don't you go ahead and you can start explaining the project.
>> Okay. Good. Okay. I'll try to describe the house. It's a brand new house on Blackstone Street. It's going to be a modern colonial of about 5129 square ft. It will have six bedrooms, one in the
basement, one on the first floor, and all the rest on the second floor. Um, maybe we should go to the >> A1. >> I can just drag it. >> Oh, okay.
>> Okay. So the the front of the house is going to be consisting from of a stuckco, some vertical siding and metal roofs. >> You got to have you got to stay. >> I know I have to stand over here. >> Take the mic with you. >> Oh, that's good. >> That's good.
It's not coming out. >> I'm trying to slide it. Oh, there it is. Wonders of technology. Sorry about that. So, the house is going to be made out of um stucco that you can
see over here. Uh vertical siding over here, some horizontal siding in the rest of it. There's going to be a front porch with a standing seam metal roof. Not sure what the color will be, but there's going to be some kind of a decision on that. The shingle is going to be black
and hopefully as dimensional as possible. Um, like I said before, the house is about 5129 square ft and it's going to be with six bedrooms. One in the basement, one on the first floor, which
will be the guest suite, and all other four on the second floor. Um, we don't have any other problems, not with the height, not with the setbacks, but we have the issue with the uh extra square feet. Mainly
because now I'll drag it to there. The extra square feet that we now have in the garage. Okay, if you look at the garage, this is pretty much the extra 319 square ft that I understand the township had passed a
law maybe about a year ago or so. And if it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't be here. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> Please.
>> Okay. So, um, >> Tom, you have mic >> open space. >> Whoops. Sorry. Um, as far as the extra square footage, like yes, besides the garage, obviously the other part is the um the uh unfinished uh storage area on
off the second floor. >> That that is over the garage. >> Right. Over the garage. Um which is also accessed by a doorway in the hallway. It it appears >> yes you have to have a door by code but if it's not finished even though it's
not finished the township still considers it as square footage. >> Okay. Um and obviously without that area altogether you would actually be at the >> I would be a little bit below right at the
>> I would be about 4830 something like that. I mean I could the only thing oh I guess questions but I I'll save statements for if you want. Um I mean my my my one concern is this area um
altogether um that it even exists. Um >> it's a very shallow area. It's like kind of low. Once you put the ceiling joist over there it's going to be about seven maybe seven and 1/2 ft high. Ex >> okay. >> It's still usable.
storage over there, but >> it's really not a full size. >> Just, you know, the fact the fact that it's accessible by a door in the hallway that it could be finished at some point, even if you know I
>> it's a concern. Um, if it wasn't here, >> let me let me explain. Uh, you have to have by code access to the garage and you can't go from the gar, excuse me, the area over the garage and you're not allowed to put a scuttle in the garage itself
for safety reasons. So, you have to go from the second floor. There's no other way. Let me let me ask uh you know I I you know I went I drove past an architecture school once so you got to take my question uh for for what it's worth. Um
but so the the as we look at the plan that's behind you the gray >> the gray area >> T area >> is the excess square footage of the township considers as living space now.
>> Right. So that's the area that Mr. Sherman is asking you about and that's the area which is accessible from a doorway on the second floor. Correct. >> The whole thing is open. There's no walls over there. >> Oh, there's no walls there.
>> There's no walls. >> There are no walls. >> Mean that they can't get a permit to put walls there in the >> Right. They they Yeah, you can't putting demising walls once the building is built. You probably wouldn't need them. If you would put walls over there, you would have to have an opening for each
and every attic which will be created >> by code. >> So, so as it is right now, >> what is the purpose of that space? >> There is no purpose. We need a roof over the garage and that creates
automatically an attic. And what if you have mice over there? What if you have anything over there? You have to have a door to maintain it. Why does it have to be so tall? >> Well, yeah, >> it's not tall at all, >> right? So, so I guess my >> it's a normal roof,
>> right? So, I my my thought process here is that there are garages that have a set of pull down attic stairs. >> No, they don't. >> Okay. >> It's a fire violation if you do it.
>> All right. So, wait. I mean, use >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You got to wait for the question. Okay. All right. This is This is how this works. It's like It's like ping pong. It's like Marty Supreme. Okay. So, here's here's what we're going to do. >> Let me let me I I got to walk I got to walk through this because I think this
is this Mr. Sherman's question I think needs to be cl needs to be clarified here. >> Okay. >> When you I understand you're saying that that area sits above the garage, correct? >> It's an attic. Well, no, no, no. Let's not call it an attic. Let's just call it
area. Let's not let's not use termin let's let's just say there's space. >> Okay. >> And that space is created because of the roof line. >> Right.
>> Right. So, if the roof line were lower, the space wouldn't exist. >> The space would exist, but it would be smaller. But now we're going into aesthetics. How does it look from the street and so on? It's the front of the house.
>> So, but I'm talking from a zoning perspective. >> I understand. because there's a variance requested >> and the variance is requested because if the applicant is saying because it
looks better I need the C and D variance that is an interesting application to make. That's what I'm saying. I I understand what you're saying, >> but >> arguably if it's not we're we're we're
saying it's it's not livable space. It's being created by the nature of the roof line. Well, you know, that that all that requires is uh in the old days you used to use a protractor, you know, uh and
and that roof line goes down and then the the space >> you can bring it down. Obviously, you can bring it down, but when you bring it down, the house really will not look good. That's all. And also, >> but it's a brand new house. >> I'm sorry. >> It's a brand new house. >> It's a brand new house, >> right?
>> I'm not saying it can't be done. All I'm saying is it's not going to look so good. >> Okay. >> I mean, even >> No, I I I I get you. I'm just saying I'm just trying to understand where the the process of thought is here. I
understand. And so, okay. All right. >> When the township passed that law, they asked me at the time, please show the area which is higher than 6'5. That was the the thing. So, you can actually bring everything to six that
the highest point is 6'5. Then you would have no problem at all. But then the pitch is going to be kind of not so nice. That's all. Of course, it can be done. Okay. What's that? >> Yeah, it would. If I go to the
elevation, I'll show you how I think it would look. So, it would be like here like that. See this is this is the uh the maximum height allowed. So, this one this point
now goes all the way to here. So the pitch is going to be hopefully not be not below four because four is the maximum allowed for shingle roof. Four over 12 I mean the ratio. So
technically you're right. If you bring it down no problem. Does it look good? So, so >> no matter how you look at it, >> I I have a quick question. Uh can you walk me through on the plans uh the
second floor plan? >> Yeah. >> Uh the door access to the attic as you say, that's that's the one on the top left. >> Yeah. I'll get to there in a minute.
The door is over here and it's requested by code. It's not like that the homeowner asked me for that. A >> and the area which is hashed, that's the low ceiling.
>> That's everything which is 6'5 at least. I think it's it's the quoteunquote livable area. >> The the gray area is asking >> that's that's what I said. The gray area is >> 6.5. I mean the roof is like this
basically. >> No door. You have to sneak down. >> You have to We're going to we're going to need to swear you in. Do you swear for him? Tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, you're cool. Just got to swear you in. >> Do you swear to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? Yes. >> I knew you'd say that. Go ahead. Say
what? >> You can continue saying what you were saying before. >> Oh, >> yeah. You're good to go. We just wanted because you're making you're making statements now. We wanted to have you on the record. >> When you enter the room, that roof is just like this, >> you know, kind of kind of an angle
triangle and only 6.5 is only in the middle portion. So, it's starting from maybe I don't know four, five or five and a half. Well, it goes with the slope >> like that and then it's going up 6.5 then it is coming down like that. So only that area we are discussing I mean
exceeding that is the center portion basically. >> Yeah I I don't I don't seem I don't uh I'm not in align with with that with that statement because if you look at the
u sheet A6 >> I'm sorry which one? If you go to sheet sheet A6 >> A6 is >> the last uh for the roof. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So from this >> I think I know what you're asking.
>> Yeah. >> You're asking how do you pass through the door? Correct. >> I'm sorry. >> You ask how do you pass through the door? Is there enough headroom? >> No, no, no. That's not my question. But uh you know as as gentleman pointed out that if you walk in there is a
>> No, no. Let me explain. I'll explain. No, it's not. >> Because you have a cricket over here to prevent water and snow to from accumulating over there. You have a little piece of roof that comes down, but it leaves you enough headroom to go through. You're not going to like hit your head
to the left there. It's going to be low, but not that low. And if you look at A6, you can see that. >> Yeah. I I think to follow up on what my colleagues have noted a little bit um
driving up and down the street and looking at what's out there. This is a really big house. Um and it's all about massing and you know so this just adds to the mass. I think that I think that's probably where some of us are getting
hung up on that there's just there's a you know it's a beautiful house beautiful design not saying you against it but it's this there this is a lot of house here and that's why you know yes that's included that threw you over on area but you you know ratios at 22 if
you were at the full 25,000 ratio would still be over 20 so I mean which when we have both ratio and area over that starts to throw the red flag up a little bit and you know what what's happening here which is I think why everyone's a
little digging in a little bit um because that kind of >> starts to say maybe you know in R1 this would have been fine but this is R2 and we're starting to really maybe >> like I said we can lower the roof there's no problem to do that physically >> um
>> but it's I think it's the homeowner who was >> right if anybody else wants to chime in with any thoughts Yes, I want to make a statement. Um, I agree with my colleagues and I also want to see how I see this case. Um this lot is smaller
than the standard R2 lot and it's um my understanding is the project is expanding or you know turning the existing 2,000 square foot house into a bigger one and the lot is smaller but you're looking for um you know more than
what the maximum allowable habitable floor area uh 4870. So, I just do not see the reason why, you know, um the limits are being pushed here. >> So, that's my state. >> I understand the question and two things. I think the homeowner maybe
wants to answer that, but if we get rid so to speak of that area over the garage, we're going to be okay with the zoning with the with the square footage. Not completely with the zoning, but with
the square footage. Yes. Simon, you want to answer that? >> I don't think I can design or like we discuss design. >> Yeah. No, no. Our job, just so everybody's aware and uh, you know, our job is not to,
you know, play designer, right? is to give uh the board's uh um input so to speak uh based on what's being uh presented.
Uh I think there's uh two issues here uh among others but two two two main issues which is number one is that that location uh speaks to being
um more intensely used at some later point than storage uh with its current height. And that number two uh you know there's there's two variances requested as as the chairman indicated
uh which would be both uh the floor area and the ratio. Now the ratio is something that obviously is dependent on more factors, right? It's dependent on lot size comparative to building size. Whereas floor area is just simply the
floor area. And when you're building a new home, uh floor area is arguably more flexible, so to speak. If I may add something small, the initial design that
we see now has two small uh knee walls on each side of the garage. And if we get rid of that, it's like here, I'll show you. >> I'm sorry. Um,
if you see those slanted lines over here, if I get rid of that, the whole roof comes down. Okay? So the the angle that we have to change anyway may not be so crucial. We can get rid of the square footage that
we have now but still maintain it with nice lines. >> All right. Do you um I'm sorry, chair. Is there any other questions from the board for the architect? >> Yeah. Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. I just wanted to understand the hardship for this variance that you guys
are looking for. >> It's not hard. It's it's um they're not asking for a C1. I don't believe the the basis is a C1. >> Uh the basis is a for the floor area would be a C2 C2
>> that in essence that this design is a better planning alternative. uh going to the floor area. I believe that what is going to be brought out is that the lot is a smaller lot yielding the
ratio. But you got to remember your floor area ratio, that standard is different. That also does not involve a hardship standard. That is a standard which says that even though you exceed the ratio, does that lot meet? Can that
lot uh uh can that lot uh deal with the additional uh increase? So that's it's not hardship, Mr. Shock. >> Okay. Um you have anything else or would you like
to push on? I >> before we does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness about that part. Okay. Now we can kind of come back to you please.
>> Okay. Uh so why don't we get you sworn in? Do you swear affirm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And can you please uh state and spell your name for the record? >> Uh William Scott. S cot. >> All right, Mr. Scott. Um, and you're
testifying as an architect tonight. Um, engineer tonight. >> Engineer. Yes. >> Okay. And, uh, Mr. Scott, can you just, uh, briefly give us your, uh, qualifications, uh, and, uh, the fact that you have your engineering license in say New Jersey is
good enough. Just bring the mic up. >> Yes. Um, I do have a, uh, my professional engineers license is current. I obtained it in 2004. It's been in good standing ever since. Um, I have appeared before this board as well as several other boards in the area.
>> And just for the record, your schooling was from >> uh I attended the Clarkson University School of Engineering in New York State. >> Excellent. Um, does anyone board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? >> Uh, there be no objection. The witness
accepted as expert in engineering. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Um I'm just briefly going to restate that we have an undersized lot. Um and that the requested variances in our mind
are are relatively modest. Uh we can look at how the home and the project would fit into the community and the surrounding neighborhood by looking at uh how it meets the uh zoning restrictions other than the floor area
and floor area ratio. And when we do that, we see that the building coverage uh allows uh an additional 1,604 square feet. So the actual footprint of the building could be much much larger according to code. Uh we exceed the
minimum sideyards. We exceed the combined sideyards by 12 1/2 ft. Uh we meet the front yard and we exceed the rear yard by 18 ft. Uh the utilities are available uh in the bed of the street in front of
the home. Uh storm water is going to be controlled on the site by dry wells. Um we're pitching the driveway and the front yard towards the street. Uh so it'll be a reduction in runoff to the um neighbors to the rear of the property. Uh the applicant would submit for and
meet the requirements of the township log uh drainage permits. uh and they would meet the requirements of the tree removal and replacement um ordinance which would um end up with uh 14 trees planted on the site.
Uh so you know our belief is that since we've controlled the storm water uh we'll be planting trees and the project meets uh the bulk of the um zoning requirements other than the floor area ratio and floor area uh that there's no
negative uh component component to this uh project and we believe the introduction of this home uh which we feel is uh quite attractive uh would be a positive to the community and here to answer any questions you
might have. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay, so
we're done with testimony. We have a set of plans in front of us. Two options. We vote on what we have here or you make amendments and come back if you desire. You need five five of us to vote yes.
So, um I'll leave it in your court. >> Want to talk to your professionals? Uh may I ask you one one thing? If you lower by 1 ft or one and a half ft, >> we have to lower it. So the township is not >> Okay. So >> Okay. So is that going to resolve the
issue then we can come back with that? >> Okay. So what what >> let me help you out here Mr. Anthony. So, basically, you're saying that you've heard the uh questioning from the board, and based off of that, you would like to
have this matter relisted at the next available uh zoning board agenda. And between now and that date, you'll present revised plans responsive to the board's concerns. That's your call to make in
terms of what you want to do. But at this point, you'd like to have the matter continued to another board date. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> Miss Hollis, what date would that be? >> The next available date, Mr. Chairman, is May 28th.
>> May 28th. >> May 28th. >> About >> Okay. >> Few weeks. So, >> and that's a Thursday. >> Yes, we have. Please. We have We have two meetings that month to try to keep things moving. >> Okay. So you you agreed to have this matter continued to May 28th, correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So for the purposes of notice to the public, >> this is my statement is the notice that this matter is now continued over to May 28th. Uh, and at that time, between now and
that time, you will have to provide the updated plans to Miss Hollis's office, but you will not have to renotice in any way, shape, or form. No, by website, newspaper, >> newspaper, >> letters, carrier, pigeon, none of that.
No notice needed. Okay. >> Uh, Mr. Wel, they have to go back to zoning first and get and get their plans re-reviewed, >> right? I'm sorry about that, but I should have just said submit to in the normal course through the township, >> right?
>> Okay. But the sooner you submit, the better off you're going to be. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh so that that is the notice to the public. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Justin.
>> Okay. Block 252 lot 61 11 Alpine Way application number 2026-2-V Nidal and Ferviha Farriha Babber applicant seeks approval for a rare extension in violation of the
following section 170-98C4 rear yard setback 40 ft required 33 29 ft proposed 6.71 ft variance requested 170-87 BB3 Three habitable floor area
3520 ft allowed 40 80 483 ft proposed 563 ft variance requested. >> Welcome. >> Hi. So my name uh do I need to swear in first? >> Yes, we will swear you in. Do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning
board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. And are you the uh owner of the property? >> I'm the applicant. Yes. >> Okay. So you're you're Miss Babar? >> Yes. Okay. And you have somebody with you tonight? Yeah. >> Yes. My architect, Mr. Tom Beo. >> Okay. U
>> Once again, you can always tell the architects no ties. Um but that's okay. Uh so, uh your architect is going to testify on behalf of the application for you tonight. Correct. >> Yes. >> So, why don't we get him sworn in? We can start that process. >> Thank you, >> sir. Do you swear a firm tell truth for
the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Thomas Beo. B A I O. architect for the applicant. >> Okay. Um, can we have your qualifications on
briefly? >> Sure. Uh, I have been a licensed architect in New Jersey for 35 years. I maintained licenses in approximately five states. Um, I have testified before this board and many other boards around New Jersey over the years. Uh, I went to
college at New York Institute of Technology at U for my five-year degree. I have certificates in architecture from Harvard Graduate School of Design and one from the University of Venice in 1985. >> Wow. >> If you're going to get a degree, why not there? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> A certificate. >> All right. Your license to practice architecture in the state of New Jersey is current and up to date. Correct. >> It is in good standing with the state board of architects. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? >> There be no objection. The witness accepted as expert in architecture.
>> Thank you. Of >> course. >> I brought a uh I brought a um easel with traditional plans. I have not been before this board in probably 5 years. I didn't know you even installed this. >> We're moving right along.
>> That's pretty good. So, um effectively, we have an application who's trying to expand their home. Um what's unique about their property is that it's very long and narrow along the street and not very deep. So, the first variance we're here with
>> Yeah. There you go. So that's the existing survey. There is another one that shows the proposed survey. Is there is there another uh file?
>> Yeah. Um >> yeah. >> Okay. Got it. >> So now I'm showing you a proposed um survey. This is all on my cover sheet on the submitted document you have. Uh and likewise here on my easel. Because of
the nature of the depth of the property, any expansion to the house would require an encroachment toward the rear yard. The nice thing about this application is really there's very little visibility of it from the street. It's mostly pushing back. The nature of the expansion has to
do with um two things young growing family and a death of her father-in-law that occurred in uh just this past December. >> December. >> So her mother-in-law is moving in which is Nadal's uh mom. So the expansion is
addressing a a strong family need with growth and all. Uh an existing home that's had no work done on it since it was built probably circa 1970. um and an oversized property. But the nature of the variance has to do with that hard cap of 3520
um which I came to the council meeting in 2008 and I talked about that and I said this is going to result in a lot of variances. It resulted in a lot of variances. Political note aside, we are expanding above that 3520 hard cap by approximately 563 square ft. Some of
which is in the garage where the bedroom for the mother-in-law is being made. So, we're not using the full exemption for uh a garage size that we have. So, some of that expansion is part of that 583 is in the garage. Um that's pretty much it.
We expect to maintain strong water flows off the back of the of the home by d bringing that drainage back toward Alpine Way. It currently uh it currently drains down a hill. So they're at the top of alpine and the neighbors who are bu below them probably get runoff that's
going to be improved if this application is approved. Um I don't really have too many other other comments other than those few. Does anyone the board have any questions for this witness? >> Can you can you just describe what's
behind like past the property? Um >> sure. I'll kind I'll I'll point to it. So, you have um Marbine Terrace. All of these homes shown on this survey, the lots 67, looks like 66 and 65, all sit
about 10 ft beneath our property. So right now natural drainage comes off the house and it's this really stone wall here that stops it from becoming a deluge during certain tremendous uh pourings of so I think if we can approve
if this application is approved the net benefit is the storm water leaders which currently just die off the back of the house and naturally grade it's a natural lay of the land after all that would be improved we're going to contain those in the schedule 40 pipe as the engineers report attached to the application
asked us to do if this is approved and we're going to bring that water back to Alpine Way, which is a far better mitigation of that storm water. So, I think if you can see to it in the approval, I think it would benefit uh the neighborhood, at least the
neighborhood south of us. >> And there was, if I remember correctly, when I visited the site, there's kind of a little bit of a buffer behind that wall, right? >> A little bit. Those are the people's rear yards though, >> right? Right. Understood. But there was trees and everything else. >> Yeah. It's fairly well treated. Hopefully those trees absorb a lot of
water. Uh hope they don't take them down. But >> So in your in your opinion, the addition won't change what they what won't affect the neighbors. Let's put it that way.
>> I think in a positive way. Um especially those on Marbine Terrace. Uh for the neighborhood, they probably wouldn't know there's a an addition unless they walk around the back. So, we're trying to keep the context of the neighborhood intact with the front of the house. We are going to paint the brick. So, there'll be an updating, a refreshing of
the front. It's red brick right now. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions? >> I have a question. What is the existing square footage of the existing garage and what is the proposed square footage of the proposed garage? >> All right. Because it's easier for me
and I think turning pages is is ah, so much for that. The existing garage is a twocar garage and I broke it down for the zoning
officer. So, just give me a second. Here we go. The existing garage is 490 square ft. The proposed new garage is 427 square ft. So, as I testified earlier, of that 583 ft² variance that we are requesting,
approximately 63 of that comes from making the garage smaller because of the mother-in-law. Does anybody else have any questions on the board? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come
up. >> This is questions. You can do statements later. If it's a statement, >> question just for ask for clarification. Okay. >> You just have to do us the favor, sir. Stating >> identify myself. Right. >> Right. Stating and spelling your name for the record.
>> Yes. And my first name Shiaoen X I A O X U N last name S H N. >> Good. I'm the owner of the seven M terrace which is right behind uh their backyard. >> So first I cong congratulation for for
this new project. Uh my because I try to understand a little bit better and then I have some question. One is that you built uh on the garage. Is that correct? >> We're building both behind the garage. Let me put that on the big screen. Okay. Right here. All right. So, I'm
pointing to the screen and I'm going to show you that the existing garage is here and we're building this room here behind the garage. >> So, sir, sir, if you if you we have to have you on the record. So, I know you want to look. I know you want to look.
>> I have to make the mic too. But you can you can >> Can I take the microphone with me? >> Or or you can share or you can share the architect's mic one way or the other. >> Thank you. Okay. Sorry. I don't want to take long. Okay. Just want to clarify. >> No, no, it's all right. >> You're good. You're good. Go ahead.
>> Okay. >> So, if I remember Okay. Because I live in neighbor. So, this is the this uh what do you call >> tag, right? That the tag here. >> The addition is from this point here out. It's adding. >> Oh, adding here. >> Yeah. It's adding to the kitchen and to
the family room. >> Okay. So, you're going to you're going to remove the deck. >> Yes, we're going to remove the deck. >> Okay. >> The deck's coming off. So, we're going technically further in from the property cuz that deck really does, as you could see on the demolition plan at the top there. See where the deck is? >> That going to be
>> Yeah. So, we're only going in maybe a third or half of that deck. >> Okay. But it's still after that, you want to build a a narrow deck. >> No, we're building a new deck on the side here. >> On this side. Okay. Got it. So, you build here and then you build on top here. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay, thank you. The second question is uh are you going to I mean you mentioned about the drain the water, right? >> Yes. >> So that's good. Okay. You you better do that because we are 10 ft lower than than this one. So if they if you can
help to drain the water out that would be good. Okay, that would be good. The other is that you are you going to uh uh touch the backyard and also the routine wall? No, there's no intent to touch the retaining wall. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, the back not going
to touch, right? Okay. >> Well, the tractors and construction equipment will traverse the backyard. >> Sure. Sure. >> But there's no change in topographic condition nor removal of that wall or touching of that wall. >> Yeah. So, you're not going to cut any tree, right? Just want to make sure. >> No, this application requires no tree cutting.
>> Okay. Excellent. That's it. I just want to ask for clarification. Okay. >> Of course. >> Thank you so much. Okay. Good luck. >> Okay. See you around. Okay. Thank you for your questions. >> Make sure she does. >> Yes. Keep a record. Okay. I'm going to come back. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Have a nice night. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Does anybody else in the public have any other questions? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement? Do you want to make a closing statement? Ma'am, >> don't need to if you don't want to. We
can if you want. >> We don't really have a closing statement. I I've been describing the application. Just thank you for your consideration. >> Boss, does anybody Oh, >> so um you would state that the rear yard setback variance is uh something you're
asking the applicant's asking for because of the unique um shape and size of the lot. So that's creating a in essence a C1 type of hardship variance. You would agree with that, Mr. Bale?
>> Yep. 100%. You've defined what a C1 variance hardship should describe the nature of the property, the shape of it. I opened up with saying it's a very narrowed depth property and the expansions are rather limited. They either go behind or we take out the garages. So,
>> right. And as far as the um habitable floor area, that would fall more in what we would term a C2, right? uh flexible uh um variance because of the nature of the fam growing family need the
revitalization of a housing stock and uh the uh very important uh new storm water control that is being placed on site. You would agree with that, right, Mr. Bale? >> 100%. The mitigating factor of storm water control is a big deal and we're
planning on doing that with the with this approval. Okay. Thank you, chair. >> Anybody in the board like to make a statement? >> Would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll I'll second it. >> Look at that. >> You guys hear that? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Young. Sorry, Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ambadi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> Block 301, lot 278 Cliffside Drive. Application number 2026-3-3 8 Cliffside Drive LLC. Applicant seeks approval for an addition in violation of the following section 170-87 CC2
habitable area floor ratio 18% allowed, 19.48 person, 1.48 person variance requested. thought we were going to have a a day without you, but we're glad you're here.
>> Was offputting. >> Hi there. >> Hi. Good evening. Um, my name is Sarah Suazo. I am here on behalf of the applicant for this variance, 8 Cliffside Drive LLC. Um,
we're applying for one variance. Um, I believe it's a 1.48% uh deviation from the habitable floor area ratio requirement in the R2 zone. Tonight we have two experts testifying. Mr. Sedra, the architect on the project
and we also have Mr. Ricky who is our planner to provide testimony this evening on the variance requested and the proofs. >> Okay. >> So, uh, Mr. Cedra when he gets sworn in. Do you swear a firm tell the truth for the zoning board
tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Even though you weren't here last time, um you know, you regularly appear before the zoning board. Uh and you're uh have been qualified in the field of architecture on numerous occasions and
your license to practice architecture in state New Jersey is uh current and up to date with the board. >> Correct. Yes. still in good standing. >> Okay. >> Since he wasn't here, did he get an email? >> I don't think Mr. Cedra checked his emails. I'm sure he would have I'm sure he would have told us.
>> No. >> Okay. >> Assuming no one on the board has any questions or objections regarding this witness, we can accept you as expert architecture. Uh good evening. Um uh we're designing here a single family house for this lot. Um
and uh this house consists of uh seven bedrooms and seven and a half bathroom where we have one bedroom uh located at the basement, one bedroom located at the first floor and five bedrooms located at the second floor. Uh we're here uh to
apply for just one variance which is the floor area ratio where uh 18% is required. We are at 19.4. 48 48 uh% with 1.48% increase. And um regarding the rest of
the bulk requirements, we're good with all the uh requirements. Uh we also meet the requirement of the habitable floor area uh where uh 4,870 square ft is required. We are at four
4,870 square.t Uh we meet the building coverage uh building height, front uh yard and uh side yard combined sideyard, rear yard and also the lot
which we have meets the requirement of the code which is 25,000 square ft. Um the area of the first floor uh the first let me start with the basement. the basement. Uh we have also the garage located in the basement with a total
area of 694 square ft. Uh that would ma that made us take uh 244 which is the access of the 450 ft and we added that to the uh habitable floor area.
Uh the first floor uh area is 2,334 square ft. And the area of the second floor is 2,292 and that's total 4 4,870.
Also, I would like to mention that the second floor has a an open um foyer which the area for the open foyer is 125 square ft. Um this area is counted twice. It's only used at the main level
which is the first floor. Um, also adding up the open area to the excess of the garage, it will give us an increase of uh 369 square ft of a space that's considered not livable space, but
eventually it's um counted toward the floor area ratio. And um I did also a rendering for this house. Uh this house has a a modern uh look to it. Let me get the drawings.
So this is the front uh the top um drawing is the front of the house. Uh it's a modern looking house with a lot of uh glass. We have um um hardy panels and hardy siding. Uh also we have some
culture stone at the base. The garage as you see it at the bottom uh at the basement and we have a lot of glazing at the first and second floor and also we have balcony facing the street as well. Um we did a rendering I'd like to share. I'm not sure if it's part of this file
or I have to >> you got it. Let me let me put it I have it on the flash drive. the top or the bottom. Cedra, was this one uh included in the packet or is this something uh new for tonight that we need to mark as an exhibit?
>> Um I emailed it actually last week to Oh, we have it. I think you have it. Yeah, >> no problem, Cedric. Go ahead. Uh so this is the design of the front and as you see the garage in the basement and there is different elevations
uh regarding the grading for this specific lot and um we enter from the main uh porch. The main porch also has a balcony on top. There is a sliding door and uh on top and um byfold door rather
uh the owner wants to use biffold at the second floor and um you see the also the design of the house it's a little bit on the modern side. Um uh that's that's pretty much it. That's
everything we have for tonight. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> I I have one question. The building's under construction right now. How do we now come up with the variance? What
happened? Um, originally we designed the uh the normal house with the normal zoning, but the owner uh decided to expand the second floor and have a bigger second floor as opposed to the the first version we gave
him. Uh, which uh the first application was actually approved through the building department to construct this house, but he wants it to be a little bit bigger. >> Okay, fair enough. So the footprint did not change from the
right just the second floor >> just the second floor got increased. >> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Back to you counselor. >> Mr. Sedra. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Sedra for your testimony.
Um I'd now like to have Mr. Ricky our planner to testify on behalf of the applicant. >> Okay. All right, Paul. Uh, do you firm do you swear affirm tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Richie, uh, just, uh, very
quickly, uh, put your extensive qualifications as a planner on the record. >> Uh, sure. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since the year 2000. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a master's
degree in city regional planning which I received in 1997. Um I'm a municipal planning consultant to to seven towns. I I testify regularly in front of boards. I testified in front of this board several years ago, but I think it was for the hospital, but it's
been several years and my license is in good standing. Yes. >> Checked your email today, Paul. Um I mean I I think the architect somewhat sorry it's okay that's okay. And what schools did you go to just for the record? >> Ruckers University.
>> Okay. Um does anyone have any uh on the board have any objections objections regarding this witness? There being known there being no objections. The witness accepted as an expert in professional planning. Go for it. >> Thank you sir. Um I think you heard from the architect. He he summed it up pretty
well. This is a I don't want to say a minor application, but the applicant is looking for a slightly larger home uh which ultimately results in the floor area ratio variance. Again, um just not to be repetitive, we're in your R2
district. This is in an existing 25,000 square foot lot. Um in terms of the particulars that were somewhat testified to already, we meet all the required setbacks. We meet the m maximum habitable floor area. So the home itself
is consistent what the zoning calls for. The building height is lower than what's permitted 32 feet versus 35 ft. Here the applicant is also proposing some additional uh improvements to the property uh storm water recharge area uh
in in the front yard. Um I I I do note that well each application is reviewed on its own merits. the adjoining property at six cliffside received that F variance of of 1.5%. Um so essentially what the applicant would be doing is building a home that's
consistent with what's right next door. Um so again the variances for that 1.4% 4% increase. I think the board hears a number of these F cases. Uh to meet the positive criteria, we have to demonstrate that uh this application can meet the problems associated with the
increased floor area ratio and for all variance applications. We have to show that the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good, namely the surrounding property owners without a substantial impairment to the zone plan. I started to touch upon this already is that we
meet all the parameters of your zoning except I don't want to say minor but a somewhat minor increase over what's permissible from the floor area ratio perspective. Um again um my outline's somewhat repetitive. I'm
jumping around here a little bit. Uh it's my opinion that the site can accommodate the problems associated with the increased floor area ratio because again we are adhering to all these requirements. Uh I think notably um the building coverage that's permitted in
the zone is is 20.73%. The applicant is proposing 12.9% here. So the footprints uh a lot smaller here. And I did find it notable when at least when I was listening, we heard from the architect that part of this floor area the applicant is seeking is dead or
unusable space. So they're not benefiting from that additional floor area. It's just needed to I assume this to construct the home uh in a reasonable manner. So for these reasons, I believe this application advances several purposes of this land use law. Uh
purpose a promotion of the general welfare. Here we have a new dwelling built the current codes and standards and the what I always like to see is the the construction of that new storm water uh management system as well. We also advance purpose G to provide sufficient
space to meet the needs of of New Jersey citizens. Uh here we have a single family house and a single family district that essentially meets uh all requirements uh except one and where we are we're we're marginally over. Uh in terms of the negative criteria again um
there in my opinion there'll be no substantial detriment to the public good. This is a a marginal increase uh in into the home. It would it would match the the adjoining property. Um, and in terms of the zone plan, again, for the reasons I mentioned, there will
be no substantial impairment uh to the zone plan as well. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make
a statement regarding this application? >> Back to you, counselor. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't really have anything to say by way of conclusion except for just to say thank you very much for your time and your consideration tonight.
>> Okay. Does anyone in the board want to make any statements? >> Does anybody on the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sha. Yes,
>> Mr. Kenya. Yes, Miss Young. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ambali. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bear. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, block 4,800, lot 66, 10, Arthur Terrace. Application number 2026-10-3,
14 Waterfall Drive, LLC. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following sections. 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 30 ft proposed 10 ft variance requested 170-87
BB4 habitable floor area 3220 ft allowed 3831 ft proposed 611T variance required >> good evening everyone my name is Matthew Patad I'm from the law firm Sils and Gross and I represent the applicant that's here today presented an
application for variance relief what they're looking to do is demolish the existing improvement and develop a new two-story single family home at the subject lot. Uh unfortunately for them though they have triggered two variances, one for front yard and one for habitable floor area. We're not
requesting a D variance for ratio but both of them will be under the C criteria itself. Uh for once I have a client that has actually taken my advice. If you look at the lot itself, it's actually oversized, right? and the two lots across the street, if you
combine them, they still wouldn't be the same size as the proposed lot we have here today. So, despite the fact that they made numerous efforts to try to convince me, why don't we go for a subdivision, they took me for my word when I said, you're just spending good money chasing bad and maybe we should just stay in our lane and propose a
single family home. So, that's exactly what we're looking to do here today. You'll see that although the max floor area ratio is 30%, we're doing 27% because the reality is it's more of a balancing act of what we've seen around the character of the neighborhood and also we don't want to do any
overdevelopment itself. Regarding the front yard setback, that's more of a function of the existing setbacks for the surrounding properties and to have that conformity and continue and um conformance with the neighboring parcels. With that being said, I have two witnesses that are here tonight. My
first will be my architect, Mr. Jose Carelloo, and as well as my planner, uh, Paul Ricky. So, if I may, I'd like to call my first witness. Okay. Do you swear a firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Absolutely. Jose Carbio, C A R Bs, and
boy, A L L O. And >> why don't we get uh Scio's uh qualifications on briefly? >> Absolutely. Uh, bachelors of architecture from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I've been registered since 1986 and I've appeared in front of this board several times
before. >> And your license is still in good standing. >> It's still in good standing as of this morning. >> He's taking a chance in the last 12 hours. Um, considering we've seen you so many times and uh I I can uh speak for the board
and you're uh accepted as a expert in architecture. >> I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh Jose, were you the architect that prepared these proposed plans? Uh yes. >> Great. Why don't you walk us through what we're looking to do here? AB: >> Absolutely. Uh th this property is another one where it's a highly regular
property. Uh even though it's 50% larger than what the properties that you know the minimum size property in this uh zone uh is required. Um it's that the lot is actually long uh wide along the road and very shallow. So, so when you
do uh when you establish all your setbacks, that building envelope becomes very very small. Uh it actually comes to a point uh towards the uh the south side of the property. Uh therefore, this this is why the house looks like this. It steps in the back. Uh and this is just
to maintain that rear setback, excuse me, that rear setback. Uh the house is uh 3,800 and uh some square feet. Uh it's it's a twostory house. It's got four bedrooms on the second floor. It's got one bedroom on the first
floor and another bedroom in the basement. Um we know that the uh that the town requires a maximum of 3,220 square ft per uh for these uh um for these houses
and and we're at 3,800. However, if if we look at two spaces that that we have, one is the uh the family room, which is a two-story space. The other one is the foyer, which is also twotory space. Uh if you combine the areas on those two uh
those two lots, I'm sorry, on those two areas and you also take the 96 extra square feet that we have in the garage, the actual um physical size of the building of the house is actually 3,372
square ft. Uh so uh it's it's really not a large house. Uh it's it's it's a very um you know, livable house. Uh but it's really not not uh overly uh high. uh overly um large
the elevations uh they're all uh you know obviously it's a brand new house so it's all covered in gypsum I'm sorry in uh fiberglass reinforced um uh concrete uh and it's hardy board basically what it is and then you have you know double
pane windows you have some some shingles up on top uh and yes we do have uh a small attic space uh it's accessed through a pull downstairs. So, it's not livable space. Uh by the time you take the structure of the uh the ceiling
below and the structure above, it's it's about six and a half feet. So, it's it's really not not livable. Um aside from that, I'm here if you have any questions. >> Jose, I got a couple questions for you. >> Sure. Um, is it your testimony that once
you remove the double counting of space as well as the additional 96 square ft for the garage itself, you come to a total hab floor area of approximately 3372? >> Yeah, it's about 150 ft more than what's permitted. >> Great. Thank you. I have no further questions for this.
>> Thank you. Anybody have any questions for this witness? >> Question. >> I knew you did. >> Well, I guess the only I don't know if it's for you or not. The the only question is in regards to the front yard
setback is I don't I don't see like the the uh calculations with the neighboring properties or anything to >> I I think there's something that the plan is going to get into. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Carbay, you did I think you did
testify that there is uh the setbacks on this property are somewhat unusual because it forms in essence like a I think you use the phrase a triangle. >> It's it's a very it's a very tight pizza pie pizza slice basically.
>> Now you made me hungry. Okay, >> let's go. Okay. Uh yeah, they like I said the building envelope it's rather tight. >> I guess you testified that without if you want to call it the
double space which is all goes to massing >> right >> that you're still over the 3220. And if I look at the zoning table and I look at
next lot up, it's 15,000, which is a lot more than what you have. And that's only 3520. So you're still 39 square feet over
what it would be if it was the next zone. And we could argue that it's big enough to just about be in that zone. So I guess um I'm a little concerned that the house might be a little big for
the area. All right. And anybody else on the board have any thoughts, >> pro or con on that? >> Uh, I mean, I guess I could concur. I mean, also because of the the whole, you know, this is where the whole front yard
thing um comes into effect with neighboring properties. I mean, obviously, it doesn't meet the bulk requirements either because of that reason. I mean, yes, there's the exclusion for that, but this isn't like a house that would fit without needing
any bulk requirements on a bigger lot without it. So, that does raise into concern also about having that much extra square feet on, you know, a lot this size. Anybody else have any comments?
They're confirming. You have a comment. Okay. Does anybody in the public have any comments regarding this? What? Please. Questions. Sorry. Questions. >> Yes. >> But >> Yep. Come on up.
>> Just have to I'm sorry. Sorry sir. You have to just state and spell your name for the record. >> My name is Gary Odashian. It's O D A B A S H I A N >> and address if you want to get >> 11 Arthur Terrace. >> Okay. Go ahead, sir. >> Um based on what I see, it looks like
the house is a little big from what what I see. And the other thing I like to know is that originally original structure there is built was built in the 1930s. Um, I like to know if they plan on doing any kind of sweep of the
land for any kind of toxins. And from what I understand, there's also a septic tank on that property. Um, I'd like to know if that's going to be removed, you know, from that property because originally when that house was originally built, that was not hooked up
to a se sewer system. That was a septic system there. >> Okay. Why don't we why don't we have Miss Pasado or Mr. Kabio, see if they can give you some insight. >> Yeah. So, I'm not I'm not an engineer and I've just barely looked at the engineering plants, but whatever we have to do, obviously, we don't want to have
a septic tank cuz, you know, that those don't really work so well. Uh, as far as doing a sweep for uh any kind of contaminants, this property, it's always been residential. >> So, the um the the likelihood of having any contaminants there other than maybe in the roof, you may have some bases
maybe, uh it's it's very low. Let me let me just >> again Mr. Bada. I'm sorry. >> I was going to say just to add to that, you know, we have to comply with the uniform construction code for >> Mr. Pada, you got to bring the mic. Sorry about that.
>> So, just so you know, we are proposing right now to demo the existing improvement and develop a new single family home. And in doing so, we have to follow the uniform construction code itself. So, we have to bring this site into full uh compliance with building regulations uh not just for the municipality but the state as well. So I
assure you whether it is making sure there's no contaminants on site including also the septic tank that is all within our purview that we have to discuss with the building department if this board would find favorable today. It's just a matter of jurisdiction related to the actual zoning meaning the bulk standards the size the setbacks but
that next step the building concerns that you have will absolutely be vetted out by this municipality if this board would find favorable. >> Okay. Is that structure the new structure going to be where the existing structure is now? >> Yes, I agree. uh uh where the existing structure sits now, where the new home's
going to be built, is it going to be built right where that >> Yes. Yes, absolutely. That the existing building is going to be removed and right in its place obviously larger will have the new building. >> Okay. Which side is the garage is going to be on on that new?
>> It's on the left. Looking from your house, if you're looking at it, it's on the left side. >> Left side. >> Okay. >> Do you have any other uh >> No, that's it. That's it for Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else in the public have any questions for this witness?
Councelor, back to you. >> All right. I like to bring up my last witness, my planner, Paul Ricky. >> Okay. Get Mr. Ricky seated and we'll swear him in just for belts and suspenders. You swear for him, tell the truth for the zoning
board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay, Mr. Ricky. Uh, and obviously Mr. Richie as uh was uh qualified in the field of planning moments ago uh and uh I'm assuming his qualifications are still in good standing mere moments later. >> I hope so. But yeah,
>> feel free. We accept you as a expert in >> Thank you. >> May I just jump into it? >> Yeah, just go right into it. >> Well, again, we're seeking the the two variances. the front yard setback to allow 30 feet where 40T is proposed and to allow um the habitable floor area of
3,831 square ft where 3,220 ft. We're going to be requesting their variances under the the flexible C2 criteria that we can demonstrate that we support or promote a purpose of zoning
and that we can also those variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to surrounding property owners without substantial detriment to your zone plan. Essentially to show that on balance that that this application the benefits are are greater than the detriments and it results in in improved
zoning. I I I'll try not to be repetitive. I mean, there's not that much, I guess, for all two applicants to talk about here, so some of my testimony will be a little bit repetitive, but I'll try not to be. Again, uh, this isn't an oversized lot in your R4
district. The district requires 9,375 square ft or 1,400 or excuse me, 14,143 uh, exists. The architect was right on the point that this is just about 50%
over the minimum lot size requirements. Uh again, we meet all required setbacks in lot coverage. heard from her attorney where three percentage points under the floor area ratio and also I don't think has been mentioned yet but the applicant
proposes to reduce the impervious coverage on this track from 5,97 square ft to 3,900 square ft which is approximately a 30% uh reduction that's proposed. Um we're also increasing the
front yard setback that exists from 24.5 ft to 30 feet. I do have survey information from the architect that I'll explain how this setback is is greater than the than the average for the block. And again, um, here we've had testimony
that that depicted that despite despite the fact that we are seeking the increased floor air ratio that we're functionally very close to being in line with a cap for your R4 district, which is 3,372 ft, despite the fact that this is a lot
that is significantly larger than required. Regarding the front yard setback, again, 40 feet is required. um the information that was provided me from the architect zoning information adjoining lot 65. It's kind of a weird
situation where there's a lot and then a sliver lot next to it, but the functional setback is is 1.6 ft. Lot three has a setback of 10.3. These are all the the homes on an Arthur Terrace. Lot three is 10.3 ft. Lot two is 10.6
feet. Lot one is 31.4T. Lot 18 is 17.2 feet. Lot 19 is 32.3 feet. And lot 20 is 36 feet. If you in average the entire block, that's 19.9
ft. And if you remove the high, the 1.6 ft, excuse me, the low, the 1.6 ft, and the high of 36 feet. If you average that again, the setback would be 20.36 feet. So I think it's clear that the the setback that's proposed of of 30 feet
would would exceed the setback for for this area uh of the town uh and it would result in sound land use planning despite the fact that we are seeking that variance relief again for the for the reasons that I I mentioned uh in terms of the lot being
oversized meeting all the setbacks uh having a building coverage again that I didn't mention that 7.4% 4% under the maximum uh for the district and and being under the F which is to me seems to be a more important regulating factor
to some extent for an oversized lot because this district anticipates a higher intensity of development than you would see in uh the R3, R2 or R1 uh districts. Uh for these reasons, I note that your master plan, this speaks to
your the setback variance 2018 master plan says that setback requirements should be adjusted to better reflect existing conditions and neighborhoods and that's what the applicant is proposing here. U so for these reasons, this application advances several
purposes of miscellaneous law. Uh purpose a promotes the general welfare. Here we're reducing impervious coverage. Building again a modern house uh the current construction codes purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations to meet the
needs of of New Jersey citizens. Uh here we have a single family house in a single family district that meets all uh coverage requirements. Regarding the negative criteria in terms of um being the intent and purpose of your zone plan and the public good, I've I've largely addressed how we we largely adhere to
those requirements. I think it is worth mentioning though, I think uh the chairman showed concern about the size of the house. The the house that it adjoins on block 4,800, lot 64. That's 85 West North Northfield Road. It's the adjoining property. That house is
depicted as 5,946 square ft. So, this would not be the largest home uh in the area and and immediately adjoins a much larger structure as well. >> I just have a few questions for you, Mr. Ricky. Uh the first question I have for
you is that the proposed plan itself it improves the existing front yard setback that exists there today. >> Yes. By 5.5 ft. >> Okay. And then when we did the study to determine the existing setbacks for the surrounding properties, there was a range from 1.6 ft all the way up to 36
feet. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then regarding imperous coverage, uh despite the fact that we are increasing the floor area itself, uh the impervious coverage is being reduced by almost 1,200 square feet. >> That's correct. >> And then when you take this in
consideration with the other bulk standards that are being met is your professional opinion this is not an overmassing but in fact is balancing uh the uh required zoning requirements. >> Sure. There's there's numerous benefits occurring as well. >> Okay. And would it be your testimony
that when it comes to balancing that act and actually governing it, the bulk standard to concentrate on would actually be ratio itself because that takes in consideration not just the floor area but the actual lot area itself. >> Yeah. Proportionalitywise. Yes. >> Thank you. I have no further questions
for this witness. >> Does anyone in the board have any qu questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this
application? >> Back to you >> for once. I'll make a summation. >> Okay. >> Uh I understand the board's concerns and I understand the board's comments specifically regarding the fact that the ratio I mean the hab floor area itself exceeds what would be permitted in the R3 zone. What I asked the board to look
at is the fact that all the other bulk standards are conforming. Yes, the front yard setback is still quoteunquote variance, but that's more of a functionality of conformity with the other neighboring parcels themselves as those other front yard setbacks range between 1.6 ft to 36 ft and here we're
proposing 30 ft. So, if anything, we are absolutely on the right side of that median of the proposed front yard setback itself. When it comes to the floor area, again, I want to reiterate that we have mo we have multiple instances of double counting, including
an additional 96 square feet for the garage itself. And when you take that in consideration, it's only about 152 square feet of what would be permitted for the subject site. So, for those reasons, we hope you find favorable for this application. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board want
to make any statements? I would say the lot is big enough and the house fits perfectly well in there and it's a dead end street so I don't think any detriment. No. >> Anybody else want to make a statement? >> Does anybody want to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Uh, did I miss something? >> Wrong. Hang on one sec.
Okay, I'll fix it. Mr. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> Mr. Embodi, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, so she's not here. Sorry. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Great. >> Thank you so much everyone for your time.
>> Take care. for the holiday season. >> Okay, this is the >> and last but not least, >> Arthur Terrace. >> Where did I miss 10 Arthur Terrace? >> Every Good evening.
>> Hi there. >> Okay, let me let me uh I'm delayed. Sorry. >> Block >> block 5300 lot 5 uh 182 Walnut Street. Applicant application number 2026-16-V Miguel Alana.
Okay, I need about five minutes to read this. >> Applicant Sorry about that. Applicant seeks approval for addition and detach garage in violation of the following sections. 170-97 C2 frontier setback 60 ft uh but not less than 50 ft required
37.5 ft proposed which is existing 12.5 ft variance requested 170-97 C3 left side yard set back 15 ft required 5.7 ft proposed with that is existing 9.3 ft variance requested
170-97C3 right so sideyard setback 15 ft required 9.6 ft proposed that's existing 5.4 ft variance requested 170-97c3 aggregated sideyards
30 ft 30% required 19.87% proposed 3.23% Two threeperson variance requested. Accessory building garage 170-87E1A. Accessory building height 13 ft allowed
15 ft proposed. That's existing. Two ft variance requested 170-87E1D2 side setback. 10 ft required. 4.7 ft proposed. That's existing. 5.3 feet variance requested. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. So, why don't we have uh appearances? >> Yeah. Uh Miguel Ldana. >> Okay. And who do we have with you tonight? >> We have my architect. >> Oh, yeah. Your architect. Okay. So, Mr. Donna, uh why don't why don't we have
you sworn in just be sure. Uh do you swear for him, tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, Mr. Donna, you have your architect with you tonight. So, why don't we uh have your architect sworn in? And do you swear for him tell truth for the zoning board tonight? Absolutely.
>> Okay. Can we please uh have uh please state and spell your name for the record? >> It's Deborah Jones. My company is Q5 Architects. I'm the president. >> Okay. Miss Jones, uh why don't we have your qualifications on briefly in the
field of architecture? >> I've been practicing architecture since 1986. Uh I graduated from Renolier Polytechnic Institute, RPI. um were registered in New York and New Jersey and
I've never testified in front of your board, but I've testified in front of many boards and >> Okay. And your license to practice Yes. >> in state New Jersey is current and up to date. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> Chair. >> Oh, welcome to Livingston. >> Thank you. >> Um does the board have to be here? I
have another project coming up before you. I was hoping I'd get into April, but it sounds like it won't be until May. I think Jackie is keeping the gate as open as possible, but uh there's a lot of stuff coming through. Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness
is accepted as expert architecture. Laura is yours. >> Miss Jones, I'm just going to ask you to bring the microphone a little closer to you so that we can get you clearly on the record. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> So, this is really quite a simple application. Um Mr. Aldana's h uh
property is unusually narrow. It's very deep. It's it's larger than the minimum 25,000 square ft, but it's it's very restricted by the the the narrowness of the lot. And the existing house, you can
see on the site plan, is not even situated parallel to its sideyards. It's it's like a crazy thing. I always want to know what the story is behind some of these subdivisions because the the garage in the back, the
detached garage that's existing, which is quite old, >> that that must have been part of some larger development. You know, there must have been a main house somewhere. Anyway, we'll never know. It's always it's always a curiosity for me. Um,
basically the existing house has two small dormers in the front and a partial dormer in the back. And um, Miguel wants to expand the whole second
floor uh, including above the the one-story part part of the house on the left that you see in the picture. So that his growing family who are are all adults but haven't been able to fly the nest yet,
>> they're going to stay longer. >> Yes. >> So he's got three adult well two two adult children living home and the daughter who comes back and forth because she's in college. >> They are six feet tall. So did you imagine in those rooms they are like >> Yeah. The the the existing rooms in the
front of the house the the roof is very Yeah. It's not good. So, uh, basically just really want to go straight up from all and all the existing setbacks are what we're dealing with. Um, and that's
kind of it. And then the the garage in the back, you can see the picture. There's old like swinging doors on the left side, but that's not conducive to getting a car in and around. So, the side that you see, we're going to put a
a new garage door in. >> Okay. I'll I'll start with a quick question. >> Absolutely. >> And nothing the 9.6 ft. >> Yes. >> Is that wide enough for a firet truck to get through if you need? >> I mean, they can, but it's really tight.
I know it's it's just that's an off question, but something you should look at because I that's really I mean they should fit but >> a fire truck would >> I I don't think the street but I think we're talking about maybe an ambulance
>> or some I mean >> ambulance would be about six six and a half ft. I'm just >> make sure you have everything covered there. >> Well, when we go for a permit we'll have proper engineered grading plans and understood. It was just something that stuck out of me. You know, if there's,
god forbid, a fire, they're trying to get there or something. >> I just want to make sure you're all safe. >> It's just because it's such an odd lot. It's just >> It is an odd lot. >> Yeah. Really not our jurisdiction. Just a side comment. >> Um, does anybody on the board have any real comments?
>> Okay. Uh, >> good evening. >> I would ask the public, but I think we have that answer. Um, >> yeah. >> Crickets. >> Yeah. >> Let me just uh let me just clear up one thing with with the architect. So, >> the the the very long list that Mr.
Kenya did a very good job. I apologize. >> Uh it the only one that's listed as nonp pre-existing is the aggregate. >> I don't know why that is listed like that because we're not changing anything.
>> Okay. All right. So, so once again, I I want to I want to clarify that because you're not moving out to because then you would violate you would have a new violation on the left and right. >> No, if you look on my zoning summary chart on the drawing and you go down to
minimum sideyard both >> and go over it says no change. Okay. >> It it's just what it is. >> All right. So, just for clarification sake, there's no expansion to the left and right. It's purely up. No, pure purely up.
>> Okay. Um, as there's been no public, do you want to have any closing statement or you're good? >> I think it's I'm pretty good. >> Okay. Does anyone the board want to make a Anyone on the board want to make a statement? >> Uh, does anyone on the board want to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to >> Can't trust her. is over there. He's He's dying the second. Mr. Sherman, >> I am one day. >> You're too slow. You got to go quicker on that buzzer. >> Miss you. >> It's a game show. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. Yes. Motion carries. Good night. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you >> everyone. Enjoy the spring holiday season. And um motion to adjurnn.
>> Thank you. >> Yippee. >> All right. >> I second that. >> I was letting it out. I didn't think we would make it. How long do you go? >> Yes. >> Did you really? >> It's interesting.
>> Oh my god. I don't think >> Oakland Oakland makes an announcement at the beginning.