Good evening. I'm on the wrong page. Welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is April 28th, 2026. If you're an applicant for a D or use variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after
showing that special reasons for the grant of the variance exists and that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require affirmative vote of five members
of the seven member board of adjustment. Other variances require a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have a right to appeal to the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of
decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you are objected 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
the complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements, the open public meeting act also known as the sunshine law. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the star ledger and west Essex tribute and a copy was also posted on the bolden board and municipal
building. In addition to having notice posted, notice this meeting was placed on the township's website. Excuse me. 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 this 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're not going to discuss how we reach our conclusions or how or why we voted for against application further than was that 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 it's improper to contact us outside of these chambers. Thank you for your understanding. We will now call the role. Mr. Kenya. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Mr. Horn
>> here. >> Mr. Sha >> here. >> Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Young >> here. >> Mr. Wiseman >> here. >> Mr. Ambadi >> here. >> Miss Khan >> here. >> Mr. Beer >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Excellent. Please call the first application. Mr. Kenya.
>> Okay. Block 7300 lot 10 6 Ross Road application number 2025-91V Amit Taker and Akta Kumari. Uh applicant seeks approval for the first and second floor addition in violation of the following section. 170-96
C2 front yard setback 75 ft required 66 ft proposed 9 ft variance requested 170-96 C4 rear yard setback 75 ft required 42.3 ft proposed 32.7 ft variance requested.
Before we get started, I was aiss in uh not mentioning that um we have two adjourned uh applications. Uh 16 West Lawn Road, application 2026-6-V
and um application number 2026-5-V for one Avalon Avenue. If you're here for either of those two uh applications, uh they will be they're adjourned to May 12th and June 23rd um respectively.
>> Through you, chair, just uh for uh the record, 16 West Lawn is adjourned to May 12, 2026. There is no need for that applicant to renotice. This is the notice for that matter to be heard on
May 12th. as to one Avon Avenue that's adjourned to June 23rd, 2026. There is no need to renotice. There will be no re uh renotice. This is the notice. So, if you're here on that matter, please be aware that that's going to be heard on
June 23rd. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you, counselor. Okay, back to you now. Sorry about that. It works now. >> Hi. So, uh my name is Akta. I live in Six Ross Road, Livingston. We are a
family of four. Uh myself, my husband, and two boys. And we ma'am one second. >> Sorry. >> It's okay. Don't worry about it. All right. So, you are the um >> I'm the owner of Yeah, I'm >> right. And can we just have uh your name uh can you please state and spell your
name for the record? >> Kumari. >> Okay. And uh you're here presenting tonight. You have your architect. >> I have my architect with me. >> Okay, very good. So, are you going to testify and your architect? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, let's get you sworn in then you can go ahead and give us >> Okay. Do you swear affirm till truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please uh proceed, ma'am? >> Thank you. So, we've been living in this house for a couple of years and we
realized that uh we needed some more space and needed to expand the house in order to have a good living standard the kind of lifestyle that we have and the we frequently have guests which are friends and family visiting us. So, as a
result uh we decided to go on with the expansion project. We hired Menum Designs, Dan Enson, to help us with the design of the project and help us through the process. So, I hand over to Dan now to take it forward and answer
any questions you may have. >> Okay. So, Mr. Architect, are you going to testify from there or you going to go up to the podium? >> Uh, to the podium. >> All right. Why don't you head up to the podium and I'll swear you in over there and then we can proceed with the presentation. Okay. Uh, do you swear from tell truth
for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> It's Daniel Enen. Last name is spelled enc. Okay. And uh, Mr. Enen, can you give us uh, briefly your qualifications in the field of architecture? >> Sure. I'm a licensed architect. I've
been registered and licensed since 2007. I'm the principal and owner of Menum Design Architects uh located in Menum, New Jersey. Uh I have uh presented in front of this board as well of all the adjacent municipalities over the course of the uh the past 15 years. >> Okay. And your license to practice
architecture in the state New Jersey is up to date. >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. Chairman, >> can we just have your um education for the record? >> Uh sure. I hold a bachelor of architecture degree from New Jersey Institute of Technology. Excellent. Uh, does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this
witness? There being no objections, the witness is uh is accepted as an expert in architecture. All yours. >> All right. So, I guess I can use what's here. This is for uh what what's up on
screen here is for the application. Okay. Uh so the proposed project is at uh at 6 Ross Road. Uh it's located in the R1 district. Uh the house was constructed in 1955. Uh it's an existing singlestory
ranchtype home. Um a majority of the existing elements of the house or original elements of the house are still in place. Um, there's been some modification to the house over time. There's a a small sun room space uh on the back that had been added at some point. Uh, there is uh there have been
some kitchen renovations and other things done from previous owners. Um, but uh but the substantial portion of the house is still kind of original to what it was uh when it was constructed. Um the uh the existing lot which you can see here and everything is uh is
consistent with with the application. There's no changes. Um what uh what is shown here on the lot is the existing uh property uh is uh is kind of exceptionally shallow uh in terms of size. The required lot depth for this
area is 235 ft and the existing lot depth uh is 185.9 ft. Uh the two proposed variances um are for uh an addition at the uh at the front of the house as well as an addition at the rear
of the house. Uh both singlestory additions that are um you know both in line and shorter than the the pre-existing um the proposed where for the front yard setback uh we're proposed is 66 ft. Uh that proposed number is
actually uh or I'm sorry for the front yard setback uh 66 feet that is the uh dimension of the original house uh from the property line. Uh so the actual proposed dimension of what the addition is uh is 70.1 ft.
Same goes on the rear uh where the required rear yard is 75 ft. Currently, the rear right corner of the house uh based on the property line is 42.3 ft as it stands and what's being proposed uh where the addition is is 49.5 ft. Um so
in both cases we're we're being very careful. We understand the shallowess of the lot and we're we're trying to attempting to be very careful um and sensitive to the fact that we don't want to further increase or extend uh or intensify the existing non-conformity of
what's there. So both both portions are designed to actually be set back further than where the existing house is. Now, uh uh in addition to this, um the on the uh at the rear of the property behind this, uh there as opposed to being kind
of a dwelling or or another structure that has views of this, there's kind of a heavy wood line and then beyond that wood line is the parking deck to the medical center. Uh and so there is no there's not another home or another dwelling behind this kind of viewing this addition. Um that said in addition
to this as we as we look through um the existing roof of the house over the center core portion of the house is being proposed to be elevated uh getting taller ceiling heights within the existing one-story house. Uh still well within the height requirements. Um, but
that would also be viewed as extending an existing non-conformance where we're lifting that up within that 75 foot front yard setback. Uh, so on the uh on the site plan uh we can see the uh the proposed additions at
the front of the house. uh on the left side. Uh it uh is proposed uh expansion off the front face of the garage for uh a first floor bedroom space as well as a mud room and laundry and a powder room. Uh and at the center of the house, the
the small rectangle here, um that is not enclosed space. That is a uh that is a covered entryway uh or portico leading into the main centralized entrance to the house. On the rear of the house, the proposed addition in the back left corner uh is
kind of comprised of creating an area for uh expanded kitchen space uh as well as an an office space uh and some other additional room. Uh and then on the right side of the house uh the the small rectangle that you see here is a uh a proposed space for uh additional uh
walk-in closet space on the primary bedroom suite. Uh on sheet A2 uh is the the existing uh first floor plan as the house of the house as it stands right now. Um you can see how the bedrooms are clustered uh towards the right side of the house and the living spaces uh towards the center
and towards the left. Um much of that is is still uh staying the same. As you can see on sheet A3, uh the proposed uh floor plan of what's there uh kind of keeps much of that intact. Uh
opens up and increases some of the living space. Uh and then you can see the added bedroom uh kitchen and other living areas where the addition spaces are. >> So Mr. I uh Enen, right? >> Enen. Okay. Uh so uh you're saying that
the um addition that you are proposing for this house while it's um technically um there are technical variance conditions they're actually less than the current variance conditions. Number
one, >> correct? And number two, these are largely following otherwise they're the um they're following the the property or the uh um the current structure lines where they're where they're being expanded out.
>> Yes, we're working with the the placement of the existing spaces and elements within the house and expanding those out where necessary. So, and I think you brought up also the fact that this is a shallow lot and I think that rear line is a little uh diagonal
instead of straight across. So, I think you would agree with me that that is a uh presents some type of physic um the physical aspects of that lot cause the need for the variance conditions um more so than uh uh than it would for
another home on a similarly situated property. Correct. If it was a conforming property of a full standard depth within the zone, um we would not be applying for these variances, >> right? And under the more flexible standard of C2 standard, doing this
addition within uh or not causing more of a variance is a better pointing alternative than uh doing an addition that may create more variance conditions. >> Yes. are intensifying beyond what the existing condition is already, which is
non-conforming. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. Um, does anybody have any questions for this witness? Okay. Um, does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make
a statement regarding this application? Last chance for the board for any questions. Um would you like to make a closing statement at all or >> Yes. that the uh you know the proposed uh the proposed work uh and the you know
what the variances requested are less than uh the the existing or the the pre-existing non-conforming condition. uh and that the improvement both to the livability of the house as well as the uh the streetscape and the aesthetics of
the exterior are much improved by what's being proposed with the design. So the benefit of everything that's uh that's shown here far outweighs any detriment. >> Thank you. Would anybody in the board like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Keno, yes. Mr. Martin. >> Yes. >> Sorry, Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> M Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. >> Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> M. Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes.
>> You have congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Sweet. Keep coming. >> Lock 5100, lot 12, 49, Winchwood Road, application number 2025-116-V. Ban Kim Balaria and Puja Sha applicant
seeks approval for the second floor addition in violation of the following section 170-87 BB3 habitable floor area 3520 square ft allowed 3975.2 ft proposed 455.2
ft variance requested. Okay. So, uh, sir, are you, uh, uh, the owner of the home? >> Yes, my name is. >> Okay. And what's your name? >> Bankim Balaria. >> Okay. Are you going to testify? You going to let these two guys that you hired testify on your behalf?
>> I can also testify >> and they will they will assist you. >> Yeah, we'll we'll we'll give a brief intro, then we're going to take over. >> Okay. Why don't we swear you in Okay. Thank you, Mr. Graviano, for peanut gallery there. Do you swear? We're doing one at a time, Nick. I know you're very
excited. Um, do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight, sir? >> Yes. >> Can you do us a favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? >> Sure. Pankim Bara. B A N K I M. B H A L A R I A. >> Okay, sir. So, uh, why don't you give us
your brief intro and then we'll move on to your professionals. >> Yeah, my name is Bankim Paria. I'm joined by my wife Puja Sha. Uh, we have been in town since 2016, so almost 10 years. Uh we have a family of four uh two girls 15 and eight. My daughter
plays for the Livingston High School basketball team. Uh and the younger one is aspiring to be. Uh I'm represented today by Danny Dubinet who is my architect and Nick Graviano who's my planner. And thank you for the time. >> No worries. All right. So we're going to
start with Mr. Dubet. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Thank you. Daniel Dubanet. D A N I A Last name Dubanette. D U B I N E T
>> and Mr. uh Dubinette. I keep wanting to say Duban. Dubet. >> No, it sounds better. >> Dubanet that made him a little more French. >> Sounds a little French. A little more international. Yeah. Okay. Uh Mr. Duvenette has appeared before this board on numerous occasions, been qualified in the field of architecture. Mr.
Dubenette, your license to practice in the field of architecture in New Jersey is up to date. >> Up to date. >> Okay. Chairman, >> does anyone easy for me to say does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no
objections, the uh witnesses accept as expert architecture. >> Thank you. I guess I go first. Yes. Um Okay. Well, there's one variance associated with this application tonight. It's the habitable floor area.
Um, I'll give you a quick history of of of the existing house and a quick history of the proposed additions and some of the features that I think make it unique. Uh, this application unique
versus some others. Uh basically we're located in the R3 zone uh 49 Witchwood Road and the lot size is 19,000 360. So we're we're significantly larger than
the minimum which is 15,000. And like Nick will most likely testify to is in the back of the property is a really large easement owned by PSEG. So there's no neighbors in the back. The adjacent neighbor to the right is about
75 ft away from us and the neighbor to the left I measured is about 24 ft and I think um well let me show you the existing conditions of of the home. I'd like to if I could mark this as an exhibit because I
colorized it a little bit. >> We'll call it exhibit A1. >> Okay. So, what I did was try to show you in pink. Um, and in the future, I'll have a color printer, so we'll be able to give you some color in the future. But the pink
area is the addition to the back of the house. So, we have a center hall colonial. I think it's about 1960. It's a 4bedroom, 2 and 1/2 bath. As a result of this, we'll be a five bedroomedroom, five bath. Uh the bulk of the addition
is to the rear of the property which is a onestory addition which will allow us to add a family room, expand the kitchen, breakfast area, and create a guest bedroom in the back of the house in that's the first floor uh that we plan
on doing the addition to. And on the second floor above the existing garage, well, I I tried to show you or at least compare. Let me go back to the first floor. Okay, so on the left of your screen,
this is the uh first floor and this is the proposed on the right side. And on the second floor, okay, um we had a relatively small second floor. It was just just built over the leftand side of the house. So
the family room, the existing living room that they had in the garage, there was nothing above it. So we plan on building the ex uh second floor expansion on top of the existing first floor and then on the addition to the back, a small bedroom to the back. So, I
would say that most of our massing is uh over the garage, but particularly in the back is is where we're adding the additional massing and program. And these are images of uh what we plan on doing. So, you can see how on the left
side, upper left of V5, uh there's the existing house and the proposed house. So, we're going to add the space and we're also going to add some curb appeal. to change the roof lines. And I think what I'd like to show you is
just to give us a a setting. This is a Google Earth image. Um the highlighted area here is 49 Witchwood. Again, it's a 19,000 square foot lot. The neighbors adjacent to the right were actually got their backyards
to us. And then there's this magnificent wooded area that apparently is an easement that there won't potentially be anybody neighbors back there. So that that I think what makes this uh significantly special.
uh there are no other variances and and what I'd like to just point out because it's an addition to the back and over the existing that the sideyard setbacks and the front yard setbacks are are pretty nice.
So the red line is the 50 foot required front yard setback. So the existing house was at 60.6 and proposed is 60.6. There's a front portico that extends but still well within the 50. And then the
sideyard setbacks uh with the addition we'll be at 16 ft here and the red line is the 10 and on the right side existing 15.7. So we'll maintain that and uh the grayish area shaded in the back is um
one story primarily with a small massing on the second floor right in the middle. That's the application. I think uh certainly from my perspective the site can handle the uh additional massing. So let me go over the numbers real quickly.
Maximum allowed is 3520. We're going to be requesting 3975 which is 455 square ft over that number. But what's interesting if you compare it to the ratio uh they allow you to 21% and we'll
be under that will be at 20.5 and again I think the the conditions of the site and then uh the neighbors make this additional massing that the property can handle the extra square footage. Uh there's a small amount of space in the double height for that's
being counted that's about 80 square feet. Um and that's our application on my end. Okay, thank you. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness?
One down, one to go. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Graviano, do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> First name Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V is in Victor. I A N O.
I'm a planner and partner with Graviano and Gillis Architects with a business address of 101 Crawford's Corner Road in Homedale, New Jersey. >> And uh Mr. Graviano has appeared before this board numerous times, has been qualified in the field of professional planning. Mr. Graviano, your license to practice in the state of New Jersey is
up to date. Correct. >> As you say, I have not received any letters. >> Okay. Well, letter or emails in the old days or emails. Okay. >> Uh soon enough, they'll get to texts. Okay. Chairman. >> Yes. And you just renewed your license. In fact, >> I'm about to I got to do that. Thanks
for reminding me. >> You got like >> expires May 31st. I got to get >> Are you May or >> May? Yeah. May >> I'm April. All right. I just figured I thought you you on the same schedule. Does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the
witness except as expert in professional planning. >> Thank you, board. Always a pleasure being here. I've missed you the last couple months, so uh it's good. >> And we missed you, too. Thank you, chairman. I'm going to keep this brief. This is a very simple application. Mr. Duban did a great job uh before me
setting up the application. Uh this is a C variance request for a specific piece of property known as block 5100, lot 12. This is an oversized lot in the R3 district. Uh you heard the numbers. It's 19,360
foot lot whereas 15,000 square foot is required. This is a property that meets the habitable floor area ratio requirement. It's under by a half a percent. Uh essentially when you do the math, the code allows 704 square ft of
floor area per every 3,000 square ft of property area. Here the applicant has an additional 4360 ft of lot area and is only requesting an additional 455 square ft of floor area. So when you look at the ratios here that
the applicants requesting, it's a very reasonable ask given the fact that the lot is extremely oversized. And you heard Mr. Duminette indicate that 80 square ft of that is the double counted foyer. So we're only looking at a request of an additional 370 square ft
of living space here. That variance certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria whereas it relates to a specific piece of property, the oversized lot in the R3 district. Uh in terms of advancing the purposes of zoning of the municipal land use law,
this proposal certainly advances purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of lands in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Uh that's done through an updated dwelling uh being built to current code standards
and current design. It also advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And then uh lastly through the impeccably designed building by Mr. Dubanette. It certainly pro
promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. That is purpose. I um certainly the benefits from granting uh this variance would outweigh any detriment. Uh this proposal advances objectives of the 2018
master plan specifically to support the improvement of properties such as facade improvements. I also had a chance to look at the neighborhood compatibility. There are numerous other homes within this block that exceed the square footage that the applicant's proposing
this evening. So for all those factors, the board could grant this C variance request under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG, G, and I without substantial detriment to the zone, plan, zoning ordinance, or the public good.
Thank you. 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? You want to have a closing statement at all or
>> No, I think we put forth our testimony. >> Would someone on the board like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Miss Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Horn.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Congratulations. >> There you go. >> Thank you. >> Luck. >> Okay. >> Please call the next application.
>> Uh yes. Yes. Is the pump. Okay. Block 21102 lot 175 Orchard Lane. Application number 2026-7 V. David and Margaret Drill. Applicant seeks approval for the expansion of the
den and in addition in violation of the following section 170-98C2 frontier setback 50 ft required 40.4 ft proposed 9.6 ft variance requested 170-87
CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 22.6% proposed 1.6% variance requested. Okay, sir. Can you just hit the uh the button to activate your mic? Okay. Uh
I'm going to guess I'm going to make a wild guess based upon your shirt that you are Mr. Drill. >> Yes. >> Okay. You're the owner of the property, correct? >> Yes. Me and my wife. >> Okay. And you have your architect with you tonight? >> Yes. >> And is he going to do all the talking for you? >> Yes.
>> Wow. Okay. This is you're a man of few words, but right to the point. >> Okay. So, we're going to swear in your architect and then we can proceed from there. Uh, do you swear for untelled truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you do us the favor of stating and spelling your name for the record?
>> Robert Emert Jr. Uh, Robert Emert T Jr. >> Okay. And Mr. Emert uh has appeared before this board on numerous occasions, been qualified in the field of architecture, and I'm going to make a wild guess that his license in the state
of New Jerseyy's practice in the field of architecture is up to date. Correct. >> It is. Yes, it is. >> Okay, chairman. >> All right. Does anyone the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. >> Okay. Um,
so it's a pretty straightforward addition. Um, it's an existing split level on Orchard Lane. It's has three bedrooms and one shared hall bathroom. So, the intent of the addition is to
build out over the one-story garage. um do a do a fourth bedroom over the one-story garage and create a fourth bedroom with its own bathroom and um a closet a shared closet for the owners of
the property. Um so so that is where we run into the first variance because we are following the outline of the existing garage and the front yard setback of the garage in the house um is 40.4T
um and so we are proposing to match that setback. So we and 50 ft is required in this zone. Um, so we are asking for a 9.6
foot variance and you can see the pink outline is the existing setback and how it comes into the house, you know, the the 9.6 ft. So, but we're building in the in the shaded area shaded area here, which is the onetory
garage. Um we are also doing a there's a an existing an older sunroom um den area over here. We are going to tear it down and build over it and expand out. So with this rectangle where
the yellow is and that's going to be a onestory family room edition which is this space here. So, we've torn down what is here and just increased the size of that. But that addition stays
all within the um stays all within the setbacks uh required. So, that addition is is not an issue. But when we add everything else. All right. And so there is going to be one change to this. Um
because when we got into the design project, uh part of the intent was to convert the lower level. We were going to take take one garage bay away and we were
going to convert living space for a mother-in-law suite down there. and to come in through the lower level when we could do everything on grade. Unfortunately, that is no longer going to happen because mother-in-law has
passed away. So, we are not going to make this change. So what ends up happening as far as my tabul basically what's going to happen is going to shift numbers around but the um and I can give you the exact numbers
but the floor area ratio we're asking is instead of 1.6 is now going to be 08 because the garage is going to stay where it what it is and the the way those numbers work is this garage will
stay at 560. previously we were taking the 223 away for expansion here. So it's going to stay at 560 which means it'll have 110 square feet of floor area ratio and we are not adding this 223 to the lower
level because it's going to stay up there in the garage. So the 3513 gets reduced and I got it here. The 3513. So once you minus the 223 and
you add back in the 110 we're at 3,400 which is 21.8% instead of the 21%. So we're only asking for8% uh habitable floor area variance. So those are the two variances. One is the
setback and that's based on the existing location of the house its existing setback from the street. Um but we are following within the the footprint of the existing house. Um, and we are doing some other minor things. We are adding a front porch, which is completely
allowed, you know, on we're staying within the six foot setback. So, uh, we're adding a front porch, um, squaring off the deck in the rear. But, uh, but as far as the variances, it's the front yard setback and the habitable floor area.
>> Okay. So, Mr. Emmer, just uh, when we have some when we just clarify a few things for the record, the board knows exactly what they're voting on. So the plan that we see up now behind you, that plan for that lower level is going to be
amended. So there's not going to be what I'm looking at. >> It's going to be amended. It's going to be amended to show the existing conditions of the house. The existing conditions of the house on this level are not going to change. >> Okay. So as a result of not making the
changes to the basement, right? This >> the lower level. It's a it's on it's on gr it's on grade >> the lower level area the this causes a reduction in total area
uh for the home and also consequently a reduction in the request for the floor area ratio and instead of it being 1.6 6 as uh current on your plans, it's now
going to be8%. >> Correct? Correct. >> So, um All right. And I think you would agree with me that if the board were to look favorably on this application that uh the applicant knows that the board would be only granting a variance uh if
it were to grant the variance, it would only be granting the variance as you explained here tonight with regard to not making any changes to the lower level and the floor area ratio of 0.8 eight and that as a condition of approval I think you'd agree with me
that you need to provide plans updated plans which show that the lower level is not going to be touched. It's >> fair not a problem. >> Thank you G. >> When you say present the plans >> not touch >> not no to after yeah
>> to the building department. Once you're done Yeah. Once you're done with us, you're done with us. But as a condition of approval, >> it would have to go back to Miss Hollis. And I leave you I leave you in her very capable hands. >> Okay. Does anyone have any questions for this witness?
>> Go ahead. >> Hi, thank you so much for your presentation. I just have one quick question for you. You mentioned that the sun room is being torn down, >> correct? >> Is anything is the house staying? You're just adding on, but you're not tearing anything else. The the house is not coming down and rebuilding. It's you're
leaving the house as is, keeping the exact footprint. >> We are we are tearing off the roof of the garage. It's a twocar garage. >> We are tearing off the roof of the garage, >> which is, you know, this footprint here cuz it's
only a one-story garage, right? So, we're tearing that off and we're building the second floor addition over >> over the garage. And that's Okay. And the only thing that's being torn down is the sun room. >> And then the sun room is being torn down. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? A public. Thank you. Um, does anybody in the public want to make a statement regarding this application?
Okay. Would you like to do any closing or you good? >> I am good. >> Okay. Anybody the board want to make a motion? >> Subject to the conditions as council uh stated, uh, I make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn,
>> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. King, yes. Mr. Sha, >> yes. >> Miss Yung, >> yes. >> Miss Gun, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Congratulations and our condolences.
>> Thank you. >> Block 2800 lot 15 7 W Road application number 2026-16-V Lakey Johnny application. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single
family dwelling in violation of the following section 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 68.61 61 ft proposed 28.61 ft variance requested 170-99
C3 left sideyard setback 10 ft required 6.24 24 ft proposed 3.76 ft variance requested 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30 ft 30%
allowed 32.7% proposed 2.7% variance requested. >> Okay, good evening everybody. Nice to see you all again. For the record's purpose, my name is Steven Shepus. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Joanie. May I have you seated? >> Be comfortable. >> Our only witness for you this evening is
John Babula. Mr. Baboula is a licensed architect. Uh he prepared the plans that are subject of tonight's presentation. So without ado, I'd like to have him sworn briefly place his credentials on the record and walk us through the facts. All right. Mr. Barboola, do you swear firm tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do.
>> Okay. Mr. Barbula, uh please state and spell your name for the record. >> Uh it's Jonathan Babula. BAB ULA. >> All right. Mr. Barbula, uh you've appeared before this board, been qualified in the field of architecture. >> Correct. And um you are uh your license
to practice uh in the field of architecture in the state of New Jersey is up to date. >> It is. >> Okay. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objection, the witness accepted as expert in architecture.
>> Okay. Very good. Mr. Bullet, while you're um about to give your testimony, I've shown you an exhibit that we're going to introduce as exhibit A1, aerial photograph and some pictures of the subject dwelling as well as neighborhood photos. Uh have you reviewed this document marked as A1 that I'm about to hand to the board?
>> Yes. >> Do the photographs fairly and accurately reflect the conditions of the existing home at 7 Wardell as well as the homes in the neighborhood as they're identified in that exhibit? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'd like to hand that up to the board and just uh move along. Mr. Babula, while I'm doing that, why don't you please describe for the board and
the public what exists on the subject property today? Tell us what you know about the house and then what we propose in the way of modification. >> Uh the the existing home is a home that was built in the 1940s. Um it is a older uh typical Cape Cod style home. Uh it's
a little bit outdated for um today's uh living style and standards. Um it is uh about 14 feet off the uh the road and about three feet off the right side property. And so we are proposing to uh demolish this home and construct a new
two-story dwelling um that is a little bit more conforming and uh set back a little bit further. >> Okay, Mr. Babulla, tell us what exists on the right hand side of the house that exists today. >> What's it uh on the adjoining lot to the right? The adjoining is a is uh the
neighbor's driveway and a detached garage. >> Okay. Now, I'm going to draw your attention to page number three. I'm sorry, page number four on exhibit A1. It tells how close the neighbor's driveway is to the common property line. >> Uh it's about 2 feet.
>> Okay. Now, on the opposite side, uh what do we have on the left hand side of the subject property? If you could maybe take a look at photo two on page two. Uh again, we have the neighbor's driveway and uh another detached garage. >> Okay. Now, how far is the existing house off the righth hand property line?
>> Uh 3.5 ft. >> So, why don't you tell us what the requirements of the ordinance are as to setbacks and how this house is exist today comports or doesn't comport with those requirements. >> The required uh sideyard setbacks are 10 feet and uh for the existing dwelling on
the the left side is 16.9 and on the right side is uh 3.75. Okay. What about front yard? >> Uh the requirements for the front yard is 40 feet and the existing is 14.8. >> What does the ordinance require for lot width? >> Uh 75 ft. >> And how wide is the lot at the street?
>> Uh this lot at the street is uh 50 ft wide. >> Now the lot is rather unusually shaped based on your plan. Why don't you show us what that how's how's this lot bear out as far as uh shape? So, the lot starts out at 50 ft wide at the street and as you go back um on the left side, it angles out to to become a little bit
wider at uh 67.8. >> Okay. Now, how wide is the lot at the very back of the lot? >> At the very back of the lot is 67.8 ft. >> And where you're proposing to site the house, you noted it was a little over 68 ft from the front property line. How wide is the lot there?
>> Uh 57. >> And is it fair to say that as the lock as you go further back on the lot, the lot becomes a little wider? >> Correct. Okay. So, let's talk about what you're proposing. >> Uh, we are proposing a new two-story dwelling with a two-car garage. Uh, the left side yard setback is is proposed to
be 6.24. The right is uh going to be 10.10. Um, the front yard is proposed to be 68.6 and we are conforming in the rear at 37.3. >> Now, the yard that's on the right hand side presently now is not conforming a little less than 4 feet. Correct.
>> Correct. So you're going to make it a conforming sideyard on the right hand side. >> Yes. >> Now let's talk about the left hand side. We're asking the board to grant deviation from the ordinance requirement of 10 ft. You're showing a dimension there 6.24 ft. Can you tell us why that dimension is proposed rather than uh a
conforming setback of 10 ft? >> Uh the because of the width of the house which is 44 feet. Um, we tried to place the the house at the widest part of the property and uh we wouldn't be able to fit the two-car garage if we were conforming to the 10 feet. >> Now, what about the shape of the lot? Does that have anything to do with the
narrowness of the uh the configuration? >> Uh, it the the shape of the lot is what's um uh causing the uh 6ft uh sideyard setback there. >> Have you been able to quantify the square footage of the building that would be violating the sideyard setback? Yes, the this little triangle that is
over the setback line is about 53 square feet. >> Now, apart from that, is it fair to say that the balance of the structure comports with the sideyard setback requirements? >> Yes. >> Now, let's talk about front yard setback. The ordinance uh has some interpretation that I'm not really sure,
but in any event, it's been interpreted by the zoning official that somehow we're required to be no more than like 50 ft from the front property line. Why are you proposing to set the house back at 68 ft? Uh again, um to minimize the uh sideyard setback, if we were to push
the house any further to the front, this 6.24 would be reduced to about three feet. Um also, it um because of the detaches garage on either side, pushing the house back uh allows for more openness and light and air uh between the uh the neighboring properties there.
Right now you mentioned that the neighbor's driveway is about uh three feet off two feet off the common property line and on the other side you have the neighbor's garage and a driveway. Is that fair to say? >> Yes. >> So is it fair to say by pushing the house back you're going to be providing a greater separation from those parking areas?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now let's talk about the uh habitable floor area and habitable floor area ratio. What's the maximum habitable floor area permitted in the zone? uh 3,220 and we are proposing uh 30 3,21.
So we are 20 about 20 square feet under. >> Okay. Now let's talk about the ratio. The ratio you don't comply with. >> Correct. 30% is required. Um and we are at 32.7 which is about 270 ft. >> Now let's talk about that 270 square feet. Why can't you shave this any
further to make it compliant? What what's the difficulties associated with that? what benefits by uh granting the deviation would one uh result or would result from this project? >> Um we we as you can see in the left side elevation here uh we did step back the
second floor uh to reduce the habitable floor area so it does not occupy all of the first floor. Um also with the the layout and um the designs uh it is a little bit narrow in the front with the two-car garage. So, making it any narrow
uh and reducing the square footage, uh we would have much smaller uh bedrooms and we wouldn't be able to fit a two-car garage. >> Okay. Now, let's talk about what the house will look like. Can you show us what the edifice would look like from the street? >> Sure. This is the uh front elevation,
and this is uh the proposed um uh two-story more modern um design. >> Talk about the exterior materials that would be seen by passers by. So, it's a mix of some vertical bat and board siding with some uh cultured stone on the uh garage and lower levels of the
first floor with a mix of ashvalt singles and uh metal roofing. >> Okay. I don't have anything further, Mr. Babula, with regard to the architectural layout and the existing conditions. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Yeah, I have a question. Uh thank you for the presentation and thank you for the exhibit. uh A1 you submitted. Uh my one question is I mean I understand uh for the you know design uh to make it uh more efficient
uh you have set it back to 68 ft. Uh but what I see from the pictures is that all the neighborhood properties immediately uh they are in that 14 to 20 feet range.
If if I'm looking at this correctly, if I look at uh the properties right next to it, they are pretty close to the curb line. Uh having this property set so far, I mean, definitely it's it's nice
that you're complying, but and would that affect the neighborhood look a lot? How do you what do you say about it? Because this is, you know, if I look at this garage here in this existing picture, that's where the new property
would be, at least the the the facade of it. So, do you think that would be too deep a setback to conform with the neighborhood feel? >> Um, this neighborhood, the street is kind of in a transition area where there are homes across the street from this
that are further set back, you know, at the 40 or 50 foot um there. So, I think, you know, because this is in a transition uh street that more and more will conform and it will fit in. >> Yeah. You know, I would also point out to exhibit A1 and I draw your attention
to photo two. Uh the houses that are immediately to the left appears to have its frontage on South Livingston Avenue. And then likewise, all of the other homes that are along our sideyard have frontage on the side street. So, the back of those homes face our home. So,
it's not as though there's a um a consistent uh line immediately to our left. To the contrary, it's their backyards that are but our sideyard. And one of the considerations we gave uh in placing the house here, Mr. Babula, correct me if I'm wrong, is the fact
that we're in everybody else's backyard. And what they have in their backyard is primarily accessory structures like sheds and garages. So, as far as the neighbors are concerned on the left, uh we're in their backyard. And as far as neighbor is concerned on the right, uh he's got his driveway butt up against
this house and meanwhile he's looking in our windows. So it just didn't seem like an appropriate location and especially in light of the fact that we're only 50 ft wide at the street and the ordinance requires 75. So Mr. Babulla, you tell me, is there a better separation with this uh setback as compared to what
exists today as it relates to just light air open space as relates to the dwelling units? >> Yes, I I believe there is. Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah, just following up on that. Uh because that was my question. Is this
this the portion that is 6.74 away? Is that at that particular spot? Is that the neighbor's backyard? When I say backyard, meaning the South Livingston Avenue property, backyard, rear yard. >> Yes. Okay. Yes.
Does anybody else on the board 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? Back to you if you'd like to close or
>> I would only make this comment. Uh right now these houses are u a matter of like 10 or 15 feet apart. You got the neighbor's driveway right up against the side property line. You got cars coming and going into the back. You've got the neighbor's garage in the front yard. It's not a very desirable layout as it
exists today. And while it's not a perfect situation, and I acknowledge that it's not perfect. Uh but I believe it's a and as Mr. Mabulla testified, it's a vast improvement from what exists today. The house that's there today was built in 1940. Houses were not built to last 100 years. It's it's time for
change. And and as you can see from the photographs, the neighborhood is in transition. The board granted similar relief for property immediately across the street at 10 Wardell. So, um it seems that um what you see going on out there is enhancements and this would
only further that purpose. Thanks. >> Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Mr. Ky, Mr. Horn, >> approve. Yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes.
>> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. Have a pleasant day. >> Okay. Block 5601, lot 18, 189 Hillside
Avenue. Application number 2025- uh 115V IA Thrashkunav. Applicant seeks approval for the second floor addition and detach detached garage in violation of the following sections.
170-98C2 frontier setback 50 ft required 28.2 ft proposed 21.8 ft variance requested 170-98C3 right side yard set back 10 ft required
zero proposed 10 ft variance requested 170- 98 C3 left sideyard setback 10 ft required 4.2 ft proposed 5.8 8 ft variance requested 170-9
C3 aggregate side yard 30 ft required 8.4 ft proposed 21.6 ft variance requested six sorry 21.6% 6% variance requested 170-87
CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 33.7% proposed 12.7% variance requested accessory building detached garage 170-87E1 height 13t allowed 15 ft proposed 2 ft
variance requested 17087E1 D3 sideyard setback 7 ft required 5 ft variance proposed. Two ft variance requested 170-87E1D3
right sorry rear yard set back 7 ft required 5 ft proposed two variance requested. >> Okay. So uh you're going to be the only witness uh tonight for the applicant. >> I will represent myself. Yes.
>> Okay. You're the owner of the property. the owner of 189 Hillside Avenue. >> Okay. And uh the um you are not the person who prepared the plans though. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Meaning Okay. I said that in the
wrong way. Did you prepare these plans? >> Yes. I was right. >> Yeah. It was a double negative. Make it proof positive. >> I didn't hear a negative. I'm sorry. >> It's all right. Let's prepare for let's swear you in. >> Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight?
>> I do. Can you do us the favor of stating and spelling your name for the record? >> Uh, my name Ilia Trasenov. I L Y A T R A S K U N O V. >> Okay. And Mr. Trasenov, uh, you are the owner of the property, correct?
>> Yes. >> And you are also the uh architect or engineer? >> No, I'm not architect. I uh I have a master's degree in Soviet Union as I graduated from university of architect and civil engineering. and I have a
master degree in civil engineering. >> Okay. Are you licensed to practice in the state of New Jersey in the field of engineering? Okay. >> All right. So, you're you're we're going to not qualify you as an expert. >> Okay. Because you have to have uh
certification in the state of New Jersey to be considered an expert, but uh obviously you're an expert in your own home. So, you know, you know, you know about the home. So, you're going to be testifying as a fact witness. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Um
so uh Dasov why don't you go ahead and uh tell us uh about the project. >> So building was built in 1941 escape court and since then it was no improvements or additions and still the same as it was. It's one one and a half
floor means uh it's a dorm and the first floor one one bathroom uh one bedroom one nursery which we use as a bedroom also when kids were uh small. Um we live
in this building for 16 years already. We moved to New Living in 2010 and uh we bought it in 2017 with the same building. Um so since then
uh I was thinking about improvements, additions and finally I decided to go for the second floor and um detach garage. This garage that we have right now it's not usable for cars. It's too
small 9 ft. Uh it can be used only like a storage. So there is no garage. So whole idea of that uh addition it's a second floor and a detached garage in the backyard. Uh garage is current garage attached
garage uh supposed to be demolished to give a access to backyard because there is no access to backyard at all. We have a four feet on the left side uh set back on the left side and right side we have
a two feet only. So the um proposed uh um addition of the second floor definitely take all the because it's existing non-conforming the
residence everything that you touch be became need variances. So um on the left side setback we have uh existing 4.2 uh feet and I requesting the same uh as
to match existing uh setback to to to continue with second floor of wall. uh front yard we have a uh 32 ft uh and I uh request variance for 28 to
uh to build let me just go to the proper here this the first floor plan so to build uh enclosed entrance which increase efficiency of the building and uh to build the nuke so that will
increase a little bit uh space for the living room. Uh also it's involve u 6 ft extension of the kitchen first floor to the backyard which doesn't um
go beyond the uh permitted 75 ft. I think it's a backyard setback. Second floor um will be within the same with the same uh plan.
Uh no no uh different with setback on the left side 4.2 front yard will be four uh 28.2 uh backyard there is no necessity for variance. Um I
requested uh also variance for right side because I I I would like to have a carport which is just uh awning and or whatever it's called uh
shed that doesn't go to the to the ground just or it's like that. Let me show like that. It's uh you see that's a carport. Um and um
also variance here goes for uh total habital area is beyond beyond the below the uh maximum permitted. We have 2448
ft total area uh which is below the 3520 uh per required uh permitted area habital area. The problem here is
um habitital flow ratio because it is required um variance because it's due to a uh under size uh plot because it's a less
than half of permitted in this R3 area zone. uh it goes out of it requires variance but the uh total habitable flow area below the permitted also. Um,
two more variants I I requested because uh I would like to have a to build garage in the backyard but uh uh required setback is 7 ft uh from the uh property line but dur
because of uh under size uh plot uh I ask for five feet from both sides which is enough for for uh maintenance safe uh of the garage
and last variance I requested it was 15 ft tall uh heights of garage instead of permitted 13 to make it more space uh allowed for the for this undersiz uh area that technically what I would like
to say about my design Um, >> yeah, that's it. Yeah. >> Okay. Through you, chair, just to clear up a couple things just so some of sets doesn't have a photos. If somebody want it, I can give it. I have a set,
>> but I think that that was Was that part of the packet? >> Yes. I know that one was without pictures, so that was >> okay. >> But it's okay. It's here. So sir, let me let me just run down a few of these things and and just so that we're all on
the same page with this. Okay. Um the front yard setback that's pre-existing, correct? >> Yes. Pre-existing. Yes. >> It's only because you're adding a second level. Correct. Because you're adding the Because you're
adding the second level, you are now going to you now have to ask for the front yard variance. You're not moving the front of the building further forward. No, it's it's not it's not exactly the second floor will be like a pre-existing exact the same. The first
floor first floor will have a uh a nook. >> Okay. So, the first floor, not the second floor. >> So, so the the front part is is only violated by virtue of the the small nook space that you're adding to the front, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. The right side. We'll
get to the right side in a second. Get to the right side in a second. No, >> the left side is pre-existing, correct? >> Correct. >> And there's no push out on that. That's just from the second floor. >> Okay. Um the sideyard, well, the sideyard goes along with the right side.
So, we'll get to that in a second. The habitable floor area, you've already testified to that that that's you're under the actual habitable floor area, but you're violating the ratio, >> right? Yes. Simply because your lot size
is about half the size of what lot is in that zone. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we get to the garage. The G all of those variances for the garage are new because of where you're putting the garage. >> Correct. >> Okay. Let's go to the right side for a second. The right side is only violated
by virtue of the carport that that uh open structure. >> Right. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. And you would agree with me that the right side setback then adds to your issue with
regard to the aggregate sideyard because you're using both >> aggregate set. I forgot to to mention aggregate aggregate. Uh >> it's okay. That's that's it's why they have the guy in the bow tie to help out. >> Um so and then your um Okay. And then
and then you attach garage. Okay. I just wanted to clarify those pieces. Chair, back to you. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions for this minute? >> I I have a few. Um, all right. So, first
with the garage in the back. Um, I know you have it at, you know, five feet off the line. Um, I I know that seven feet is the what's required. Um, huh.
No, it's seven seven feet for the for the bed. >> Seven. Yes. >> The uh for for for for the garage the garage shed whatever. Um what's the I'm trying to eliminate some things here. If we could, you know,
eliminate all these var some of these variances, but you know, I don't see why that can't be moved over. So, it's at least the seven feet off the extra two feet in both directions. because it's it's a a size of the
property is um 50 ft. If they're going to be a garage uh 12 ft inside so it means it's a 13 or 12 and a half uh outside measurement
plus 7 ft is already 20 ft. So it will be like a half of the property will be. So I'm trying to move closer to the uh property line to make it uh to keep the uh uh distance set back from the
property to be able to prop properly maintain the garage sides. uh but um I'm trying to make it at as as less as possible because uh I know that 2 ft it's technically it's not a big distance
but uh this is what I I when the plot is too small even one ft is uh make difference so this why I'm asking for 2x uh to for two variance >> for two ft variance >> Mr. Chairman, if I could just add, um,
this is more like an R4 zone and that would be 5 ft >> required an R4. So, it's something we can consider. >> Gotcha. Um, other question is on the carport. I see that you have a railing that's on the carport.
>> That is uh uh kind of I thought designed but uh it's not. It will be just roof. No railing, no no area to walk or to have a fun. No. So, would you be okay with with a well, two conditions of approval, one being no railing um on the
carport uh roof only and that the carport is open on all sides? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Anybody else have any comments? >> I have a question. Um why do you have to have a garage a detached garage that is
15 feet high instead of 13? that because um the 15 ft gives you space uh to to to to um to store the stuff in a garage and
because again there is no way to uh to store it on the property because too small I'm trying to uh to uh design some uh garage with the possibility to store uh different equipment that needed to
for for uh maintain the house for uh uh gardening whatever it is. My wife she likes gardening she need a lot of stuff to to to store that is 15 ft I ask variance for >> oh would you say that that would be
absolutely no living space or um electricity or plumbing on that in that space? No, that's will be m uh 100% garage uh not leaving space at all. No.
>> Um so so the carport even if it's open you're you want to have the support legs etc. You're going to have some structure that with a zero setback for the carport. Is that what you're proposing? The uh support can be uh different. It
can be from the top. It can be uh designed to hold it roof, >> but the roof's going to come out to like to a zero setback. Just so I know what we're looking at. It's going to >> That's what I I thought about that. Yes. >> Yeah. I I think maybe to help Mr.
Weissman's um answer Mr. Smith's question. How wide is the carport? >> Carport is uh 12 ft. >> So the carport just so I think I knew where you were going. It it means
carport from the uh existing wall which is 12 ft from uh from the property line up to the property line that we have u with my neighbor. >> Well, I'm trying to get a sense of how close to the neighbor you're going to be
right on the line with the >> the roof will be and the roof will be the roof will be technically so if you're on the line you're looking up that that's the end of the end of the carport. now that he may have to put um
uh columns to support it >> in the column. So I will I will do I I will do design that will eliminate the columns that will be set. >> I think that's up to the how it ends up getting built. That's up to uh construction code.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Can I uh Oh, can I >> just sort of like how because it's really a two-part question. The first is it I I can't tell but from looking at the plans it looks like you're doing major I'm saying like major construction like a lot of the walls of the whole
house are changing it's it's Oh no >> no no >> okay >> the wall uh it's existing existing house let me show you where is it mouse right I'm sorry um give me one Second,
this is existing floor plan, right? This is existing for 25 by 33. >> Okay. So, if you go to the next page, this the only difference here. >> Oh, okay. >> It's a uh back 6 ft to for the first
floor to the backyard and the nuke to the front yard. the the the side walls stay as is. I mean the same uh uh setback. >> Okay. And then the reason I ask and it's
not our place to design but I I want to mention it and see if you've considered it because it might be for your benefit but that's why I asked because it is much more expensive. But we have um for example there's two on hillside where we did give a hillside terrace or we g similar where they were undersized lots
at 50 feet um and I think we gave some variance but improved overall because they built a new house within 10ft setbacks were actually able to fit in a twocar garage and more square footage uh etc etc. So it was better for the the
whole community. I don't know if you've considered uh something like that that's actually better for you and the community and you're not encroaching on the neighbor because I I I know you have this this this hardship but it there's you know we've seen other ways where it's been done um that's better for the
homeowner and the community. The better part of that that it will be more accessible from a uh like security in in case of emergency it will be accessible all around the house. Right now there is no access for the for two
buildings that we have in a row. The same problem has my neighbor has the same issue. So when it will be uh carport or open space it will be uh accessible the backyard for for uh for
the area. So it will be better for community if something uh for God's sake happen. So and uh for uh for the for living in in this house it will be also because it gives them more
space uh to to fill more space. Right now it's like a wall. You you don't have it from inside. If you're sitting in the backyard, you covered your wall. You don't I mean you vault from the outside world. In some case it's good to be
separated from outside world but not always right. So the same with front yard you don't see what's behind. When it will be a carport is a technically open space it will uh benefit for my opinion.
Um, let me chime in here a little bit. It looks like I have to guess the adjoining dwelling is probably about six feet off the property line. Maybe six or seven. It's not 10, I don't think.
>> What side? >> On your right side. >> On the right side, it is uh I think the same four feet. >> Okay. So, >> four feet plus uh to the property line. I get the hardships. I personally get,
you know, what you're trying to do here. I, you know, you're working with a very difficult lot. But once we start to get close to the neighbors, we start to get a little a little itchy maybe and we have a neighbor that's 4T off of one side, you're looking to come right up to his
side. What if the neighbor sells and the guy wants to build a house? I mean, we're just unfortunately it's a very narrow lot and I I don't know what the proper solution is, but I'm having a lot of trouble coming right up to the line cuz we've never come that close to the
line ever. Six, seven feet. Yeah. Zero. That's really questionable. And if you're building even if it's supported, you're an engineer. I'm an engineer. We could support it. Maybe in the future now you need columns. There's columns there. You know, things happen. Um, I
I'm just personally I have a little trouble with that. I also I understand you want to have as much room as possible for the gardening and everything else. We all like to do that, but I I think I need a better reason to make
the roof of the garage more than 13 ft. These are very narrow. You're up against the corner. It just becomes a bigger building for the neighbors to look at. I just I'm having trouble with a bunch of things. I'd like to hear from my other colleagues.
>> Thank you, Mr. Beer. That was actually one of my questions. I had two questions, but that was one of them. My second question was um your existing roof line is 20 what is uh 20 20.5 ft. Correct. And you
would like to go to 34.1 ft. >> We go to the 35 per meter from the ground. >> Well, On the plans it says 34.1 is your proposed >> say >> right
the required is 35. I mean it's just a foot but basically you're going up >> another 14 ft. So my question to you is do you know from the roof line to the the um height of the attic? Do you have any idea what the height is at the
highest point of in the attic? Highest point I attic will be uh the roof age. It's 130.3. It's 35 ft from the ground level. >> So it's 35 not 34.1. Okay. But the
attic, do you have any idea how high the the highest point of the roof line for the attic? Do you have any idea how high that is? like maybe 10 feet the highest. >> 10 10 ft. >> 10 stairs. So, >> and there are pull down stairs. How do
how does one get into the attic? >> There is a uh there is a stairs. >> Pull down stairs or >> No, regular stairs. >> Oh, regular stairs. Okay. >> This is why I I count it as a as a habit area. Habitable area. The uh there is a plan of the attic on a on a on on a
height of here's a attic plan on a on a on a height of 6 ft 6. >> Okay. Okay. >> Attic plan and it was included in the habitable
area. >> Mr. Mr. Tresenov. Um on on the carport, um the carport basically appears to take
the space that the current garage takes. And I only ask this question because normally when you have a carport, it's because you have a an adjacent door or
entry way there. Um the carport doesn't have a direct entry point from that uh from where you're looking to build it. I mean you have to go around onto the onto the deck. So is is there is there
actually a need that you can express other than it would be nice to have. I understand that. But from a planning perspective, I'm not sure that there's a articulable
need for the carport cuz not living space, right? The only purpose of the carport would be for a person to be there so they don't get wet or get snow on them when they're going into the home, but they would be effectively
outside in any event. So, I'm I'm And you have the detached garage. So because you also you know one would argue I don't have a detached garage therefore I need the carport but here you're asking
for the detached garage and in essence the right side variance is for the carport which is not really adding anything to your living space. So I'm not I'm not I don't think that there's
an articulable planning need for the carport. >> I I would say like that um I planned only carport but uh because my title is building house with the attached garage
even I have demolished garage I have to build it that I told that I have to have a garage because my title says garage. So if was a possibility be without garage I would leave only carport >> right. So
>> but because of that but carport I I I I I have only because of the like you say because of the uh elements because it's protect the uh car everything is from the top snow rain possibility.
>> Mr. Trasenov, would you agree that if you were to remove the carport, if you were to remove the carport, that would eliminate your request for the side right side yard setback. Correct.
>> Okay. >> And it would also reduce, and I don't, you know, I'm not an engineer. I don't do numbers, but I'm sure somebody else would figure this out, but it would also reduce uh I don't know if it would eliminate, but it would certainly reduce
the aggregate sideyard percentage. So while you're asking for these other variances uh with regard to the pre-existing condition and the variance for the detached garage to uh for a better
planning alternative for the detached garage that maybe by the elimination of the carport that would result in a in a better plan overall. What do you think?
>> I would think about um making carport smaller >> to eliminate zero setback like make it two two feet. If that is uh
going to be permitted, I will be okay with that. Instead of uh zero setback for for the right side, I would go for two two. >> Okay. Can I ask a question? The current garage, >> how far how far is that off the property
line? >> Two >> two feet. >> Two less than two feet. But it cannot be used because it's a small if it will be open space. Car can go in. understand the rate >> and as you understandably your your
statement of you're building a garage detached that you are able to park a motor vehicle in because it's of a proper size. >> Yeah. But garage is for one car. >> Understand? But >> we have two three people in living right now. We have a three cars already at
that time. So that my uh that's why I'm asking for carport to have another car to be covered and uh >> that's my point. >> Would you be amenable to the carport
being having the same setback as the existing garage has? >> I will be okay. I would be okay. >> Okay. ex existing existing setback for the garage as I said two two feet from the property line if the I can I can go for
the because roof is still enough to cover and if it it will if it fit our uh purpose it's okay. How do you control the snow and the and the rain from going into the neighbor's property then if you
have only you know zero to two feet is a if we have a winter like we had now going to slide down and fall over onto the next property. >> Uh it will not because it depends how you build the roof over. If you build a roof to the
property it will slide to the neighbor. If you build it uh along the driveway back and front like my garage right now, it will not affect my neighbors uh uh safety because the snow will slide front
and back. >> Understood. I'm not quite sure how that gets supported, but that's okay. Um why don't we see if there's any Oh. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Sh. >> Yeah, I have just one small comment. The front yard setback is also incorrect. I think you are asking for 28.2, two but
if you add the nuke it should be 29.45 so in my opinion it should be 23 ft setback that you are uh I mean the variance that you're requesting >> it should be 29.45 45 because the nuke is a little outer you know a little out
>> your measurement is wrong then >> that is correct >> reading here >> in my opinion >> oh we can correct that why don't we see if there's any comments from the public any questions for this witness >> um just one second uh my existing uh uh
existing setback is 32.9 so uh minus 4 and half it will be 28 and two that I think I what I asked requested for yeah
>> yes so it's 4 and a half so that's uh it's my calculation was if I'm right okay >> right okay does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness
come come up to the mic. >> Uh I'm Donald Schaefer. I live uh adjacent to uh the uh Mr. >> Trasov. >> Trasenov
and >> left side or right side as we look at the house. >> Uh if we're facing the house >> side, >> I'm on the right hand side. >> Okay. So further from uh >> the zero setback side. >> Yeah. Yeah, the carport side >> and uh I I just have a couple comments.
>> Oh, right now just questions then we do comments. >> What's that? >> There's a procedural order. Questions come first and then comments. >> Okay. >> So, if you have any questions at the moment, ask questions. If not, just stand there for a few seconds. >> Okay. No, I it's comments is what I
have. But I I do have a question. >> Yes. >> About the improvements. The plan doesn't have exactly how you get from point A to point B in terms of the the surface for the U driveway. Will that be macadam or
crush stone? Maybe any >> that's that's not something that >> done before this board. The the materials are up to the applicant to do in line with the construction code
officials. >> Okay. So, hold your spot. Does anybody else have any questions? You have no questions. We'd like to hear from you for your comments. >> Comment. >> Okay. But yes, this is where you went. >> Yeah. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? I do. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schaefer.
>> Okay. So, uh, as I said, I live to the to the side. We have three houses in a row that are what are commonly called Cape Cod style houses. Uh, the Cape Cod style house dates back all the way to
the 1700s. In the 30s and 40s, they became popular here in the states, particularly because they could fit on smaller lots. So, that's how we got our three houses in a row. I have a 50 foot by 100 foot
properties. Our houses are pretty much identical. Then, there's a third house going toward Northfield that is also a sort of a Cape Cod style house. And so, we have three in a row. uh what the uh
I'll call Ilia for neighbor for sure. >> Neighbor, you can call me neighbor. >> What Elilia has in mind or at least the architectural design is quite similar actually to the third house. That would be the house closest to Northfield. Uh
typically the Cape Cod style house did have for a number of years uh carports or I guess they were called porticos because they dated back so far before cars. So consistent with design,
the carport or or portico is kind of architecturally consistent with uh the design and uh consistent with how the houses and why the houses were built that way. Both our
houses only have 8 and 1/2t wide garages. So when they built those houses, they they built them with small garages and the only type car you can get in those garages is a small like a
Volkswagen bug. So that's the biggest problem. Also with the problem is, and I've had it for a number of years, currently I don't, but for a number of years, we always have problems with jockeying cars around. That's a big deal. So what that
carport will do for the neighbor is give him an extra actually an extra parking space and possibly a little bit more if he wants to park all the way to the rear of the property. We do have an accessory
garage on the third house which isn't all the way to the back of the property. It's more mid-range in the property. Uh in terms of uh the design, I think it's it's a positive thing to see somebody
actually uh renovating a house as opposed to succumbing to the pressures of the real estate market and selling uh to uh a uh flipper or whatever and
uh building a big square box. So, I I I give him credit for wanting to uh improve his house, which uh judging from the ages, it uh it is modernization
is a good thing. uh when you're talking about the accessory garage, it would be nicer to see it a little bit lower, but for a long time, I understand just today that they've changed the uh height, how you calculate the
heights on the accessory garages or accessory structures, even a storage shed. But for many years, we have had in the ordinance uh a a gauge in terms of how do you determine height? And that would would
have been or was for many years. I think it's probably still in the ordinance, too. I didn't go that far to to search it, but uh if you measure midway between the uppermost plate and the ridge,
that's where you measure. You can measure the 13 ft at that measure as long as you have a sloping roof. So, he's pretty much consistent, even though I, you know, I I don't really want to be looking at a garage in
my backyard, but he's pretty much consistent with that uh those numbers, which held true for many years turn terms of our local zoning ordinance. Uh what else? aesthetics. A little fufu
or guard rail on the top of a oric code. That doesn't seem to uh uh bother me. In terms of drainage though, I know it's not your jurisdiction, but we could always get a set a suggestion.
We are uh in line to have new sidewalks throughout the town. Improvements for the uh for the kids going to school and walkers. We get a lot of walkers nowadays. We could actually use drainage from our
property down to a storm sore which is down on the corner in Northfield. They never when they improved the roads and took a lot of our setback away. One of the reasons we we need the front yard setback is because our properties were
cut back in order to widen and safe in Hillside Avenue. So, at one time we we had enough setback, but because of the safening of the road, we lost it. But, uh, when they put those new sidewalks
in, if they could if we could get a a pipe along the inside of the curb, M >> to get us down to the >> That's the other that's that's that's really for our our uh municipal council. >> Yes. But you have you do have
authorities to make suggestions. >> No, not really on that. But I understand what you're saying. Uh it sounds to me like you're saying you're just to sum it up. You're saying that you really don't have a problem with the carport uh as it's presented. >> Well, when it comes to the numbers, I
like the idea of going back to at least what the existing setback was. >> Okay. If you look closely, I think that's a >> uh on the survey. I think it's 3.3 uh point feet. It's it's on your survey. It's right in front of you there. >> All right.
>> I have the same thing. I have about the the same setbacks. We're pretty much two identical houses. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> I think that's it. >> We appreciate your comments. >> Thanks for listening. >> Okay. any any additional comments from
the board based on what we've heard? I mean, I I will say I'm still concerned about what I was concerned at before. Yeah. >> Um um so the the question the question to you sir is we have an application before
us and we need to take a vote. Um if there's anything you would like to adjust based on what you presented feel free. If not we vote on what is presented. If it goes through it's yours. If it doesn't, you would have to
come back with a substantially different plan. I'm just laying that out to you because there's been a lot of questions. You sat here the whole time. There was many more questions for this application than there was for the last four combined. So, um, want to add anything
or >> No, I I think that, uh, Mr. Trasenov had indicated and I don't want to put words in your mouth, sir, but I think you indicated that you would as condition of approval agree to move the carport
back to the original line of the current garage. I think it is 3.3 ft off off the property line, >> but I think that's what's shown on I think that's what's shown on the survey. Okay. So, uh and and you would try to
eliminate the columns if you can. Uh but you know, would would you agree with me that that you would agree >> to that as a condition of approval? >> Yes. >> I knew you would. >> Anything about the the garage height?
>> Where do we stand with that? We're 15 or 13. Just just wait. Just for the purpose of the record, let's just clear something up. The front yard setback is actually at >> four.
It's right now it's >> 32.9 >> 29 >> right but but the actual wait one person I got the talking pen. So uh 29 29 foot
is the actual front yard setback. So the variance would have to be for 21 ft. See guys, >> I think we're we're we're still in a front yard setback situation. So that's still a remains to
be a uh a variance condition. Okay. So um >> Mr. Trasov, I keep cheating by looking down at my >> I just may I ask a question. Where is uh 29? >> Where is 29? >> Okay, we're >> Okay, I'm >> getting into We're getting into minutia
here. There is a front there's a front yard setback that remains to be requested because you you need 50 ft and you certainly agree with me you're not within 50 ft. Correct? >> No. >> Okay. 50 ft >> and and >> yeah,
>> the calculation may be slightly off, but we you're in somewhere between 28 ft and 29 ft in terms of from the property line generally trying to I only drove past an
engineering school. >> We didn't let you stop. >> Yeah. Well, >> it's going to be >> 32. Okay, it's 32.9. We have too many. >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> Stop. >> No, everybody's got to stop. >> Yes.
>> One person is talking at a time. >> Okay. And not not talking yet. You're doing a great job. >> You're you do better than some attorneys. >> Um including guys in bow ties. Um so all right. So
the board has reviewed it and the board has determined that the front yard setback is >> 25.15 based on professional engineer and professional land surveyware.
>> Okay. So that's the actual distance from the the proposed front yard to the front lot line. >> That is correct. >> On the lot. All right. That is that is the variance that you're requesting. It's the same.
>> Yeah. I can't do math, so I can't I can't I can't do subtraction. Well, >> that's the that's the front yard variance. Okay. Let's get back to the question that was put to you before, >> Mr. Trasenov. >> The height of the garage.
>> You indicated you need that extra two feet for storage. There was a question asked if you could because of the number of variances being requested, would you agree to lower the height of the garage by 2 feet to come into compliance with
the ordinance? >> Okay, I agree. >> Okay. So, >> the height variance for detached garage is no longer required. >> I knew you'd agree. >> I agree. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So the two conditions of approval would be to move the carport back to the existing line of the garage and then secondly to lower the height of the gar to lower the height of the detached garage to eliminate the variance.
>> Yes. >> All the other variances are requested. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does the board have that? >> Does anybody need any clarification? >> Be clear. The garage height comes back to being within uh so no variance required and the carport would be along
the existing uh garage line of 3.3 off the property. Right. >> Correct. >> And that's without columns, >> right? >> If he can >> Well, the carport just has to remain open. >> We we can't we can't design the carport. >> No, but we could but we could say it has
to be open like you know it has you can't just put up a wall up on one side. You know, there's >> No, that wouldn't be a carport. >> It still would be a carport. >> Yeah. would not that's not what's shown in the plans and they have to abide by the plans. The carport is going to remain open except for columns if necessary.
>> If necessary I agree. >> Okay. >> Are there any other questions? >> Last chance. Would someone like to make a motion? >> Nobody. >> Oh yeah.
I will make a motion to approve subject to the condition of elimination of the garage height variance and the condition of the carport must meet the current line of the garage and 3.3 ft off of the
property line >> and open and open on all sides other than obviously the house. So three sides open leave the buildings how it's being built separately. >> It's a great motion. Someone like a second >> seconds.
Anyone >> need a second? >> I'll second to move it along. >> Okay, Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenyan, no. Because I believe there's no need for a carport if you
have a garage. >> Mr. Sha, >> yes. With the setbacks uh as we had discussed, we will give the final numbers. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, yes. >> Miss Young,
>> say yes. >> Okay, Miss Khan, >> I vote no because I think that the carport is unnecessary if you have the garage in the back. >> Okay, we have one, two, three, four, five. >> Motion passes. Motion passes.
>> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> thank you. All right. Block 7401, lot 173, Venderbill Drive. Applica application number 2026-1-B Faison Ali and AJ Masha.
Applicant seeks approval for the addition expansion to the existing attic in violation of the following section 170- 96c3 sideyear setback 15 required 14.9 ft proposed 0.1
fear requested 170-87B1 habitable floor area 6200 square ft allowed 76.99 square ft proposed 149 99 square ft variance requested 17087 CC1
habitable flow area ratio 15% allowed 20.02% proposed 5.02% variance requested. >> Good evening everybody. >> Can you just move the mic down? >> Good evening everybody.
>> Okay. >> Uh and are you the homeowner? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name? >> My name is Ashma Sha. AS M A S H A H. >> Okay. And you have uh your architect here to present for you?
>> Yes, we do. >> Okay. So, we'll we'll swear him in and have him proceed. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Just a brief uh >> Well, let's just swear you in real quick. Do you swear for Intel truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Absolutely. >> Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Uh we are uh moving to we have bought this house with the hope to make it into a home for a multigenerational family. Uh our previous home in short we are residents of Short Hills. The previous home in
Short Hills uh was on quite an elevation and we have an elderly parent who is a cancer survivor and needs to move in with us. So, uh, this house being as flat as it is gives easy access in and
out for, uh, my husband's father, my father-in-law, and, uh, that's the reason, uh, we would, we bought this property, uh, with the hope to make it a home for our foreseeable future. We have, uh, two
kids. I have an older son who is at college uh, and a younger son who's at high school. uh my collegegoing son will be moving home this summer uh because uh he has anxiety and he needs to be at home to function better at college. So that's
why we feel this uh particular property will will basically help us cater to all three generations who would like to inhabit this and make it our home. Thank you. And I love that street and I love
that area. So we look forward to making this our home. Thank you. I hand it over to Tom. Uh >> he knows this more than uh I would. >> Okay. So, let's swear you in. Uh do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can you please state and
spell your name for the record? >> Thomas Beao. B A I O architect for the applicant. >> And Mr. Beao, you've appeared before this board, correct? Or >> I've seen you somewhere else. >> I I was here last month. >> Oh, there you go. So there. Yeah. Well, if it's Tuesday, it must be Livingston.
Uh, all right. So, Mr. Beo has been previously accepted very recently in the field of architecture, and I assume in the time since then, your license to practice in the field of architecture state, New Jersey is up to date. >> It is. >> Okay. Chairman, does anyone in the board
have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accepted as expert in architecture. >> Okay. Thank you, board. So before you is an application that on its face would seem gross. It's over on
habitable floor area, over on habitable floor percentage. And the question is, what can I possibly say that would mitigate those very strong points um figuring this out? The existing house was built, I think, in the 70s, maybe
even early 80s. It was the former residents of the Colundra uh bakery people and the the the parents have died and the estate sold the home and Miss Osma and her husband
Faison purchased it. When I went into the house, it's massive. It's not massive just because of its footprint is massive. It actually that whole attic that is under this roof line is all walkable. So on my cover sheet, I have these two
diagrams on cover sheet C1. On mine, I highlighted it. It doesn't need to be highlighted. The upper diagram illustrates my surveying of the house, of the areas of the attic with ceiling heights greater than 6'6. And we
have illustrated that right here on the lower document. I have illustrated the second floor areas with an improved ceiling height of, you know, 8 foot. and that is on the bottom right. The existing areas that are 6'6 inches up
there total 2,935 square ft. The actual expansion that we're making is 81 square ft. And it it comes about by eliminating some of the areas back in
here in the rear of the home and adding some of the areas along the side of the house as we change the shape of the roof. So, the real plan is how do I convert this Pizza Hut into a more modern home?
Now, that's where all these variances come from. We have a house that's 81 square ft smaller than I'm going coming to this board for. So, while we are grossly over uh and I'll repeat the numbers for the record, um
we are seeking a habitable floor area of 76.99 where 6200 is permitted R1. So a variance of 1499 of which 1400 and uh whatever 81 from
that number is uh 18 exist today because of the fact that you can walk under this entire element. I really believe that if you grant this variance and we have a small variance for a sideyard setback which occurs at
the right corner where um 15 ft is required and for a very small amount of inches we have 14.9. The house sits slight slightly a skew to the property line and it produces a small variance that exists today um and that uh is 0.1
of a foot. Now, aside from that variance, the other two attributable entirely to the area. So, I listened earlier attently and I heard someone quote the 2018 master plan and how these improvements would be better uh given
the dimminimous variance request because the variance request on its face is grossly large and I just testified that it's really not. We're only really adding about 81 square feet on that floor. In addition to the 81, we're adding about 20 square
feet as I pull the front door toward the front a little bit just to produce a better edifice. The idea is to bring this beautiful established Kundra home into the 21st century by introducing
metal standing seam roof, very large panels of glass, still a sloped roof, no flat roofs, and a little bit of this brick work that exists here would come up and form into this dormer on two sides. This gives them enough square footage. I take the ceiling heights up
from 6'6 to 8 foot. Um, and the only thing that really takes place is a enlarging of the left and the right wings because the center wing is not going to change in height, just the left and the right wings. And we introduce a
much more modern application of a home renovation to the home. That's my presentation. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I do. So, slightly confused to be honest
with you. Um, the second floor is 6'6 in height. So, it is >> the the two wings are >> the two wings >> the center part is like 12 feet. >> Today, they're they're just open space. They're not habitable. They're not habitated in bedrooms or something like that. >> Correct. According to the ordinance, if
you have a walk upstairs and you have areas created up there that have a certain height, they attribute toward the habitable floor area of the house. She bought the house. I walked in it. I'm like, well, we can finish this, but who would want to live this way? I said, we're going to have to go for variances.
Why? Well, because even though we're going from 6'6 to 8 feet and you know some betterment there, that change changes the volumetric configuration of this house. And it's way over on habitable floor area. And anything we
do, if you want to pull out the foyer, we're going to be here before the board. So, the two variances that are there, habitable floor area ratio and habitable floor area, the hard number, um, don't change much, but they change enough for me to testify that we need those two
variances. And I don't think that there's a negative impact from it because the roof lines will be vastly improved. A little bit taller on the right and left side. We're far enough from neighbors houses where I don't think that in the R1 that they're going to necessarily shade
someone's growing tomatoes or something like that. But it does vastly improve the streetscape um with a more modern home. They are willing to put this money into it. They live in Short Hills today are willing to move over to Livingston. I I think it's a it's a positive thing.
>> I I got a question. Um, okay. Just just so I also understand just what you have on the plan here under the habitable floor area ratio where you show second floor and 2,935
square ft. Is that all this attic area that's 6 feet tall that's not usable today? Is that what we're the six and a half feet attic area? >> No. No. Some of it actually a good part of that middle part is way over like 12 feet tall in there. It's it's very tall. The center part is currently finished.
It's um probably makes the house close to 6,500 if you look at the current living area between the first floor and here. >> We're we're going to finish out some of these wings and change the roof line. That square footage must be calculated according to the ordinance in the HFR uh
habitable floor area and habitable floor area ratio. >> Now, I understand that. I'm just trying to figure out. So, you're saying today as far as, you know, normal habitable space, not, you know, not I understand the other part's got to be included, but as far as if you excluded the left wing
and the right wing attic area that's over 6 and a half feet tall. You're saying that you have about 6500 6,800 square feet of >> Yeah, maybe even less than that, but it's a little over 62. I met with Michelle on this because this was a challenge. How do we how do we do this?
because I I I mean, we own it already. Can I just raise the roof? And we went back and forth, but that's why we're here. We're here because we I agree. We It's a variance. >> We're We're extending, intensifying, densifying, expanding the roof height.
>> No, I I get that. I I guess what I'm like right now at 65, you're slightly over, right? like what would be allowed. And I understand the lot's slightly bigger than the >> than the zone, >> but this isn't really a case of this was
a usable second floor and now we're just going to change that second floor and we already have technically, you know, 7,500 and whatever square feet of space that was that was being used today as livable space. And >> I understand it's clued as habitable,
but in reality it's an attic. So, um, you know, because now what you're asking for is a huge sum to add on when it's not and it's not just >> it's not just a, um, >> you know, you're taking the existing house and now you're like, "Oh, just pop a couple windows on it." You're also
raising the left and right side up and massing that house up so it's much higher and much builder so it's going to look like a 7,000 something square foot house and not a 6,500 foot house. no change. You know, it's going to be a big change. Um,
>> 100%. I agree with what your statement. >> I agree with Mr. Sherman. And I have a question, uh, follow-up question. So, the attic space for now is usable. It's not habitable. >> The whole center part of the attic space is usable. Yes.
>> Yeah. And then you're trying to make it habitable by raising the floor uh the the ceiling. >> Uh, yeah. 6'6 is an unacceptable >> but the the size of the lot it right now is only 7% more than a standard R1 lot
and you're asking for 20% more. So why I don't see the math doesn't match in my mind why in this lot you know you need that much um extra you know I understand right now the six-foot attic is walkable
usable but it's not a habitable right now yet but by changing everything into habit habitable it's going to be you know um overly over that you know standard lot allowed So that's um I just
don't see how >> Yeah, it's a big ask, right? She's trying to um so Osmo is trying to move to town in order to have her parents and her uh 20 yearear-old kids live in it. So it's somewhat of a compoundish element. They need a they you know
they're not finishing a lot of the BA they're not putting the kids in the basement and there's not enough room on the first floor and the second floor currently to habitate what would be seven to eight people. So there's a few bedrooms that have to take place up there and that's that's the big ask.
>> So it's a it's a personal need. >> The first floor is that my father-in-law uh who needs an aid with him wouldn't have it. It has three bedrooms right now. So one we are trying to convert into uh a suite which is for him and uh
the adjacent bedroom would be for an aid. So that does not leave any master bedroom spaces for us. There are there are two smaller rooms upstairs which would then go to the boys and hence we need that space to create our own master
bedroom because that does not leave any other space for us. >> Yeah. Right now I'm pointing to my floor plan A4. So right now the whole center section is built out. That's what's there. You got a couple of bedrooms, goodiz bedrooms. What they're trying to
do is produce their master bedroom on its floor along with uh for the children their wings. So they would get that you have three, right? >> Yeah. >> So one, two, three. So that that's why it's becoming that's their need. They we
can't finish these two sideways. It counts toward the F. We can't finish it. And the and the and the the only mitigating factor here is you get a brand new looking home which vastly improves the streetscape. This this home sat for a little bit. They if anyone
bought it, this house needs a lot of improvements. Um they are willing to do it and we're I'm suggesting that that is a strong mitigating factor. While it does get a little bulkier, um it doesn't adversely impact the neighbors. It would improve the streetscape. It would
introduce a sense of modernity to a a 70s 80s home that has this mansard roof that's flat mostly and does leak. Um, and so that's the ask. >> I have a statement. Okay.
>> This is really question time. >> Okay. I have a question. Um, >> thank you so much for your presentation and I appreciate the fact that you have made this more modern, that you are trying to make it fit into the neighborhood. Aesthetically, it definitely is an improvement, but I will
say that what you are asking for to me is um it's a lot. Um and as my colleague pointed out that the um the um the lot is 7% larger than the proposed,
but you're asking for quite a bit more. And I see how you came to this conclusion by looking at the house and trying to sort of make it into a square. I get it. But I'm just wondering um and again we are not designers and my intention is not to design but I wonder if there are other ways of looking at
this house rather than coming to the board with a 7700 square ft home. >> Oh, I'm sure I'm sure there are and I'm sure that we could address your point um and your point. I think it's it's a big ask. I can only argue the argument I
made. Um if um we can hear more comments, I certainly would then chat with my client and uh if we have to, you know, cuz on its on its face, this is a it's a gross ask. I totally get it. Um you know, from a numerical standpoint,
it's not much of an ask at 81 square feet, but it's it's what you said. It's the conversion of attic to living space, and that's the trigger, and I get it. Um thank you for your comments. Does anybody else have any questions for this? I >> I just would want to say that I concur
with all my colleagues here. Uh 8% over an R1 standard side. Uh and uh right now we at 24% uh variance request. Yeah. >> Uh which uh on the face of it uh looks very unreasonable to me.
>> Thanks. >> So >> okay. Sorry. I and I would just say it's it's similar, but as a it's somewhat of a question because this is always a tricky thing for me when you're dealing with R1 because everything else has limits. There's always another place in town if you want to get a bigger place,
but R1, you can't go any bigger. So, the town has decided to limit to put this 6,200. Why is there any limit? This is this is our our biggest uh section with biggest lots. So, they put a limit on for some reason, right? So, uh, and you
mentioned the master plan and it being a compound. So, it's somewhat of a question. I don't know the exact answer. I wasn't in the minds of the town council, but I think that they put a limit for some reason. What they what they're And when you use the word compound, I start to think maybe that's
what the town doesn't want by ordinance, something that looks like a compound. So, that's the fear I have. And I I say it as a question because maybe you know there's if you have a different opinion of it that maybe a compound would be a good thing for overall to have for the
the town should have and and we should be granting those things. I I don't know. So that's why I'm putting it in a question and and the concern that I have with respect in general to R1 type cases where we're where people are seeking more which comes our before us from time to time.
>> I have a very strong opinion in this. I was at the 2009 council hearings. >> I testified and I can tell you a little bit of what I think the mindset was back then. You had the era of McMansions. You had the era of housing collapse and you had a township committee that was
concerned about unaffordability in Livingston that houses are getting bigger and bigger, becoming unaffordable. I grew up in New Jersey. Livingston was always a rich town. I They could say what they want. I disagree with it. Every town should have a representative element for every
class. So poor people and rich people have equal rights to have a habitation and an abode in a community. I personally don't think 7,800 is grossly oversized. We have a lot of them. It's unfortunate that Livingston has a 6200 foot twocar garage cap. So our oversized
threecar garage is in my in these. >> Yeah. Yeah. that that's in my F numbers because the moment you go over 450 square feet, your illustrious committee in 2009 said this is how we're going to, you know, make it right, make it good
for lesser available people to live in this town, completely disenfranchising a class of people who frankly should be entitled to live here. I mean, it it was always that when I was growing up, I I didn't look at Livingston as a as a it was a actually it's a very diverse town.
It has entry- level housing, mid-level housing, and uh some rich people. Um I don't know. I'm not meaning to disparrage you. It's not a bad term. Um 7,800's a lot. >> I really like that about Livingston. >> Oh, you like what? Okay. So, let me let
me let me let me bring this in for a landing because I think we're having an esoteric discussion about uh why why the uh council made limitations there. the limitations are in place and you know obviously you're asking for the variance
from it. Um, so that being the case, uh, I think before I ask you the question about whether or not you want to speak to your client for a second, I think it would be appropriate, chairman, that if there's any questions from the public before
>> Let's Let's go that way. That's a good idea. Is anybody in the public? Yeah, please come forward. >> You looked a little eager there. >> How are you? >> Hey, hello everyone. Uh my name is Jen Y and uh I live right uh uh next to the uh
the property we discussing >> on the right or left >> on the right side. >> On the right side >> number one. Number one bill. >> Sir, can you do just do us the favor? Just uh just state and spell your name. Really? >> Sure. My my name is Jen Y. Uh Jen J I A
N Last name Y. >> So >> we're okay with that. >> You got it. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry, sir. Thank you. >> So, so, so a uh question maybe just want want you to confirm. So, the first minor uh violation is about the uh uh setback
of the uh the sideyard is just a 0.1 ft. That that's the preexisting, right? >> It's existing. Yes. >> Okay. Right. Let's I just want to confirm this. >> Okay. >> Oh, that's >> You can ask more questions all day. >> So, uh
Mr. Uh um be like Ba like Scott Beao. >> Yeah, Mr. Beao. >> I want to call you Scott. >> He's my third cousin. >> Is he really? >> Yeah. Uh so Mr. Mr. Beao, do you do do
you do you want based upon the commentary from the board, do you want a moment to talk with your client? Just got to hit the um the the button there. >> You want to step out for a second if that's better for you. Okay, I need to go I need to go there. Right back.
>> I'll be right back on pause. Yeah, I'll wait. last night. He was there. Did you get hurt last night? last night. Did you have did you get hurt? >> So, um
All right. Take Yeah, take it easy. This this this this usurppation by Miss Khan. >> Miss the first. >> All right. All right. >> So, um >> that concession. >> All right. Um Mr. Beo, um you've had the opportunity
to consult with your client. Uh what's the update? >> Um we intend to adjourn through this evening to take a next available date with the intent to downsize our application in a way that would be more constructive to a positive vote from the committee from the board.
>> Okay, Mr. Beo, let me ask a question to Miss Hollis in terms of the date uh that this could be relisted for. >> July 30th. >> July 30th. Okay. So, this matter will be
adjourned to July 30. This is the notice of the new date. So, if you're here for this matter, you will not get a new notice in the mail. There will not be a new notice on the website or in a newspaper or in any other fashion. Just
know that you should uh keep an eye out for the agenda for July 30. Okay. I knew you were writing down notes. You're you're okay. All right. So, thank you, Mr. Beo, and thank you, Michelle. We'll have you come back on July 30. >> Thank you. Thank you, board.
>> Thank you. where you guys step off for this one. >> Um, just let you for the record. >> I know what I'm doing. >> Uh, Miss Khan will be recusing herself from uh this application. Thank you.
Block 3101 lot 511 Bunan Drive application number 2026-4-V Ali and Dave Brunasser applicant seeks approval for the first and second floor addition in violation of the following section 17098C3
right side yard setback 10 ft required 7.4 4 ft proposed 2.6 6 variance requested 17087 BB3 habitable floor area 3520 ft allowed 4804 ft proposed 1288 ft
variance requested 17087 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 27.32% proposed 6.32% variance requested
>> okay so uh you're the uh homeowners so I'm alien and Dave uh Brinwaser. Okay. Uh and just hit the um There you go. Okay. And uh you have I'm guessing two professionals tonight. You have your architect and you have Mr. Dhy as your
uh professional planner. No. >> Oh, you're just you're just you're just here for >> morals >> for for for muscle. Okay. >> Okay. Uh all right. Take copious notes, Alex. >> Uh okay. So, um, let's, uh, when our,
when our architect has, uh, figured out his easel, we'll be able to swear him in. >> I could start with the quick opening. >> Okay. Why don't we swear you in, Dave? Do you swear for and tell truth for this zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> David Brunwaser. Uh, B ru n w a ss e r. >> Good, Mr. Brunwer. >> Thank you. Um, yeah. So, my I'm Dave Bruner. This is my my wife Ally. We've been we're here going on 7 years now. Uh we love living here. Our kids love
growing up here and um we intend to be here, you know, for the foreseeable future, if not the rest of our lives, which I think the work that we're doing indicates. Um, but as our kids are getting older, we have a six and a four-year-old, Jake and Madison, as they're getting older, um, to
accommodate the needs of, you know, all the the room that we need to add as well as to accommodate myself and my wife who both work from home. Um, because we don't have a basement, we feel that this work is necessary for us to accommodate
um, our lifestyle. So, I'll let Tim, our architect, take it from there. But, um, I appreciate you considering our case. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> All right. So, why don't we swear we're in Do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do.
>> Can you please uh state and spell your name for the record? >> It's Timothy Cleie. Kle SS E. >> All right. And uh why don't we have your qualifications on briefly as an architect? I'm a licensed architect in New York and New Jersey and um my office
is in Short Hills. We've been in Short Hills for uh I don't know about 30 years or so. And um I've presented in front of this board and um I don't know maybe 50 boards across the
nation really um in reference to variance work and and historic preservation work really >> and your license to practice architecture in state New Jersey is current correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> And uh I'm going to beat the chairman to it. Can you please give us uh briefly
your educational background? I have a degree in architecture from New Jersey Institute of Technology and a degree in interior design from uh um NYU. >> Okay. Uh does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this
witness? There being no objections, the witness accepted as a uh expert in architecture and I believe just for the record uh Mr. Weissman, you'll be voting. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. The um site's 11 Bunan. It's an
R3. It's the lot area is 17,599. It's really a colonial revival built around 2019. The um my client bought the house when it was newly constructed, right? I guess
so like a builder was in the process of building it and they bought it during at the end of the build I think you know 75% complete I'll say and um they've lived there since then the
house has no basement and just so everyone knows to start this off the basement would be about 1500 square feet that would be the basement for this size house. In this case, there is no basement.
There is an existing attic. That existing attic is about 650 square ft. And that's the number that the existing house is over by. That's 650. Our plan tonight is to add a
additional garage to the right side of the building with an office space above. And we really need the office space because both of them work from home and they have these little kids and they need a place where
they can actually work. Um, we have no basement to be able to use for this, right? The attic actually serves as a basement in some ways for us. The gym is up there and there's a playroom for the kids. So we really need
this additional space so that we can kind of allow them to live in to live and stay in the house. So the way we propose to do is to build this building onto the right side. Right? It's a approximately 12t wide
outside and 30t long. Right? It has a 20ft garage and a 10-ft storage area behind. And then above that is two offices with a closet. And I'd like to show you the plans which I guess I want
you to go trying. Yeah. Thank god I could figure it out. The um if you look at my BOA1 sheet It's gone.
I did it. If you look at my BOA1 sheet, which is exactly exactly the same as yours, the addition is on the right side here. And you can see that our first floor is set back about 2 and 1/2 ft off the front face of the building. And our
second floor is pushed back a little further than that to give us a little bit relief so that we could get a roof in the middle. And then our property line on the right side is coming down this way. It's required to be 10 ft. So
we have a sideyard setback that's a sort of a sliver on this garage that starts at about 2 and 1/2 ft at the front and tapers back to nothing. And I'll show it to you more on the blow up of the first floor. If you look at the zoning itself,
you can see that the attic is accounted for in the zoning at that 650 square ft. Right? That's what I'm saying. If that was a basement, it would be about 1,500 square ft. This building itself has a footprint, you know, of about 2,000
square feet and there's about a 500 foot garage, right? So, the basement is really in a normal house, this would have a 1500 square foot basement. Then I'm just going to go to my next sheet, which I'm not sure. I guess I can
figure it out. Yeah, I can do it. The uh I go to my first floor and you can see that what we've done is we've added this garage onto the right side. Now you can see the 50 foot line coming across the 10- foot set back on
the left. We have a lot of room. There's no failure in this site for side combined, which is a little bit surprising, especially on a pies-shaped lot. And you can see the setback line for the 10 feet that's coming through
the side of my garage right there on the right side. It starts in the front here of about two and a half feet. And by the time the garage is done is where it tapers back to nothing. And I think I said before that the garage was 30 feet
long, but just looking at I can see it's not. And I can't read that number there. I don't know if anybody can see it. It looks like it's around 27 or something. Oh, no. It's It's 22 and six. It's about
well it's it's about 28 feet the total depth. If I go to my next sheet right the existing second floor and what we did is we just added our new room added a clos or an office in the
front and office in the back and made a closet for um his closet because this is actually her closet. Here's a stairway that's going up to the third floor, which makes my area on the third floor be counted into the F.
The elevations of the building. You can see the primary facade of the building. The secondary facade is here where the garage is existing. And then we added a third element here where we push back even further and then added that skirt
roof just like the rest of this building did to lower its mass. And we brought our building in at the top underneath the ridge of the other building so that it would scale down. You can see it on the right side. Our addition with the two
other buildings down the road. The um this building is about 32 foot high and the ordinance would allow me to be 35. It's not overbearing on the street. It's really 3 ft under the allowable height. And
there's no change that we're making tonight for the um the third floor. That's my rear elevation. And here you can see the attic. The attic is measured from that, you know, 6'6 area, which is really running all through this line
that we have there. That's where the 650 square feet came from. All right. That's um about it for that. I I think I just take you through a
couple of other things off of the zoning and then I'm going to pass it over to the planner. The uh the request for the right side is 7.4 ft. That's at the that triangular area for the right side
garage. Um, I think I think the planner will testify that the house to the right is relatively distant from the property line. The rear yard setback
is required to be 40 ft and it's actually at 61 ft with the proposed addition. It's um so we're not encroaching into the rear yard in any way at all. The
the only issue that we really have is the sideyard and the two floor area variances. Right? And I'm saying that the attic is 650 square ft. The first floor of our addition is 360.
The second floor is 312. It's a total of 13 22 square ft. Whereas if we had the basement, the basement would be 1500 square feet, which we wouldn't have
to count. And in this case, we tried to add this bulk in such a way to minimize its impact onto the neighborhood. Were there any questions or comments or and then I can you can always come back to me and we can go to the planner if you want.
>> Oh, don't worry. We will be >> Peter was Peter. >> I I just want to understand the the history here that how it wound up that you're your existing is already 500 square feet over uh what's allowed.
Is there could you give us a little bit of background on that? >> I really don't know the answer to that. I I think maybe the client my client may know better. >> I'm not sure. Hello. Can you hear me? >> Okay. I'm not sure. Swear we have swear. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Do you swear firm tell the truth before this planning zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. And you're Ally? >> I'm Ally Brunwas, sir. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. Go ahead. Thank you, ma'am. >> Um, I'm not sure if this answers your question completely or if I misunderstood, but when our house was
being built, the attic space was not included in floor area. Is that correct terminology? Yeah, that's >> um so it wasn't over at that time. Is that what you're asking? >> I think we can I think maybe that
question can be better answered or I'm hoping it's going to be better answered by uh the planning testimony that they'll catch that somehow. They they they've they I think they're making copious notes over there.
>> Does anybody else have any questions? Yeah, I I I do. I I see the uh minimum lot width you said is 100 feet, but in the uh survey it says 87. >> Um the minimum lot width is measured at
the face of the building. So I don't know. You say the um >> your survey is 87 >> at the at the street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it may be true. But you got I got to find your table is showing you marked it down as 100 feet.
>> It's probably 100 at the face of the building because lot width width is measured at the face of the building. >> So the face >> pie shaped lot >> right but the minimum. So you're saying minimum right? So that if you have minimum you got to capture the minimum.
>> Oh I don't know the perimeter. >> I don't know that would be really up to the Oh, okay. the narrower lot width would actually be helpful for the from a zoning standpoint >> because it would give me a a smaller side combined.
>> Just one question just on the on the so the attic that's there now is it not finished? I mean it looks like there's a bathroom there. I mean is it >> it's finished. We use it as our small little play room for our kids. >> Okay. Do you know how tall it is in the
>> At the maximum? I believe it's 9 ft and then it it's kind of like T-shaped so even my kids can hit the ceiling at some points. >> Okay, I can kind of show it to you. It's on that um I think it's on
>> the last sheet that area where the line is running around the plan is the area that's at 6'6 and that is that 650 square ft. Did you just read this correctly?
>> Does anybody else on the board have any questions? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Come on up. >> My name is Jack Khan. I live at 8 Balmoral Drive directly behind the
applicant's home. Um, my question is about the basement. We've lived in the home. I've lived there for the last 30 years. and when that house was being built and I would walk the neighborhood, I saw what I thought was a basement under the existing house and a remaining basement when the house was being built.
Um, so I'm curious as to whether or not was it filled in and and it's not used. I even remember seeing maybe an egress window or a door in the back and when the house was being built, people coming in and out of that door. >> We crawl space. We do have a crawl space, but I think she can elaborate by
the >> Okay, we do have a crawl space. Um, but I think my wife can elaborate on why there was no basement built this time around. >> Uh, yeah. So, it's just a crawl space, so you can, I guess, like catch mice
under there kind of thing. Um, but, uh, when we bought the house from our builder, um, she specifically told us that she didn't want to build out a basement because she said there was a lot of water and flooding. And not sure if you remember, but we did a lot of
work to get rid of a lot of the water in our backyard. >> And we have it, too. >> Yeah. Um, so that's why she didn't build out a basement. So we do not have a basement. >> So it's a but it's just an empty space. >> You can't get there from the house. >> Oh, okay. >> Um, so
through the backyard there is a half door that you can climb under the house, but that's about it. >> Okay. >> How tall is it? >> No, you can't stand in it. It's it's literally a crawl space >> like >> three feet four feet >> probably four feet. >> That's enough to do maintenance or
emergency repairs probably >> underneath the house. Yeah. >> Or get the mice >> or get the mice. >> We We store some tiling in there >> that we'll probably never use. >> Store some mold. We put our the covers for our outdoor furniture. Yeah, that's that's the
>> That's my only question. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Come on up. It's an open mic tonight. >> Um, I'm Bob Russo. I live at 10 Bal Marl Drive. Um, I lived in that neighborhood for probably combined probably about
over 40 years. So, I've know the neighborhood very well and everything else. Um, I guess my question is, uh, you're currently at a little over 4,000 square feet in that house. Is that correct? Yeah.
>> And yes, >> one one second. If you're going to talk, you got to >> with the attic. Yes. We're over 4,000 ft, I believe. >> Yes. >> So, that neighborhood, you know, and on average, obviously, there's been some
rebuilds, knockdown rebuilds. On average, that the homes in that area are about 2,000 square feet. So, your house currently today is double the size of any most of the homes in the neighborhood.
I'm finding it really hard to understand why you need a third garage, which there is no third garage whatsoever in the hood, and why you need two more rooms, adding more square footage when you've
got double the square footage of the existing area. That's my hard part. >> No, I I totally appreciate that. and it's something we're asking for and hoping to accommodate. Um, mostly
because we do work from home every day. Um, and just our our kids maintain the upstairs where I I guess we could be working. Um, but we try to keep our distance from them when they're home. >> And I get that cuz I work from home all
all my life. I've been never had an office. I always worked in sales and I was on the road. But I always made it work, right? I didn't have to put an addition onto a 2,000 square foot to find office space for me to work >> for sure. >> And that's I guess that's my struggle is
that that house is so big. I mean, it's the biggest in the area. And I can't see it getting any bigger. And I just think you really need to just kind of go back and maybe look at your your square footage and your layout and try to work
within the area you've got versus encroaching on your neighbor on your other side, which unfortunately he's not here. He's ill. So that's why he's not here and he can't speak. So I won't speak for him, but I know he would not
be happy about that as well. So um that's the only question I had. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> I think maybe the planners can give us a little better testimony related to the neighborhood. >> So, >> I'm talking to the planners. >> All right.
>> I think that they could probably help us there. >> Okay, >> Alex. >> So, uh we're now going to um call up your uh professional planner. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. We'll switch around.
The blue one. >> Take out the blue one. Too many things. >> Here we go. >> Okay. Uh And hope is on the way. >> I'm a little that guy. He's got you
covered. >> All right. Why don't we swear you in? Uh, do you swear for and tell the truth for this zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. My name is Tanya Marion. M A R I O N E.
>> All right. And, uh, Tanya, uh, can you please, uh, give us, uh, briefly your qualifications? >> Sure. I graduated the Blumstein School in 2005. Every time I say it, it sounds further and further away. Um, but I have been a practicing planner for the last
22 years. Um, my main primary job typically is working with cities. Um, but I have been a licensed planner for at least 15 of those years. So, my license is up to-date professional planning and AICP as well.
Oh, and I have testified before multiple zoning boards and planning boards. In fact, I got my start at the zoning board as a zoning board, a professional planner. >> Thank you. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness
accepted as expert in professional planning. >> Great. Thank you so much. So, um, in preparation for tonight, I reviewed your zoning code, your master plan, the most recent one. Um, I do have an exhibit which was not a part of the package. So, I don't know if you want it marked in
addition. >> Yeah, we'll mark it exhibit We'll mark it exhibit A1. >> Sure. And it's uh 10 pages. >> All right. >> So, >> is there a handout of that or is it
>> Okay, it's going All right. So, but Miss Hollis will get a copy of it. >> Okay. Okay. >> If not if not tonight. Okay. Just suggesting. >> All right. You know, we do have cell
phones for a reason. All right. Go ahead. Thank you. >> So, this is not uh new, but we're before the board this evening uh seeking bulk variances to permit a modest residential addition to an existing single family dwelling. The first slide before you
pretty much is your zoning map and the red circle is where the property is. You can see that it is in the R3. It's identified as block 3101, lot 5, also 11 Bion. The property is less than a quarter mile away from the Livingston Police Department, which I believe we
are right adjacent to now, and less than a tenth of a mile away from north of uh Collins Elementary School. So, it's nestled, you can see clearly, in the R3, which is single family zoning, but it's smaller lot size than the R1 and the R2,
which are along the edges of Livingston. You can kind of see a little bit more up close where they are on Bunan, which is between um Bowling and Arlington. And um I you can see I don't you can see the cursor, right? Yep. The school is right
over here. So this is the um property of the this is a photo of the property from head on from the ground. This is a slightly aerial elevated aerial drone view of the property. Um and I am showing so the applicant's
property is on the right of this picture which would be the gray roof. Um on the and the addition will be on the left of the property. Uh so this is the uh survey that you saw
earlier with the architect. The green represents the actual required stepback line. This is the addition itself. And so you can see that the where the landscaping that's being added and the step back and that only part of the
addition is actually within the required step back. And this is what the addition looks like. um illustrated image on the um on the aerial. So, I'm going to keep this photo up and we'll go talk through some of
these things. Um on the first floor, it's going to provide a true garage space and a dedicated storage area with access to the rear yard. And on the second floor of the addition, it's going to accommodate two home offices integrated into the primary suite. Um
and this reflects obviously a very consistent ongoing trend for telecommuting and work from home. Um we need three variances for this. The first is the sideyard variance. Uh 7.74 is being proposed. 19 ft is currently
existing and 10 is required. We are asking for habitable floor area from increasing from an existing 4,136 square feet to 4,88 square ft where 3,520
is permitted and habitable floor area ratio increasing from 23.5% to 27.3% where 21% is permitted. Um, as your council said earlier, I feel like now is a I was going to bring this up later,
but we might as well talk about it because it essentially is a an existing nonconformity, and that is the uh floor area ratio for your attic. Um, in my review of your ordinances, and this is what you are the professional of is the
living Livingston zoning ordinances, it seemed like in 2023 there was some consideration to not exempting F and the attic space from the R4 zone. I don't know if that over overlapped at some point where you were not considering um
attic as habitable square feet because within your definition I know I know this was something that was mentioned earlier in the application the main thing that makes an attic an attic is whether or not it's a pull down like a chvy chase uh national lampoon style uh
attic or it's a walk up attic and this is a walk up attic so it becomes something that is included into your floor area ratio in your definition for floor area ratio and why the architect was mentioning this earlier is that you can have that 1500 foot basement but it
doesn't count into your floor area ratio. So I I was not the planner. I did reach out um to see if there was a previous zoning board application for the build the construction build in 2019. There was not. Um so we are
reviewing this as an existing nonconformity. Um and my focus is and kind of the expansion of the existing for me but I will mostly be focusing on the additional 650 square feet from just from the addition.
So again just to kind of get us back on the same page here the addition is approximately 672 square feet um and 3.8% 8% uh increase. There are no other
deviations other than the sideyard. The minimum lot size requirement is 15,000. We have a lot size that's larger at 17,599. The lot is extra deep, very slightly by 63 feet where 100 is where 150 is
required. The existing building height is 32. So, we're not exceeding that. And even though we are asking for a sideyard variance, it is only for one side. You have a combined sideyard variances. It's a combined sideyard setback that is 30%
of the lot width which in this case is 30 and we are meeting that. Um our combined uh our combined sorry sideyards are 30 over 30 31 with respect to the sideyard. It's uh
not an existing condition. It's really just more of a limited and well-designed area of relief that's associated with the proposed addition. Because the existing sideyard is 24 on one side and 19 on the other side, it might make more
sense to add the additional 19 ft onto the 24 side. However, the side that we're adding it on to since we're adding a garage and an office is to be adjacent and next to the existing garage and the existing primary suite where is the
logical space for you to walk through the bedrooms to the to the office and to continue on to connect the garage spaces. So it's really a matter of the function of the existing building and the existing layout as it is that that's the side that we need to add the
addition to the lot line is al the lot is also not a typical square lot. Um the right property line is a diagonal. It gets wider as further back as it goes and not as I as you saw before not the entirety
of the addition is excessive into the rear yard side rack requirement. Had the building had either been more centered on the lot or had the lot have been more slightly regular, we could have easily had met this requirement. Um, and to further mitigate
some of the negative impacts, the addition has been intentionally recessed from the front facade to reduce its visual prominence. And the applicant is also proposing vegetation, plantings, and screening to further enhance the privacy and maintain the enjoyment for
both. And as uh you can see there is uh a sufficient distance between where the addition will be our sideyard lot line and the applicant and the neighbors house next door which does not have um windows along that side. So there is
also that element of privacy. I talk about the F the D4. To the extent that the F relief is required, the applicant satisfies the standard articulated within the case law. Rander Randolph Town Center versus Randolph Township, which focuses really on
whether the site can accommodate the additional floor area. Right? That's how we do F is the addition that we are asking for. Can the site accommodate it? Um when I talk about things like this, I usually refer to things like 10 pounds in a 5B bag. And there's red flags that
you look for when you're looking at things like that. And I think in this instance, we're not seeing any of those. I think it's clearly that we can show you that the property is oversized, that our addition still maintains adequate open space, that it supports the improvement without the strain on any
infrastructure or neighborhood character. And the additional floor area is used to improve function, not intensity, not excess. Right? And as the board is aware, the F is really used to help regulate SC scale, size, and
massing of structures. So the really reality is that this is a modest 672 square foot addition that's in line with the existing housing stock and character. Um the expansion is to add home office space, not increase the intensity of the
user structure. So we're not looking at extra bedrooms, right? And it and even to get to the home offices, you have to walk through the bedrooms to get there. So there is no ability for us to create even an extra bedroom. Um we've already
spoken about this is that the existing dwelling does not have a basement. I don't want to be labor the point. Um but again, right, that basement would give them the ability to have that up to 15,400 square feet of storage that according to your zoning off zoning
ordinance would not be counted in the floor area ratio. That's not here in this case. Um it's also because that there is a a flooding issue and that there is a high water table. So the ability to even dig down and to create that basement is is not it's not even a
reality here because then you'd be creating a s a situation where there would be flooding as was evidenced by the owner who said that there was even more water in the backyard. Um as a result what's happening right now because they don't have that storage is
that the two garage parking spaces that you see with the one garage door half of it's being used for storage. Um, so being able to provide this addition will actually now give us the ability to have the car space to have the additional storage that they need that they are not
able to get right now and they are not able to have they're not using not able to have right now. Right? So the proposal is actually really just a practical solution. Um, uh, the expansion is not excessive and it's still able to meet all but one bulk
standard that we addressed above. So, the planning justification um boiling down to pretty much why we're here, right? Um the request relief can be supported under both um a C1, a C2, and of course, I previously addressed the D4, but we'll kind of just clear it
up. Um the home is not centered on the lot for C1. Let's talk about the hardship criteria. It lacks a basement. Um, it was constructed in a manner that now basically creates functional limitations on the a family's ability to
to grow and to use that space as it as they need to. Um the absence of a basement again likely to sorry likely to the groundwater conditions forces the applicant to seek that
habitable floor area um somewhere where similarly home situated may rely on the basement space. Additionally um the applicant has conservatively included the attic space in the habitable floor area. Um again we just spoke about the
recent uh amendment. I I I'm not 100% sure other than the fact that we're considering it at this point an existing nonconformity. Um so these conditions collectively uh establish a legitimate hardship to tied
to the property and the structure, not the applicant. Right? So it's a hardship that is tied specifically to the structure and its inability to have the structure uh provide the storage and the garage functions and the home office.
negative criteria. The applicant be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial detriment to your zone plan. The property is remains a single home. The addition is modest. It's welldesigned. It fits in with a neighborhood. It's buffered. There's adequate separation
between the neighboring structures and the additional landscape mitigates any kind of other potential impacts. Importantly, as I said before, the project does not intensify the use of the property. no additional bedrooms, no additional units. Um, the parking conditions are actually being improved.
Now, we're going to be able to have full parking spaces because we will be able to use that parking space instead of using it as storage for children's toys, children's things, um, or whatever else that is being used for now for storage.
Um, I'm going to kind of go through some of the neighborhoods so you can kind of see that we are actually fitting in pretty well um, with the surrounding neighborhood. There's this there's a school that's very close nearby that I believe the applicant's uh son
goes to. Son, right? Yes. Um so these are the what I would consider going around the neighborhood the kind of smaller homes in the area. Um we from top left to right we've got 11 bowling, 14 bowling, nine Bunan which is adjacent
to this property and eight Arlington. And these are some of the larger houses in this area that again all of these are within one block radius. They are all within the R3 zone. Um we again same go top left to right 17 Arlington, six
bowling, 16 bowling and six Arlington. And I think you can see that the proposed scale and massing that we are proposing is well within either between this and between this and there's pretty consistent um character in this
neighborhood to have a transitional type of basically housing, right? So, some are some of that are smaller, but I think probably still have a pretty large um floor area um and some of them that are much larger and meeting that kind of transitional
need for housing for the types of families that are moving in and the needs that are there, the modern kind of needs for for storage and for working at home. The proposal is consistent with your township's uh 2018 master plan which really emphasizes the preservation of
the residential character, the improvement of the quality of life and the enhancement of the neighborhood. The application supports reinvestment into the existing housing stock and maintains the neighborhood character. Um this just for addition the C2 which is
the benefits outweighing the detriments I think can also be applied here right it improves the functionality of the home without changing the character it again doesn't add the intensity and it modernizes the home to meet the contemporary living standards while the
proposed office can never be used as a bedroom should the applicant move it could also then be confirm it could also then be converted to something that is just flex space Right. So, it could be walk-in closets, a nursery, a workout space, continued office space for future
homeowners. The project enhances the property visually. It contributes positively to the neighborhood streetscape. I believe it meets the advances the purposes of the MLUL. A promoting the general welfare, C adequate lightning as shown from the setbacks. Um, appropriate density. This
is single family. this single family zoning desirable uh visual environments. I think um the architect did a great job with the addition that it matches the existing building as is and it really kind of also matches the character the
architecture for the neighborhood surrounding it. It's a more efficient use of land. Uh so in conclusion with the C1, the C2, and the D4 standards, it's a modest, well-designed improvement that enhances the functionality of an existing home while preserving the
character of the neighborhood. The relief is actually limited. We believe that it is justified and well thought out, and it is also appropriately mitigated. At its core, the application reflects a young, loving, growing family seeking to remain in the community. Um
they're investing in their home. They're adapting to modern living conditions and strengthening their roots in Livingston. From a planning perspective, this is precisely the type of reinvestment that supports stable neighborhoods and reinforces the long-term viability of
the community. So, it is for all of these reasons, it is my professional opinion that the relief can be granted and that the approval is warranted. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
Yeah. Uh comment followed by a question. So the lot area is 17% more than the standard R3 lot. The existing habitable floor area 4,136
is actually exactly 17% more than allowed habitable floor area for this property. And now you are you are requesting a variance for another 1288 square footage which brings the overall
variance to almost like 36% of the allowed 36% more than allowed and the hardship you have claimed for habitable floor area is the lack of a basement. Um
my question is is it across the that neighborhood that none of the homes have basements or maybe I don't know if it's an appropriate question which uh the board attorney can weigh in as well but is it a true hardship that you cannot
have basement in that neighborhood and hence all the properties in that neighbor neighborhood should have an additional 1500 square ft uh to make up for a lack of a basement is kind of is kind of a predicament I have. So, I
don't know who can answer that, but yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if I may, it sounds like it's an established um circumstance that it there is groundwater. There was flooding. Um there was flooding in their backyard and even the neighborhood neighbor that just came up to testify
said that there was also flooding. Sounds like there may have been an existing basement and the builder realized that that was an actual real issue which does make it a hard C1 hardship, not just kind of um an excess or some kind of greed just to get more square footage. This is a legitimate
hardship in this area. And I can just add that while I can't speak for every home in the area, her brother, my brother-in-law, and a friend of ours who both live in our area have basements and have both had flooding, pretty serious flooding to the extent
that they had to pay a pretty substantial amount to get it fixed and and you know, get the water out, you know, renovated back to where it was before. So we we have seen from experience other people in the area that we know who have dealt with some serious
flooding issues. So whether or not all the new homes that are coming up are following suit the way that we did, I can't say. But I would venture to guess that a lot of them would take that into consideration. >> Lastly, I'll just say a lot of the houses that are already there that have
not gone through renovations are by levels and do not have >> basements. I have a question. Um, this is the neighborhood that I walk on the daily basis and um um looking at the house as
it now, it's already on par with some of the big houses in my opinion and uh um the planner u mentioned about the site accommodation. Um can you can you please uh go back to that other picture where uh no the two houses one with your house
one with the left side with the no one more pre >> Yes. So, um the proposed design pushed into the house on the left and then um and then you're asking for variation
because it's um within the 10-ft um uh sideyard setback and uh in there, how would you um say that it's the site accommodation is still there because you have to push into that 10-ft envelope.
And for now, I just the house itself for now is already massive in my opinion. And by adding another um strip of uh 12 ft, it's going to be even more. It's like it occupies a whole lot
to me. >> So, if I if I may, um I don't have the floor plans up, but the increase the addition is really just the 11 and a half. anything tighter, smaller. Now, we're really impacting our ability to get the car in there. Um most I think
spaces that are um we're looking at at least 12 ft, open the door and kind of get around as well. the the difficulty here and I'm sure that they would much prefer to have a project that's completely as a right and put the addition into the 24 foot sideyard
setback, but where the actual addition that needs to happen is it does need to be in addition to the garage and addition to the to the suite. So, in order for them to even kind of have an accommodating sideyard, they'd have to completely rearrange the layout of their
of their house. And to follow up about the site accommodation, um this is a R3 lot, a R3 zone, but 4,800 square feet um is at the top of the R2 uh allowed um square footage of R2 zone. Again, um the
site accommodation for remains as a question for me. I I I just I think it's a little interesting I guess for uh the zoning ordinances. Not to me it's a little conflicting that you wouldn't have F in a basement if you could have a 1400 foot basement. There's actually
probably more chance of somebody fitting out their basement and putting a kid in there. Not that I've done that, but but um there's more likely. But your ordinance doesn't take that into consideration. That can be almost double of what we're looking at right now. Um,
so I think we're looking at two things, right? Is that there's a little bit of a conflict a conflict within your ordinance, but there's also the hardship of the fact that this is an existing structure. Um, and so they've got to kind of build off and uh provide the
needs that they are for their family within the structure that they have. And this is, I think, the the easiest um most modest way to actually do those things. Again, it's really just the addition of the car and the two home offices. I'm sure if they had a 1400
foot um basement, they'd be more than able to do all of the things that they need in order to accommodate their their basically their lives. >> But since you don't have a basement, but you already have a full attic though, right? Livable addict. Is that correct?
Yes, we have an attic that's half the size of what a basement would be. Yes. >> Okay. But still, you have some attics, some space there. Okay. >> Yep, we do. >> Uh, two questions. Uh, are you going to give any testimony on the impervious coverage? Obviously, you're increasing
the impervious coverage. So, is this going to improve or do you have remedies in place to I know I'm going to get cut off, but I just want to know weighing the benefits. >> It's not It's not a variance. No, but weighing the benefits that you're Is this a benefit or a detriment that
Right. Isn't that relevant? >> Storm water management. Is this going to be a benefit or or negative? >> Not for not necessarily for something like this. Obviously, it's a it's a newer >> first of all, it's already a newer home.
Uh it's not a home that was built, you know, before, you know, uh, you know, 1980s and that time when they just used to throw, you know, used to just put the gutters wherever that and downspouts wherever they pleased. So, it's already
a newer home. Uh, and it, you know, so that's number one. Um, and and there's not a variance for the the increase in the impervious uh coverage. So, >> I'm just trying to assess the neighborhood if there's more flooding. So, I haven't heard any I'm I'm asking
because I haven't heard any testimony >> because I heard I heard neighbors complaining about flooding and I'm just going to make an assumption that there's going to be this will if anything increase to flooding unless there's some management system. >> I don't know if you want to answer. >> No, I I'm I'm not sure that you know you
this they're not really the area they're adding to looks like it's already disturbed. uh by um some uh guess this outdoor. >> Yeah, we have the uh air conditioning units. >> Air conditioning units.
>> I mean that so it's already partially, you know, it's not um uh um untouched property. So, >> and I think it has to be over 300 square feet anyway for it to actually need any mitigation. So, it's >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. So,
>> withdraw. Okay. No, the only other thing I was going to say uh because I know you brought up um you know the uh uh h how this house you know could have the you know with the uh ordinances in the past and and you know now they have this
attic that's counted um just more as a statement. Um, yes. It used to be that if uh you built this house and you built the attic structure and didn't put the steps in and you then closed that permit and then you came in the next day and pulled out a permit because it was
existing space, not changing the outside, you then could convert it to interior space and it didn't count. But we did away with that and that has been eliminated for that very reason because that's what everybody would seem to do. So that's why that that was the case and and of what probably transpired in this
situation. But yes, I mean, because it's finished, it would count as space. And as my colleague said, that I mean, that's Yeah. Could you get 1500 square feet in a basement? Maybe. I mean, not everybody has a full basement and then all the utilities and everything that you'd have down there, you wouldn't get
the 1500 square feet of space either. So, um, you know, the the the other thing you mentioned about the garages, even if one garage is used, you still could have built the thing on the side within the 10 ft and use that as a
storage and then use the actual two cars as the twocar garage. So, um, to me, it doesn't fly either for that reason >> for the sideyard setback. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I'll chime in that um I don't see
the well I do let me back up. I do think it's a the house is kind of a full-size house to begin with but we're trying to make it bigger and then we're I mean we're exas exasperating some of the buildout by as my colleague said showing
a showing a car. We could maybe only have a storage area. You could still have something above but also going to the garage. Sorry, the basement. There's nothing under the cars, right? So, that whole area is gone. 450 or whatever it is, 500, 600 square f feet. And you do have
the attic. So, I am troubled with at least part of this. Um, I'm just not sure exactly where I stand. Um, I'd like to hear from other members of the board. >> Are we >> We're in comments now, not questions.
>> Well, we should open it to the public. >> Okay. Okay. >> Questions. Do we have does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? I have one question. >> Come on up. You can have two if you want. Same price.
>> Again, I'm Jack Khan, 8 Balmoral Drive. I I just want to understand you mentioned the nonconforming use. So that is the finished attic. Is that the non-conforming use? >> That's how essentially I'm treating it as an not n not non-conforming use, but an existing nonconformity.
So, it's it is a relatively new home and there were no approvals for that livable space. And does that count as a hardship then? That's my question to you. I thought you mentioned that was a hardship. >> The thing is is I don't know what the permits were. I looked into it and I wasn't able to find anything. I don't
know if it was signed off on it. In order for me to actually say those things, I would need to see a permit that showed exactly what this is. But I I mean, I do know there's a CO for what's existing today. And so they're allowed to legally rely on the permits that they have.
>> Okay. But you were you did refer to that as a hardship. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. That was my question. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Do you want to I was you looking at No, if your cohort over there wanted to ask a question.
>> Um okay. Does anybody else want to chime in a little bit? I think Mr. Horn >> comments. But we're gonna >> we should the public should have the opportunity to make comments and then
the board can >> have the opportunity to make comments. >> Okay. >> Well, but but >> yeah. >> All right. Comments coming up. >> Come on up. >> Yeah. >> Bob Russo 10 Memorial Drive. >> Mr. Russo, I just have to swear you in
for giving comments. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Sure. Do >> go ahead. Mr. Russo. >> Um, I'm going to call myself the resident expert since, uh, I've been living in that Collins estate area probably combined for 50 years. Um, I
first moved into the area in 1963. So, I'm very familiar with with all the homes whatsoever. Um, there basically were three types of homes that were built. There were uh B levels which are built on slabs, no basements. And then
there are two other types basically split type homes. Some of them are called dipsy doodles and the other ones were traditional splits. Right? All of those type of homes have basements. So there's there's probably
uh 75% of the surrounding neighborhood are the splits and the dipsies and the other are the buy levels. Uh I live basically behind uh the applicant and we have no water problem whatsoever. Um you
know when does it rain and water flow down your sideyard? Yeah, sure. But it doesn't happen too too often except when you get excessive storms. Um so I have a I'm struggling a little bit with you know the comments that are being made
that it's a flooded area. It's not a flooded area. Um, and you know, it's I I just struggle with the one. And if you could just do me a favor cuz I do like um the picture. If you could just Yeah. Right. That one right there. To me, I
mean, you know, it it is so oversized. Um, that house is directly behind me. So, that gives you an idea of where Balmoral is. I sit right behind uh Kent. And then so I'm kind of caddyy corner uh
to the to that house and that's basically the size of my house that that is your traditional B level. Uh I have a B level as well. So um and then Mr. Khan, he lives right next to me and he's got the split. He and he has a full-size
basement as well. So that area is, you know, basically those type of homes. I I I struggle. I I really do. I have to look at that every day. And it's kind of, you know, You know, I we made we made do basically with the size of the homes that we had.
Um I understand you got children. I understand you say you got well they got the attic. Oh, they got the garage. They're two kids. I mean there's ways to you know I grew up with five kids in my home and we made do. We had a two-car garage and you mush you shift things
around so two cars could go in. So I I just feel it that this is like a little over the top. So that's all I got to say. >> With all due respect, everybody has different needs and so we have different needs. >> There's no I'm just saying we all have >> different needs. That's all. >> Yeah. So there's no back and forth. It's
not >> we're going to we're going to see if there's any more public comment and then we'll take it from there. I saw the hand up over there. Alex, >> again, we got to swear moral. >> Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Khan. Uh just to conclude, I do object to the application. I think that uh adding a third garage bay and a and a second floor office space to an already large home uh to and a home that is larger than most of the homes around
it is uh overbuilding. It's it's too much in my opinion. It's too much house for that lot that is only 87 feet wide at the front. Um I think it's out of proportion to the other homes. most of the other homes. There are a few larger homes now in the area, but most are not.
I think it's out of proportion and out of character um to this neighborhood, and for those reasons, I think it should be denied. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh before we go to uh board
comments, uh Miss Dhy, did you want to talk to your client? Um, I would ask before we go to the board if we could take five. I think we hear the the concerns of the board and I'd like to have a moment to talk with the applicant and miss, you
know, see if we can come to some resolution. >> You absolutely, Mr. Dhy. I would just uh take note of the the time. I I know I know you you you can talk very fast, Mr. Dy. I'll leave it. I'll leave that
I'm sure I'm sure Alex and Tanya will be back in a second. >> I'd like Alex to hear this. Hey, Alex. >> Okay. All right. There we go. We're ready. Okay. All right. So we're we're back on the uh Bernwaser matter. Uh
request uh for uh short adjournment was provided and made it back in less than two minutes uh as >> as build. All right. So um where are we at
>> council? Um >> I can do it. >> Yeah. the Tim's going to walk you through hopefully what we >> present to the board as as a compromise. >> Again, the house doesn't have a basement. >> If they had a basement, we likely wouldn't even be before this board.
>> So, this is a dire need for the family to function. And I think Tim has a compromise. >> All right. >> Well, let's let's let's >> what we're proposing what we'd like to >> Pardon me. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Okay. What we'd like to propose to do is
leave the garage but push it back and cut the area out that's behind it. So that we get if I push this element back, >> this element, I'll get a better isolation from the balance of the
building. Start my garage approximately there. Make my garage. Delete the storage space behind. and make the space smaller on the second floor. It would pick up about 100 square feet of F on each floor. So 200 square
ft total and would take the sideyard set back from the 7.4 to 8.2 because the sideyard is going on that long diagonal line. So it would by
pulling it back I'd be at 8.2 two at this point and I would pick up 200 square feet of F. Does that make sense when I'm >> meaning it would go down 200? >> It would go down 200 >> 200 square ft.
>> So instead of >> instead of having like two offices above, we would eliminate it down as well. >> Okay. >> And with that, I'd like to send back to the planner to kind of create a summary.
All right. Well, before we get before we get to the planner, there's there's a functional question here because what you're suggesting is moving the front of the addition back but effectively keeping the the third
garage. Correct. And then by pushing that back, it also on the second floor that also pieces pushed back. >> Yes. And then >> sorry, but you said you were eliminating. So if I let the state and then I
>> you're pushing the garage. Sorry, you're pushing the garage back. You had this storage unit behind the garage. If I thought I understood you, you're eliminating the storage unit, >> deleting it. >> So are you actually pushing the back of the garage and cuz right now the garage
looks effectively lined up with I'll call it bedroom number. That bedroom there. Are you actually pushing this part back or what you're doing is you're pushing the start of it back, the back end of it. >> No, no. It's taking the front face of the garage and pushing it back
>> 8 ft. >> Jackie, do we have >> 8* 12 is 90? >> Let's defer to >> I'm sorry. I'm so sorry because >> I'm sorry. >> We do have an issue with making the redesign tonight. So, I'm
going to suggest, Mr. chairman that to have the applicant come back with a revised plan. >> Right. This is this is this is I know we discussed this before with the infamous carport earlier tonight, but obviously
that was significantly different in the sense that that's just an overhang. Uh so if you're going to amend the plans uh to show those changes,
they would be presented uh in full to the board uh with with the uh with the changes showing, you know, first, second, four, whatever it may be. an addict. >> I would like to make those changes for the memorialization
if if that's okay. >> I would not uh that's no that's not a that's it's too involved. I understand what you're doing. Uh, and I understand where you're going and I and I and I and and I get that, but to do that type of
uh uh present it tonight for an approval with then having it in the for moralization I think is too too much asking too much of the board at this point. Okay. and and quite honestly also you know because it creates the variance
we still have variant that that is the variance condition uh that's being created. So um those would have to be if that type of amendment is being made or suggested then that would have to be provided
amended to the board. >> Yeah, Mr. chairman, the the applicant would need to go back to zoning and get a revised denial letter, but I'm trying to see how we can accommodate them um instead of having them come back in
July, maybe June. Um that's the best we can do your calendar for May, unless the board thinks that they can squeeze. >> You you you control the squeeze. >> So if you don't think so, it's your
call, Mr. No, I mean we're jammed up on both both May applications. >> It it would not have the May 12th date, but if you think um your architect can get the the
updated plans to zone in so we can get you on for the May 28th date. Would that work for you? >> May >> and your applicant. >> Yeah. Did >> you say May? It's a Thursday. >> It is. >> It is a Thursday. Yeah, we're doubling up in May to try to keep these things going.
>> Yeah, we have a full calendar. >> That day is fine with me. >> You guys, >> so Jackie, it would need to be plans would need you need the plans two weeks in advance. >> They need to go to zone in first, right?
>> And then back to me 10 days. So Mr. Clay does not have a lot of time to get the >> You need them about May 14th, right? No, you need to get it back to zoning first >> before it comes to me. >> Yeah, >> it's like it's
>> like next week. Get it to zon in. >> You got to ask them if they should be required to notice. >> No need to be. No, no, no. Just to be clear, once we once we set the date, uh the only obligation on the applicant
would be to provide the revised plans to zoning. So we can we can at this point announce it will be on for the May 28th date. There will be no additional notice provided. Uh this is the notice. So this
matter is effectively being continued to the May 28th date with the idea that the architect is going to uh provide uh the updated plans through zoning department and then that will process along accordingly. We would take this matter first on that night.
>> Yeah, that's no problem. >> Thank you. We appreciate it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> All right. This one's adjourned. Uh motion to adjourn for the night. Anybody? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to see if you guys want
to stay or not.