Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Living Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is January 27th, 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 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
that decision of this board. If you're an objector to any type of variance has been granted, you too may appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of your complaint to the planning
administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, also known as the Sunshine Law, adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the Star Ledger and West Essex Tribune, and a copy was also pasted on the Bullen board and municipal building. In addition to having notice
posted, notice of this meeting was placed on the township's website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you would like to address the board, please come to the front and use a microphone so we can make sure your
comments or questions are part of the record. Before we get started, two quick notices. First, happy new year to everybody. Happy and healthy to you and your families from the board and from the town. And the second thing, we have 12 applications today, which is a lot.
So, we're going to follow what they do in the Oscars and after three and a half minutes, we can't lower your mic. We're just going to turn it off. Just kidding. Um, we just ask everyone to please move along. Uh, give us the facts. The interesting fluff stuff that we like to
hear doesn't change anything. Please go past it and just keep on moving. All right. So, we want to really do our last application before 10 o'clock. So, that doesn't give us a lot of time. So, please call uh the uh the roll. Yep.
>> Okay. Mr. Kenya is here. Mr. Horn >> here. >> Okay. Mr. Shai's out. Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Yanni is out. Mr. Wiseman >> here. >> Mr. Emati >> here. >> Miss Khan >> here. >> Mr. Beer >> here. >> Okay. You have a quorum.
>> Excellent. Uh please call the first application. >> All right. The uh application the first one continues from October 28, 2025, block 1400 lot 34 Hazelwood Avenue application number 2025-68-
Elaine and Scott Human. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house uh new garage in violation of the following section. 170-99 C2 front yard setback 40 ft required 31.75 ft proposed 8.25 ft variance
requested 170-99 CC3 left sideyard setback 10 ft allowed 7.25 25 ft proposed 2.75 ft variance requested 170-87
CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 46 person proposed 16 person variance requested >> uh Mr. Chairman uh if I may or Mr. Wel, Miss Ambadi uh watched the video and certified that he can act on this
matter. Let's continue. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, uh ma'am, you want to turn on your mic? For some reason, this is I can't see you over there. >> Uh All right. No worries. Um >> I'm too short.
>> No, no, no. I'm I'm No. It's It's a little weird. I don't know why I think that that desk is pulled forward. Um, all right. So, uh, you are, uh, Elaine Hman. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're the owner of the property, correct? >> Um, my I'm the daughter of the owner.
>> Daughter of the owner. Okay. I remember now. Okay. And, uh, you have your architect here to testify tonight, and he's going to testify on your behalf. And >> anybody else going to testify besides your architect? >> Nope. >> Okay. So, why don't we swear him in? All right. 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? Robert Emmer Jr. E Mer T. >> All right. And Mr. Emert, you've been um approved by this board in in >> past several instances
>> uh as in qualifying in the field of architecture. Your license to practice in the field of architecture in state New Jersey is uh current. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Chairman, I would submit uh Mr. as uh expert in field architect. we can we accept him as an expert
architectctor. >> Thank you. All right. Um just to summarize uh this we are coming back before the board um with previously we had several variances
um and we've reduced those. We've eliminated three of the variances in this goound. We have um shifted the garage location. We've reduced the size of the garage. We've reduced the size of the house and all the variances that we
are still asking for are all smaller in nature than what they previously were. Um the and I'll just going to walk through the first one. Front yard. We are asking for a variance but it's it complies with the established front yard
setback which we submitted previously. So that's more to memorialize it than to ask for the uh variance. Um the sideyard setback on the left side um we've reduced
the required variance from 4.25 ft to 2.75. Um the the setback that we have over on the left side is greater now at 7.25 25 here at the rear is greater than the
current house which is 6.79 or I can't read exactly but it's it's greater than that and we reduced the size of the the kitchen because it had bumped out there and it was point so we've reduced um you know we've reduced
the sideyard left variance um building coverage again by reducing the size of the garage by reducing the sides by chopping off um three feet from both the the rear of the
house on both floor levels. Um so we reduced the building coverage and we're asking for a 4.2% on the building coverage. Um the habitable floor area is a v one of the variances that we were able to delete.
Uh once we deleted the square footage in the house, uh we deleted over 400 square feet in this house. So we eliminated the habitable floor area um variance. The floor area ratio has been reduced. Um
it's down to 16%. Um, and you know the 16% you know is sounds like a large number but it's the I mean you have to keep in mind the size of the property is a third. It's only
2/3 of what is expected in u is required in this zone. So it's you know significantly unders sized. Um, so that's really it for the house. For the accessory structure, the GU, which is the detached garage,
um, we eliminated the sideyard and the rear yard variances that we had previously been asking by for. We shifted the garage over to have the 5T minimum. And then, as I said, we reduced the size of the garage.
So now the um the rear yard area of ex of what's allowable we are now asking for 12.9% when the 5% was is what the ordinance states and
again you know a lot of this has to do with the the significantlyized property. So that summarizes the changes and where we are now. Okay. Does anyone in the board have any
questions for this uh witness? I >> I just have one. When looking at the plans, I see plans for the first floor, the second floor, and the attic. But if I look here, there's also, if I'm reading this correctly, 1300 square ft
of basement area. >> Cool. >> Is that a finished? Is it unfinished? What's with the basement? cuz I don't see planned in here. >> It's unfinished and it is, as you can see on the front elevation. And let me just make this bigger. It's
really a um it's, you know, right around, you know, it's 710 and a quarter to the floor. So the the basement's like 610 to 7 ft. That's going to be the finish. And that's before you put in the duct work itself. It's not intended as a usable
basement. It's not going to be, you know, finished because right now the existing house gets water in the basement at at times. And so that's what the concern is. That's why we're not pushing it down. We're not making it a fully fit out basement because we don't
want to have greater water issues than they do now. We're going to address it through waterproofing, drainage, and all that type of thing. So, >> okay. >> I have a question. So, first I just Can you hear me?
>> It's not really working, is it? >> It's not, but I can hear you. We're >> Is that working? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just going to come close to you. >> Okay. >> Um, first I would just like to say thank you so much because it looks like you did do a tremendous amount of work and
cutting back and taking some of our comments into consideration. I still have one question though. Your lot size is undersized by almost 2,000 square feet which you which you which you say it is 3,000 square feet which you say it is. I honestly I'm going to
ask you do you think that the house really fits on this lot size? It's a it's to me it seems like the house is very large for the size of the lot. I don't know that it could accommodate it and I still having a problem with the 46% habitable floor ratio. >> Right.
Um I do and I you know I mean one example is on the left side as I explained we are bringing the house farther away from the side property line farther away from the neighbor than the current house is. We are doing on the on
the opposite side um we are maintaining the sideyard setback on the right side. So I think we are you know we are giving breathing space to both of our neighbors uh and making sure
you know making sure that we don't overdominate the lot and that and that you know we're being respectful of their property. Uh you know the house is pulled forward to keep it in line >> with all the other houses. We have the front porch which is very much in
keeping with the other houses. Uh it's it's a it's a You know, it's a modestlyssized house. I mean, I, you know, the number for the ratio sounds big, but again, >> but it is big. It sounds big because it is big. >> All right. It's a three-bedroom house
upstairs. I mean, you know, if you think about the way people live today, I mean, to build a three-bedroom house is pretty pretty rare. I mean, you drive around Livingston, you look at all these for sale, you know, so so it's not in that
in in that regard, you know, we're it's a three-bedroom house. It's um and it's really just has to do with the undersized lot. But again, we do have the space. I mean, again, the lot is so tight that that's why we have and and
most of the properties in this neighborhood do. They're so narrow um that you do have to have the detached garage in order to to get in there because you just can't fit a garage attached to the house. Um >> but I hear what you're saying and believe me, I know it's difficult. I know. I mean, you're dealing with a very
very undersized lot, but I still believe that this house is too large for the size of the lot and I know that it's under the 3220, but I think that's looking at a lot that's 90 375. But we're looking at a lot that's 3,000 square foot less than what the required
is. So for me, I'm having a little bit of a problem with that because I think that is still large for that lot. >> Well, all right. So you say too large. I mean, so I mean, if we look at the bedroom sizes, they're 13 by 12. I mean,
they're not they're not extravagant. I mean, so can we shave a foot off? You know, we can, but it just I mean, it's almost like we're going to go back and build like the house that's
in the 1960s. I mean, you look at some of these original Levitner houses, the split levels. You walk in and they got a 9 foot by 10 and 1/2t bedroom and you know, so we could do something like that. Can we get it down? Yes, we can.
But it's just It's not it's not a comfortable house. It's not the the type of house that we're building these days. I mean, it's just I think >> All right. Does anyone in the board have
any questions or more? I I guess I guess more along the lines of of what what Lori said. Um, yeah, it's still the other stuff is great that you know, fixing all the other stuff with the garage and then the setbacks and all that. The size is definitely still an
issue. I mean, other I get that it is a smaller lot. I get that it's like about 3,000 square feet smaller than a normal lot. And other things have been accommodated on that size lot that you even have today.
I you even the attic. I mean, going up to that to that third floor and and building another level within that house. This is what is increasing the amount of habitable space. It's just too
much within that size house. >> Well, yes, we are. You know, as I had mentioned before, we're not finishing out the basement. So, that's part of the reason why we're going up to the attic. Um so, and but but again, even with that,
even with the um you know, with the accessible attic and stuff. I mean that the size of that was reduced in order to to help bring the overall square footage down.
But um but again I mean the house when I when I just you know when I look at the size of the rooms I mean the 146 by 15 um
the the bedrooms are 13 by 12 and then going to the first floor it's just you know It's really going to become a question of how much the owner wants to skinny everything down and what number you know
that you're going to end up that we can come back here with that you feel comfortable with. I mean, you know, if it was as simple as eliminating the square footage in the attic. I mean, that may be something we could discuss,
you know, if the if if the client's amendable to that, which is another 152 square ft. Um it's not going to change the overall appearance of the house. Um it'll, you know, simplify the roof line, but it's not going to change the overall appearance because again
from the the front, you know, the house is in keeping with the neighbors. Um you know, if you drive down the street, you'll see that um because they're all just two stories with the nice front porch. Uh just some older than others. But but we can reduce the number. But um
I do believe again in this day and age cuz >> I hear what you're saying. I hear what you're saying and I totally and I understand and I know this is a very challenging situation and if I were in your shoes I would feel the same way. I'm on the board eight and a half years
almost nine years and I don't think we've ever approved an application that was 16% variance ever. Um it's just something that we don't do regardless of the shape of the lot and how large it is or how small it is. So, I think what you're asking is you're asking this board to do something that's really out
of the norm and it's not something that we typically do. Um, and I don't feel comfortable doing it and it it seems to me that our colleague that my colleague doesn't either. So, I'm just telling you how I feel and if anybody else has anything else to say, but um >> well, let me let me let me say this.
what you're dealing with is you're dealing with a bulk variance which is one of the requests but the big request here I think that everybody's talking about is the floria ratio flu ratio is a D4 um uh variance and um D6 and what the
question is you know can this site accommodate the quote unquote increase in the ratio IO. Um so normally with uh the floor area ratio
the question comes uh whether or not the increase is so uh large that it overwhelms the lot in the sense that uh they lose parking, they lose uh access
to um street frontage. they uh are uh not connecting with utilities. There's uh other issues with regard to um the uh lot um obstructing others. Uh so the
question here is can this site accommodate this particular home and often one of the offsets is that uh are they below the habitable floor area number and I believe the original
application was over the habitable floor area. Uh so there was an ask for the habitable floor area plus the ratio. Now you have an application which has gone below the habitable floor area, the allowed actual square footage, but you
still have the ratio. So, and I and I believe that uh maybe this testimony was elicited at the last meeting that there is going to be sufficient off- streetet parking. Uh there is connection to utilities. there is nothing with regard
to this home that is going to prevent it from uh hooking into all of those all those aspects. So then the question comes in not necessarily uh is it too large um because remember it's below the
habitable floor area. The question is can the site accommodate a home of this size. Now, I know 16 sounds like a very large number, but uh if Mr. Emmerick can uh do do you know
what that actual square footage is, what that 16% represents in terms of actual square footage, >> 3,28 square feet. and and and two I mean and to your point
and as was asked before I mean can't the site can handle it and I I I believe we are keeping in keeping with what the the neighbors you know the adjacent houses are. I mean we you know we're keeping the front yard setback
just in line with theirs. We're doing the front porch just the way the other houses are. As I mentioned before, we've improved the left side setback. The right side setback is in compliance
with the ordinance. The rear yard setback is well within the compliance of the um of the setback. And as far as the I mean and as far as you know, it's more about I think the 16%. But the left side, it's only a portion of the house
that even goes over the sideyard setback. Um so and we were able to have the detached garage and access the garage. The garage does have its setbacks as required by the ordinance. Um
so I mean that's where we stand. Can I ask one more question please for clarification? So where you have drive SLP patio. So if I read this correctly, you come up along the right side of the house on the
driveway. Is that whole area described as drive patio all asphalt or is there a patio in addition to a driveway? I was unclear looking at this to me. >> Yeah, we haven't >> decided yet. I mean, we've talked about,
you know, is it going to be pavers, decorative pavers back there? Are we going to do, you know, sort of these grass blocks in certain areas where it's a concrete um it's a concrete block that you fill in, that grass grows in, you can drive over it, you can So, we're
talking about possibly doing some things of that. Um it's going to be in the areas where we're shown for for vehicle access, but uh but it really at this point has not been firmed up totally. >> Okay. I mean it does look like if I look
at the plaid right my other concern is there's very little I'll call use the term vegetation right around the house when you take the size of the house the patio going along one side a fairly large drive patio in the
back the garage looks like there's very little kind of grass or vegetation around it which again gets pushed by the size of the house which is concerning >> well I mean >> well I have a preference for a large patio, less water waste. So trying to
save water too these days. So I think whatever is also going to be a more green solution is something that I would prefer in addition to what needs to be a drive. >> Okay. So there could be a more permeable >> Yeah. >> Uh just plain old asphalt is what you're saying.
>> Not as like Yeah. Permeable. >> Well, there is you know again we really haven't decided. There is impermeable uh permeable asphalts. there's permeable concrete. You know, they've come up with some very, you know, very creative things now that will allow the water
>> with the applicant agreed to consider uh in that area putting in some type of permeable >> Yeah. >> uh porous material. Okay. For storm water management. >> Yes. >> To help accommodate >> Yes. >> what's on the lot. >> Yeah.
>> Does anybody else have any questions? Does anybody in the audience or the public have any questions for this witness? >> I have a question. >> Please step forward to the mic and let my esteemed attorney to my right get
your information. >> Sir. >> Sir, you got to go to the mic. >> The mic. This mic >> right here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can you please can you please state your name? >> My name is Jonathan Lman. L A U T M- an 10 Locust Place. >> Okay.
The only question I had for you, sir, was your statement uh uh that um in response to I believe uh member Khan's uh uh concern for the size of the uh building versus the lot that that's
just and I'm quoting you uh verbatim. I hope that's just the way we're building houses these days. Would you say that's an accurate statement throughout the municipality? I'm just saying what I was trying to convey is compared to the way the houses
were previously built. We are building larger everything. I mean twocar garage everything used to be onecar garage. kitchens are bigger, you know, living rooms and family rooms and, you know, we and we don't have a living room here,
but that's what I was intending to convey is, you know, in people are not comfortable, as I said, with the uh the bedroom sizes that are nine and a 9 foot by 10 and a half, which I've I've dealt
with in many many houses from the so that's what I in intended to say convey >> that's all I Thank you. Anybody else in the public have a question for this witness? Does anybody in the public have a uh any
comments on this application? Would anybody like to make any comments on the board that could kind of help this move along one way or the other? Uh yeah, I I feel like I should just take the the other side and I I appreciate both uh uh my fellow members on the
percentage. I think it would be pretty rare that I'd feel comfortable with 16% uh in most cases and I so I totally understand where they're coming from. Um you know, we hate to set precedent, but you know, we got to look at each one individually. I look at it a little
differently because uh we would want a new house in this location. I think it would be beneficial for the community and a house that's typically built in an R4. And if you look based upon the and hardship is not relevant for the the the
D4, right? It's it's I don't want to repeat everything that Mr. Wel said, but using this very small lot, not just a small lot, but a narrowing lot. Um, it would only accommodate a house that's 1973
feet square feet. Um, I I think it's desirable for the community to have a new house, brand new house built there, but I don't see any property owner building a brand new house at 1973 ft. So, to me, I feel like we got to make
some accommodation to get this built. But in terms of oversize, I look at it from mostly from the street level. If if the planes of the property were going back another 50 ft, right? Uh such that the land area, this is more of a
mathematical question, the land area uh brought that percentage down, we'd say, okay, even though it's all the way in the back and the public wouldn't even see it. And I and I I I see a house that's is a is compliant on the front at 10 feet, which was important to me. I
think if you would have done the whole thing at seven and a half up along the neighbor, I don't I don't think I would have liked that. But I see that you at the the start of the house, you're within the the 10-ft setbacks on either side. Um the the appearance from the
sketches look modest and the heights under the height. Um, uh, that's why I appreciate all the changes you made and it would be, you know, I I wouldn't have I I wouldn't have a problem with it. I I would, by the way, when you were over, just for the record, going over the the
3220, um, to me it was, you know, a hard no prior. So, it's good from from my perspective that you you came back with these much better plans. But that's that's my feelings on it. Well, >> I I don't want to I just don't want to
put that into motion because for a C you need f you need five >> affirmative. Wait, wait, wait. >> That's why I don't want to make a motion. If you just >> Right. >> We're just chairman asked for comments. Any other comments? And then we'll take a motion.
>> Anybody else want to make a comment? >> Um I I'll make a comment. I too am troubled by the 16%, but I also appreciate what you've done to narrow this down. I
recognize this is a very difficult lot and um I'm a little torn, but I'm think it's a lot better than it was. Let's put it that way. So, um, would
anybody else like to make a comment and help to maybe guide our applicant on where we're going? Do you have any final comments you would like to make or actions you'd like to take? I've given you everything that we >> I would be willing to give up the
habitable attic space if it's going to make a difference. I mean, it makes a huge difference to me, but I'm willing to give it up if it's going to make a difference. >> That's okay. >> 252 square feet. I don't know. I don't know.
>> Right. This is very it's very difficult for the board to plan from the deis. So that that's that's never that's never uh never a a good thing. However,
um maybe there are some comments that you have had from the board uh that you may want to consider upon. Uh understanding that for the D4 variance
of the seven members sitting, you would need five affirmative votes. So, um I I Z's been before this board many times and maybe he's uh getting the telegraph
that I'm sending uh by Western Union. Um but that's um that's the applicant's choice. All right, team. Uh, Mr. uh, M. How many? >> We're rolling the dice. >> I'm sorry.
>> I just want to proceed. >> You want to proceed? Okay. All right. Very good with the application as it is. I think you know what Elaine is saying is she just feels like >> if we make it too much smaller you know she hears what you're saying and she understands what you're saying but if we
make it too much smaller it's really not going to be comfortable for her and to to go through all this effort to spend a significant amount of money and to be paying taxes on it each year and not have it be comfortable. Like I said, she's already scaled things back and
trying, but she's it's got to work also work for her and she's concerned that we make it smaller, it's not going to work for her as so. >> So So you want to move forward with the vote? Is that with or without the added? Because you've made the statement and
back and forth. So just want to know what we're voting on. >> I had the impression that you weren't going to take that statement into consideration. Whatever you prefer. We'll take it out. >> I don't know. I I'm kind of new to this. So, >> the attic.
>> Yeah. If you vote with no attic. >> With no attic. >> If it makes a difference. I mean, can you tell me if it would make a difference first? the the attic the the All right, let's try to focus here. The attic space is a
loft with a bathroom. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, right now, uh, what you're saying is that, um, are you saying to the board that you would offer to the board that as a condition of approval
that that, uh, attic space would be not would not be used for livable space? It would still be built uh, but not used as would not be used as livable space. Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> All right. So that would be that would remove it from the calculation and we
would remove approximately >> 252. >> It's would bring it down approximately 3%. >> 3%. So instead of a 16% F it' be a 13% F. That would be
I said all that. I got to write it down. >> Um >> 252. >> Okay. We can't plan from the deis. So we're we're we're kind of in trying to move this along. So the the the amended application
would be with the condition that the attic livable space is removed which would bring you down to no more than 13% uh variance on the F. Is that fair to say Mr. Herman? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. With that in mind, is there a motion or comments? >> Well, since since I I was apparently in favor of it before, I think appropriate for me to make the motion. I I I I'm
curious what motion. Would you like me to make a motion with this? You're asking for a motion with the adjustments that Yes. So, I'll make that motion subject to those adjustments that we approve the the application. I will second that motion. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Wiseman.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> You need to say why you're saying yes, right? Or >> no. No. Only no. Only know. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Mr. Ambadi. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan. Okay. So, I didn't get my I was going to say something. Do we have in the um comments that there'll be pull downstairs to the attic? Not a set of not a flight of
>> We're not We're not redesigning the We're not redesigning the house. The >> applicant has indicated that there will be no living space in the attic, >> but yet there'll be stairs to go upstairs. >> Then you'll have to vote based off of that. We're I I cannot make Mr. Emirate
do architectural work at the board meeting. Um, you know, so we we can because I'm sure that if we start doing that then he's moving around where his bedrooms and bathrooms are. I'm not an architect, but I'm going to guess that.
I had a slide rule once. >> So, I'm going to vote no. Mr. here. >> Yes. Before >> Before you move on, uh Miss Khan, you have to to list the reason. >> Okay. I'm voting no because I would like I know we can't redesign this, but it makes me uncomfortable to have a set of
stairs there. It makes me uncomfortable. That's all you >> can say more. Want me to say more? you. >> It makes me uncomfortable because I would I really want to um have it in the
record that that area never becomes livable and I would rather have it be pulled downstairs. >> The applicant would the applicant would not be a would not be able to do that, would not be able to finish it, >> right? >> Because that would violate, >> right, >> the F you just approved,
>> right? So therefore, I I can't in good conscious vote yes for it. >> All right. and you already got me. So, it's passed. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> We passed. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Take care.
>> Please call the next application. >> Yep. See block 1304, lot 26, 77 North Livingston Avenue. Application number 2025-72-V Torieli and Latifah Fedai applicant seeks approval for the second floor addition in violation of the
following section 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 20.45 ft proposed which is existing 19.55 ft variance requested. >> Okay. So,
>> ma'am, you got to just hit the button. The button. >> Okay. And, uh, uh, who are you? Are you, uh, the owner of the home? >> Yes. Uh, I'm Latifah Feday, the owner of 77 North Livingston. >> Okay. And you have one uh, witness here.
>> Yes. >> Who is, I guess, your architect? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. You always tell the architects, they don't wear ties. Okay. So, uh, Mr. Architect, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear for and tell the truth before the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you please uh state and spell
your name for the record? >> Gian Franco Sarido. G I A N F R A N C O. >> Okay. And uh if we can just tell me briefly your education, your certifications. >> Yes. I'm a licensed architect in the
state of New Jersey, New York, uh West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. >> All right. Education. >> Yes. Bachelor of Architecture, Master of Construction Management. >> Okay. Uh, chairman, and just to complete the record, what schools? >> NJIT.
>> Okay. Um, and your licenses are current and good standing. >> Yes, sir. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, you accept as a expert in architecture. >> Thank you. >> The floor is yours.
So this is an existing house in 77 North Livingston Avenue. We have when small bearings at the front of the building. We are keeping the existing foundation as it is. And I'm trying to zoom in
here. There we go. All right, we have a denial denial letter dated uh August 5th, 2025
and it was sent to us on July 31st, 2025 and there is an denial because of the property being too close to the street. Uh it's an existing house. We are just keeping the existing foundation and renovating the floors above.
So we took the average but the denial letter states that we should take the lowest amount 20.45 ft which makes it a variance for 19.55 ft
due to the uh new setback requirement of 40 feet. So, just to be clear, the uh front yard setback is in the uh what I'll say on that page is the lower right. >> Yes.
>> Of the home. Correct. >> Correct. This is the front of the house. Yep. >> Okay. And the variance is uh currently existing at the 20 >> 68. Yes. 20.68.
That's to the existing porch, but the house itself is is at an angle. So you have 20.45 one side and 28.21 at the other side. >> So the the existing front yard setback
is not being made any greater. It is pre-existing. Correct. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> And you're just going across you're just going across the front to add more porch area. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. And there is no that where the porch is being added. It doesn't go
beyond where the corner of the home already exceeds the front yard setback. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, this is all pre-existing. >> H. >> Yeah. So, just so the board is aware,
it's all pre-existing. >> Yeah. I was curious about that. All pre all >> that counts as pre-existing even though they're >> all pre-existing. So, but they got to get a variance because they're going across the front. >> But the >> So, they're not making it any worse.
>> Actually, they're they're further back. >> But they don't need a variance based upon the 20.45 which is still there. >> That's what's that's what's all being triggered. It's all being triggered because they're out in the front. >> It's triggered, but the variance they're asking for is a variance on the 22.68.
68, not the 20.45, >> right? But they already they already they're already exceeding it because the corner of the home at 20.45. >> They're already they're already violating it at 20.45. >> It's no different. They're keeping it the same as nothing. >> No change.
>> Okay. >> So that's that's that's the ask. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> The only thing that's weird is on the application it just says 19, which is wrong. It's really 20.45. They they did their reverse number. It's 20.45.
>> If I can intervene, that's because of the 40 ft required setback >> minus the point you 20.45 that give you the 19.55, >> right? The the the amount of the variance >> Yes.
>> is 19.55 and that's not going to change. >> Correct. >> Okay. No. >> All right. >> Yes. >> Anything else? Chairman, >> I got nothing else. Anybody else have any questions? >> I'll just check in with my guys first. My gals. Okay. Take care of this side of
Das first. Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come forward to the mic and let my esteemed attorney once again take control. >> Hello. Um name please. >> My name is Pablo Karza. address
>> 54 Columbia Carney, New Jersey. >> Carney. >> Yeah. >> Welcome to Livingston. >> Well, >> do you have a question for this architect? >> Yeah. No, it's I want to make sure that I think the the trigger of the offset is cuz there's a second floor being added
on that as well. So, for you guys to take that into consideration. I'm not sure. I think that's what triggered too >> cuz right now the floor is smaller. It's going up >> on that, >> right? But it's the same corner. Yes. >> Yeah. Same corner is just going up to another level. So,
>> correct. >> I'm the contractor here, too. So, that's why I figured I wanted to make sure that I wanted to make sure that that was being >> Keep your notes. >> You want to make sure you have Yeah, it's going to go higher. That's going to trigger. Thank you. >> You got it. Thank you.
>> Does anybody else in the public have any comments? Does anybody public um questions? Anyone in public want to make any comments? Does anyone on the board have any comments? >> I assume you have no other testimony at this time.
>> No, that would be it. Thank you. >> Someone like to make a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Sorry, I should say Mr. Sherman first. >> I second.
>> Second. Okay. Mr. Horn. Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Mr. Emati, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Bear, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Okay, the next one. Uh, block 4302, lot
31, 5A1 Avenue, application number 2025-103-v Garrett and Agata Duros. Uh applicant seeks approval to raise patio and pergola in violation of the following section 170-99C4
rar setback 35 ft required 24.6 ft proposed 10.5% variance requested. That's it. >> Okay. And uh >> Okay. And I assume you are the You just got to hit the button. >> I assume you are the homeowners,
correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And you have your architect with you tonight? Yes. >> Okay. And uh All right. Why don't we um swear in your architect and we can start moving along. >> Okay. Good evening. Making sure the
plans are there. >> Do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Tina Vasa. Tina is spelled T I I N A. Last name is spelled V as in Victor. A S KA. Tina Vasa.
>> Okay. And can we just briefly have your qualifications on the record? >> Yes. I went to school at Calpali Sabispo. Um, licensed architect in New Jersey for over 30 years. >> Okay. And your license is current in good standing. >> Yes. >> Does anyone in the board have any
questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in architecture. Please proceed. >> Yes. I'll start with the original survey that we currently have. The proposal is for uh to remove an existing duck deck
in the rear yard and to replace that with a raised patio and a smaller pergola. Uh the reason we're here this evening is that we have a non-compliant uh yard or property. So what we have is um 75 ft across in the front. So we have
the minimum width for an R4. The minimum depth for an R4 property is 125 ft and what we have is 116 feet on the left side and 120. So we're short by about 5T on the one side and 9 ft there. So we have a short lot and not only that we
have an undersized lot. We have um 9,000. Here we go. Uh required is 9,000 square feet. We have about 800 8,800 square feet. So we're short about 500 square ft which is causing the um hardship that we're occurring by putting
in the deck the pergola over the existing deck. Um I'll move down to the Oops. These are not the plans I had entered. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm having a trouble navigating this. How do I go back?
>> Take your time. >> Sur. All right, let's go to the plants. There we go. No, that's not mine. My apologies. >> There we go. All right, let's take a look at the plants.
There we go. So, uh, if we were to look at the plan, the survey on the left side there, this is the proposed survey. We have the existing lot as um earlier indicated, but what we have is the pergola that they were proposing and that's going to be smaller than the
existing deck. Uh the existing deck is 14 ft wide and we're proposing a pergola for uh 12t wide. Nevertheless, uh the setback is 35 ft. The current corner of the house is 36 feet with a deck that's already at 24 feet, excuse me, 22 feet
from the rear yard, but we're bringing the pergola back to 24 feet. Uh the reason we're doing the pergola is this tree right here. Um it was unfortunately had to be removed recently. That was their shade tree. So what we have is existing deck that we would like to open
up um primarily just to allow for access for the family to the backyard. And what we're proposing is a pergola instead and that will allow um for everybody to access and have the inside outdoor living as well as access to the rear yard. But again, the primary reason for
the pergola is that tree and that was our shade device because that was um shading us from that south u from the north uh the southeast corner on the upper right hand corner. So by putting in this pergola we're able to recreate the shade. Um we could have done this as
a full building um had it enclosed had a covered porch in fact but the pergola was the smallest kind of uh protection we could provide. It's a post and beam structure with louvers across it. It'll be 12 feet tall from grade and tucked in right under the eve there. And just to
look at the uh bulk requirements just for a minute. Uh we are at that I can't read. Pull this up. Here we go. So the required lot size is 9,375 ft and we have 8,893.
So it's a pre-existing condition. It's under sized. The front yard is fine. We're at 40t there. Uh 41 ft provided. The sideyard requirement is 10 feet and we have over almost 13 feet on the right side and on the left side we have just
over 10 feet. Our sideyard combined uh needs to be 25 ft and we're slightly unders sized on that but that's a pre-existing condition. We're not in any way impacting the sideyard at all. We've located the perglar right where the deck is currently smack in the middle of the yard in the back. Um we come to the
sideyard combined that was yeah that was pre-existing on the rear yard. that is what we have a requirement of 35 feet and we have currently to the deck we have 22 feet we'd like to expand that to 24 we're bringing it in and then finally on the
uh covering by building the requirement is 25% uh currently it's 21.4% 4% and we're proposing 24.1 despite the fact that the pergola is not a building because it doesn't have a roof. It is a structure. So, it does get included in that calculation. So, let's
move down um really quickly to sheet A2 just to look at the patio plan. This is the back of the house. Uh this is where the patio uh doors exist. We're removing the existing deck that is 26 feet wide and 14 feet deep and instead we're having a perle that's 20t
wide and 12 ft deep. So we're scaling back on that. And then on A4 I just want to bring your attention to uh the elevation. And here we can see how the pergola is tucking in right under that awning there. There will be a post and a
beam and then some louvers in between. And we do have a lovely fireplace there. And then to go back or then to the inserts. Um, and that has not been included. But let me walk you through the inserts that are
in your uh drawings, your application packet there. Yeah, this was not everything that was submitted. But on your sheet A1 in the insert, what we have is we have the aerial plan. And on the aerial plan, and I do apologize, this is more
inconvenient for you, but the red dots locates uh Dar Garrett and um um Aka's home. What we can see is it's surrounded by trees. There's a lot of mature trees all around it. And the homes in the vicinity neighboring the home are all
very private and very secluded with respect to each other. Looking down at the area map then on your insert that's sheet on sheet A1 we can see the one area that I was concerned about was a property right behind the Garretts but what's happening
is that is a very very deep lot where there's no um activity by the homeowner at all and again everything is very very shaded by the existing trees. Gosh, I'm so sorry. This is not >> So, would would would it be fair to say
that the current deck by removing the current deck, you're reducing >> what is already uh the deck is further out. The pergola is going to be further in. So, even though there is a rear yard setback
>> uh violation, it is less than what the current deck is. Correct? >> Yes. So you're doing something better. >> Yes, we are. >> Within the physical within the physical constraints of the lot, which because
the lot line and the lot size, there creates perhaps a hardship in terms of how to place this lovely pergola. >> Correct. The lot is under size. >> I knew you'd agree with me. >> Again, my apologies. I'd be much more
Okay, maybe this is under foot. I think the uh >> you don't have to go into detail. >> I think the board has it. >> They do. I have more show and tell. >> That's okay. >> We're we're we're there was a lot of thought process before. We're trying to keep the thought processes to a minimum.
>> The homeowners certainly um could speak to the tree situation. It's that that shade situation. >> I think we're kind >> Anyone in the board have any questions? >> Yeah. What's the height of the new deck
versus the existing? >> Uh the height of the new deck is about two feet. It was up at that finished floor level. So, and then we had about three feet of of um railing. So, that height was 5 feet from grade. And now the new uh pergola will be 12 feet from
grade that the floor the the decking part. >> Well, that's just a raised patio now. >> Right. So, what's the difference between that and the existing patio? Um, new patio race height is 8 in and the uh current deck is approximately two feet. I don't have that exact lower
>> the floor. The floor >> and you're going to be lower. >> So we raise we've lowered it. >> Yeah. >> I have a question. So >> yes, >> in the pergola, do you have any recessed lighting placed in? >> Yes, there will be just some ambient
lighting. Yes. >> Okay. As a condition of approval, you would agree that that lighting would be downward facing and not affecting any of your neighbors and keep life spillage onto the onto the patio. Correct. >> Correct. >> I knew you'd agree with me. >> I was going to say that, too. >> You beat me to it. Um,
I'm writing it down as a condition of approval, which I know the homeowners would agree with me. >> And that wall you have is going to have a fireplace that's on both sides and a TV. >> Yes. It's a a fire feature with a wall and TV. Correct.
>> And how does that TV that faces the neighbors to the right? >> Um, looking at this image here, we can actually this one here. >> There's no there's no there's no zoning standard for TVs. >> Okay. >> Not yet. >> I was just thinking out loud.
>> But you but >> don't disturb your neighbor. >> Where else going? >> Um, okay. Yeah, I don't have any other comments because one was negated. >> I have one more one. So this the sauna Joe maybe you would know there uh there's there not the sauna >> the hot tub
>> the hot tub the uh uh you don't need any you haven't seeking any variance you don't need any variance for what >> that would be above ground. Okay >> building you have a anybody else have any questions for this witness? Anybody in
the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? >> You have any closing statements you'd like to make? >> Just that we are reducing the current footprint and we're bringing it back. Um
and as a pergola is very unintrusive. Um also this could have been done as a detached um accessory building on much closer to the property line. So this is much more um con considerate of the neighbors. >> I actually do have one last question.
I'm sorry. the there's a pull down or retractable walls. I think I saw >> um retractable screens. >> It's just a screen, right? It's not going to be windows. It's not going to become three seasons screens. >> Okay. >> Um
>> screens are on the one side or or both sides. >> It was two sides. I think >> you you'll get it all the way around. >> Yeah. All the way. >> You'll be all the way around the screens all the way around. >> I thought they were on all three sides. Are they? But >> yeah, three sides. >> All three sides. Yeah, >> keep the bugs away.
>> The I already wrote it down that I'm sure the homeowners would agree that the perglar will not be in any enclosed uh fashion using the screens, but nothing that would make it qualify as additional living space. >> No. >> We Hey, someone like to make a motion?
I'll make a motion both subject to >> the light spillage and the lights facing down as well as that the pergola will not be permanently closed. >> I'll second it with what he said. >> I read those notes from where I said
>> okay second Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wisman. >> Yeah. Before I vote, I wanted to commend you on the presentation. I think it was very helpful to me and probably the board how you put the pictures before and after side by side very effective
and useful at least for me but I'm a guest. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. >> Thank you, >> Miss. >> Yes. And I will say that it's um beautifully designed and I think it's a great addition to your home. So enjoy it. >> Okay, Mr. Beard. >> Yeah. Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Like to vote. >> Okay. >> Good luck. Thank you so much. Lot 4707, lot 4,13, Yorktown Terrace. Application number 2025-90-V Susanna Property LLC. Applicant seeks
approval to construct a new single family residence in violations of the following sections. 170-9 C2 frontier setback, 40 ft required, 36 ft proposed, 4 variance requested.
170-99C4 RAR setback 35 ft required 38 ft proposed 1.2 Two ft variance requested uh 170-99
C3 sideyard set back the right side 10 ft required 5.9 ft proposed 4.1 ft variance requested 1709 C3 sideyard aggregate 30% required 21.8%
proposed 8.2% 2% variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor ratio 30% allowed 38.5 proposed 8.5% variance requested the press. Okay, cool. All right, thank
you everybody. Uh I'm Trevor Cooper with the law firm of Stevens and Lee on behalf of the applicants who place LLC. I'm going to keep my introduction incredibly short for your benefit tonight. Um, we have two witnesses to present tonight. Uh, Mr. Emert, who's no stranger to you, uh, will address the
project design and Nick Graviano, who is also no stranger to you, will uh, speak to the variances and the proofs. Um, I just request that the board receive all the applicant submissions into the record for the purposes of the testimony tonight. Um, with that, I would like to
turn it over to Mr. Hammer to speak. >> All right, Mr. Emmerit, let's just swear you in for this application. Do you swear for untelled truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> All right, Mr. Emmerit's qualifications have already been established as in the field of architecture, sir.
>> Yes, we can accept him as an expert in architecture. >> All right. Um, I was just looking through the engineers drawing is not included in with the listed drawings documents. So you you do have
that that you're looking at. So I will be referring back to that on occasion, but just to give you a um a very quick summary of the house. Um just blow this up.
All right. So it's a two-bedroom house. Um uninhabited attic. Just attic is just for storage. pull downstairs. Uh on the the second floor, we have uh it's a three-bedroom house. We have three
bedrooms upstairs. There is a laundry and associated bathrooms. On the first floor, we have a twocar garage. Uh a small mudroom leading into the kitchen. Along the back of the house, primary living space, kitchen,
dining room, family room, all open to each other. Um there is a full bath off a hallway and what's shown is bed four is flex space. It could be a bedroom. It could be a home office. Um so it has a
couple different uses and twotory house. Um fairly straightforward. Um so um and so we're here today to request
um three variances. Um again we are we are asking for a front yard but it does comply with the established setback and the form was submitted
um document the established setback and was performed by the uh by the surveyor but so we do have a front yard um 40 is required 36 is what we're proposing uh but it is in the average of the
adjacent homes. Um, we are requesting a 5.9 square foot variance on the sideyard. And that's where this
survey is going to be helpful because it's on the right side and you can see the triangular section. It's this corner right over here. So, it intrudes and it's necessary. Number one is the front
corner of the house complies with the setback. The rear corner complies with the setback. The only location is midpoint in order just the way the shape of the property, the way the side angles in order to get that twocar garage in.
Now, I want to point out that the second floor, we've pulled the house back. So, the second floor is fully in compliance with the 10 foot setback. So, the only area that's not is this one corner. It's just a one-story portion. Uh, and it's
al it's just to squeeze in that twocar garage at that location. So, that was the one variance. So, as a result of that, so that 5.9 you know, it's it's the smaller number,
so it factors into the combined sideyard aggregate um variance that we're requesting. Uh and then the rear yard, uh again, we are in compliance with the front yard. The rear yard, 35 ft is required. We're asking for
33.8. And again, the backyard is is angled. The back property line is angled and the left corner of the house is in compliance and the right corner is 1.2
ft out of a a compliance. So that's a summary of those variances. Um we are underneath the habitable floor area. 3220 is allowed. Ward 2560.
Um we are working with again another undersized lot. 9375 is required. The existing property is 6639. So um you know it's what 2700 square ft undersized.
And so as a result of that, even though the, you know, it's a three-bedroom house and and we're have the habitable floor areas square footage is 2560. We are over the
floor area ratio. Um 30% is required and we are asking for 38.5. So, that's a summary of what we're requesting and what we have. >> Sorry, you just said threebedroom house.
Sorry. According to the plans, it's a fourbedroom house. >> Correct. With with the first three bedrooms upstairs is what I was trying to convey. Yes, the fourth there is a fourth bedroom on the first floor or a study, you know, however they want to use craft room. But yes, it is a
fourbedroom house. Okay. Anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah. Question. The >> the existing building the site setback currently is at uh is it at 7'6 in? I
mean >> this the read it somewhere. >> It is 7'6 at the front corner. This was on the left side of the existing house. 7.6 at the front. 7.7 at the back.
>> So, we did improve that condition by pulling the house away from the property line on that side. >> Thanks. >> I would just like to make a comment. I see that the lot size is 6839. I think my if I'm seeing this correctly, >> 6639.
>> Can't really see. 6639 and the house is 2560. So, I appreciate you making the house building constructing the house to fit the size of the lot. It's a It's a wider lot. >> That's That's one of the things that does make it a little bit easier.
>> Well, I I appreciate that. >> Okay. >> Anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Question. Come on up. >> Uh, please state and spell your name for the record.
>> Sure. Alan Baron. Uh, B A R E N. Uh, >> long time resident of Livingston. Just purely curious, were the neighbors on the right um, uh, asked if they mind the side setback uh, variance?
>> So, everybody, so there's a 200 foot list that's generated for every application. they wouldn't be here tonight unless they met that requirement which would include noticing adjacent properties. So those um neighbors have
been noticed uh about the application and they had the opportunity part of that notice advises exactly what they're looking for and also gives those people the opportunity to see um the planning department to take a view of the plans
if they wish to. So, they wouldn't be here tonight if they if the neighbors didn't get notice. >> No, I absolutely understood they got notice. I was just wondering if they proactively gave that courtesy to the neighbors. >> Uh, they don't have to and that's not really that's not a requirement for them to do that. >> Yeah.
>> But the neighbor obviously can contact them. >> Understood. Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. Does anybody else in the uh public have any questions for this witness? >> Comments will come up later. So, thank you and sit tight.
Okay. Um, counselor. >> All right. With that, I would like to call our planner. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano, >> you swear for untelled truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay. Uh, can you uh Mr. Graviano has
appeared before this board on many occasions, been qualified as a planner. Mr. Graviano, as of tonight, uh, your license to practice in the field of planning in the state of New Jersey is current. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> We can accept you as expert in planning. >> Pleasure, chairman. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, the architect did a great job of describing this application and the relief being requested by the applicant. I'll keep this brief. Uh, this is an application for a specific piece of property known as block 4707,
lot 4. It is an undersized lot in the R4 district. Uh the applicant is requesting relief for the front yard setback, sideyard setback, aggregate sideyard setback, rear yard setback, and the habitable floor area ratio. Um as
indicated, this lot is 2736 ft undersized. It is a extremely irregularly shaped parcel. Uh the lot width is 71 in the front. It narrows to 47 in the rear. So that could explain to
you the practical difficulties in in designing a home that meets all of the zoning ordinance requirements. Uh in this instance, the applicant did uh increase the front yard setback from 34T to 36 ft, which is uh in uh compliance
with the averaging uh requirements of the ordinance. And as indicated in the architectural testimony, this is a modestlysized home at 2560 square feet. Whereas 3220 is permitted by ordinance. Uh certainly when looking at the C
variances for the front yard setback, sideyard setback, aggregate sideyard setback, and rear yard setback. Uh that relief can be granted under both the C1 and C2 criteria. Uh in respect to the C1 criteria, this is an exceptionally
shaped property. Strict application of the township zoning ordinance would create practical difficulties to building a house that uh meets modern standards. Uh additionally, uh the C variances can be granted under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG
and II of the municipal land use law. And then looking at the purposes AG and II the municipal land you saw that's certainly uh purposes of zoning which advanced the granting of the D4 F variance. Um this is a site which has adequate off- streetet parking.
Additionally the setback relief uh being requested by the applicant is very modest in nature. It's a very clip of the corner um of the uh onestory garage portion of the dwelling. Additionally,
the irregularly shaped angled lot in the in the back requires uh that uh 1.2 foot uh setback relief. So, this is certainly a situation where the applicant has proposed a very modest home and the uh site can accommodate the
relief that's being requested by the applicant this evening. >> Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? I I guess I don't have a a fully formed question, but it's for both the architect and the planner, but I'm just
having a little problem and and I and I agree it's it's a tough lot. It's it's undersized and and I like I said in a earlier application, it it's a modest size house relative to the to the zone and what's being built. So, the question is how do you get this house on this
property? The problem I have is just is that you have the 5.9 which is really close and it happens to be exactly where the neighbor's house is also really close but it looks like they're in compliance. So I you know I wish it had
come to us with a design that had the square footage but worked in a way that you know would would not require such a large variance meaning almost a 40%
variance from the 10 down to less than six. So it I'm asking for your professional opinion if I'm agreeing with you that the you know a 2560 uh house is appropriate and warranted
and that we would like to see that. Can that be done in on this lot without going so close to the neighbors in a particular close so close to the neighbors lot and at that point if it was further back it'd be different. That's what's
troubling me a little bit. I'm not saying it's horrible, but I wanted to get your professional opinion on on how you would do it. >> When I first saw the numbers of the application, I echoed your concern, but when I looked at it a little deeper, you have corner to corner and then the
houses fan out. So, I think in this circumstance, um, the setback of the houses fan out from that corner. So, you do have something that's more in line with the conforming setbacks of the of the district. If it was side to side, I I certainly would have an issue with it,
but the fact that it's corner to corner, I think alleviates some of those concerns. >> Mr. Graviano, just briefly, um on the uh the uh ho floor area ratio on that D4 variance, uh uh do you have any opinion
on whether or not this lock can accommodate uh the proposed house? >> Yes. Um the applicant is not requiring any building uh coverage variances. Um the applicant is meeting adequate off- streetet parking and I think the very
modest setback relief being requested is pretty minor in nature and and that is mainly due to the irregularly shaped property and as I as I said um you know the the strict application of the ordinance would create practical difficulties on this applicant.
Does anybody else have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah. Would it be fair to say that the garage you have, the way you have designed the garage, you're trying to accommodate a bigger truck or a bigger vehicle, which is why you have uh
earlier the existing had about 7'6 uh side setback whereas in your newly designed case you were at 59. Is that the reason? Uh perhaps one of the main reasons. >> Well, the reason was to accommodate two vehicles in the garage. That that's
that's the reason. >> Yeah, I'm going to say it's not it's not for a larger vehicle, an oversized vehicle. I mean, the township has a requirement of a minimum of 12 by 20 for one garage. This one is 22 feet 4 in
overall. So, you subtract the outside walls, it's only 21 feet inside. So, it's not, you know, it's to it's to get two two cars in there, but not not for an oversized vehicle. >> Mr. Graviano, um, and you would going
back to your testimony about corner to corner, you would say that's even further relief probably because it's a garage only, so there's no windows or noise per se, >> and it's one story. You know, the applicant was very conscious of requesting for that relief. Um, previous
iterations of of this house did have a full two-story structure. Um, the the applicant felt that the setback relief was minimized by having that very small portion of the garage one story. >> Excellent. Thank you. Anybody else on
the board have any questions? >> So, there's no windows in the garage on the side that's closest to the neighbor. >> Correct. That's this. It's the bottom bottom right. This wall right here. >> Got it. Thank you, sir. right there. So that's the garage side >> and and as indicated in previous
testimony, the second story is fully within the setback requirements. >> Perfect. Thank you. And and what about the the do do you know what the neighbors is that the neighbor's garage or what what is portion of the neighbor's house is that point that's
comes closest? Give me one second. I have pictures. It's the neighbor's garage. The neighbor also has a one-story garage. >> That's okay. So, it'd be garage to garage.
>> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Have questions? Did anybody in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? Sir, please come up. I hand you over to the gentleman to my right.
>> Do you swear affirm Do you swear a firm tella truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can you please state your name and address? >> Sure. It's Eric Chafay. E R I C. Last name C H E I F E T. >> And address >> is 19 Yorktown Terrace. >> Go ahead, sir.
>> Um so I'm two houses down from this house. Um my next door neighbor who couldn't come tonight. Um he is the garage that was mentioned. It's also a one-story garage. He uh so my my concern
is the reason that it's me it's too close on sides and aggregate is because it is a narrow lot just like my lot is and my neighbor's lot is. Um we um if you look at the rest of the street there are there's only two more
two other two-car garages. Both of them have an they indent at the top. This one I know at the second floor meets, but it's very it appears to me like it's encroaching on my neighbor and I do know that my neighbor is in the process of also about to do construction on his house. I know he hasn't submitted it
yet, but just want to make that aware that I know he is trying to do this and to to me it's it looks it'll look very cramped to me. Um especially looking up the rest of the house. The rest of the street is pretty
much your typical old 60s7s built in the 40s or 50s renovated. Um but this one obviously it's a new build and again my concern is if it's a new build like you mentioned why can't you design it to fit um and especially if you need a twocar garage why can't it be squeezed in still
be a twocar garage. I have no problem with two-car garage but fact that it's wide and it's new that's to me my concern. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, do you want to address or not? That's up to you.
>> Well, I I will just say it does comply. The garage does comply at the front of the property. The the house steps back several times going along the left the the right side because it is a sloping
and angled um setback angled property line. It it is in compliance in the rear. I mean, we did make a very um very very strong effort in order to comply with that. It was just um at that one spot, and again, it's not the entire
area. It's just that that one area that one area on the first floor of a onecar garage that uh we do exceed the setback. >> Anybody else in the public have any comments? Please, >> Alan Baron. Um,
>> all right. We just need to swear you in real quick. You swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> I do. Um, I I've driven around the neighborhood. I've seen this street. Um, I really appreciate the architect's points before that people generally today want to build differently than
they did in the 1960s, and people want twocar garages and bigger houses. I guess my question for the board rhetorically is at some point the land is the land and I understand everyone wants to make a undersized lot the hardship but at some point you only have
so much land to me 65 66 feet across the front of the the lot seems really rough to try to fit in a twocar garage. I've heard several times there's plenty of off- streetet parking available that's been mentioned. So my my rhetorical question to the board is
at what point do you look at a lot and the narrow narrowness of a lot and simply say this is a lot you need to design a onecar garage on. You can't make more land than than what's there. So I understand a twocar garage is
desired but at some point uh you have to look at the lot and say the lot can only support what it can support. And for me, knowing this neighborhood, knowing how close the houses are, it doesn't feel like this lot at 65 66 feet readily supports a twocar garage. And it's
really the two-car garage that's driving the right side setback. Nothing else is really driving that setback. I have no issues with the habitable space. It's it's just that setback is being driven by because they want a two-car garage on a on a lot doesn't really support it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Does anybody want to >> Well, can I can I just ask Mr. Graviano on that point? Uh because to me, I would have put the again, we're not the designers up here. I would have put it on the other side to make it work. But
to to the uh neighbors or the point when you're looking at municipal land use law in particular AGNI which you frequently quote can what what would be your testimony as as a versus a the twocar garage in terms of the benefit to the
neighborhood and that's something that we should be considering versus a onecar garage. Well, I think when you look at garages, you know, people use garages different ways. Uh, you know, some people use it for storage, some people use it for parking. I think in this case, you you guarantee you more
guarantee that a vehicle can park in that garage. Um, you know, many times the single car garage garages will get used simply for storage. You can't park a vehicle in there. Uh, to to the neighbor's comment, you know, my testimony wasn't specifically based on
the undersized nature of the lot. It was due to the extreme geographic condition of a lot that has 71 ft of frontage that slopes to 47 in the back. Um a as we put forth in testimony, this would be garage corner to garage corner.
There's not even any living spaces on the on the neighbor's property in that location. So I certainly feel that I I think we we found that this triangle was roughly, you know, less than 20 square feet. Um, I think the granting of that variance certainly could be done without
substantial detriment to the public good. >> Yeah, but obviously we we defer to the board if it's if it's a concern to the board. We we would like to hear it. >> Anyone in the board want to make any comments? Yeah, I I would just add that I did
drive by the location today and uh um just I did feel that uh it it is a very odd shaped lot. You're on the con concave side of the you know street. It is it is kind of curving. Um and uh it
does appear uh aesthetically speaking that you know if we bring the building closer it does appear like it's a lot closer to the neighbor than it is than it actually would be. So uh right now the building
is at 76. So would you be amendable to you know reconsidering and resizing the garage to fit the existing conditions? The applicant will jog the house at that point to meet the setback.
>> Legal definition of jog. >> Defer to Mr. Graviano in this >> that that that side of the house will meet all setback requirements. >> Okay. So, so the current request for the setback on the sideyard
where 10 ft is required, 5.9 is proposed, and a variance of 4.1 is requested. That variance would no longer be necessary because the garage will comply with that setback. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. And the applicant will provide revised plans. >> Yes. As a condition of approval, the applicant will provide provide revised plans. >> Would someone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve with the
condition with the obviously that that setback being removed, the sideyard setback. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman. >> Yes. Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes.
Uh, Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Romani. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan. >> Yes. And I would like to thank the applicant. Thank you, >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, board. Please call the next application >> number five. The block 4010, lot 7, 16 seed of Parkway South. Application number 2025-95-V uh Warden Place LLC applicant seeks
approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following section. 170-99C2 frontier setback 40 ft required, 30 ft proposed, 10 ft variance requested. 17087 CC4 habitable floor ratio 30% loud
39% proposed 9% variance requested >> looks like everybody >> everybody stayed where they were okay so Mr. Emir and Mr. Aviana, you remain under oath. Your qualifications in your respective fields haven't changed in the past 5 minutes. So, >> we can accept them as
>> professional architect and planner. >> Thank you both. Um, again, Trevor Cooper with Stevens and Lee for the applicant or in place LLC. Um, not going to be labor my introduction once more. Uh, this is another application for an
undersized slot. We have an F variance and a building coverage variance. Um, again, I would just ask that the application, the materials we submitted are uh submitted to the record for the purpose of the testimony of our architect and our planner this evening.
Um, and with that, I'll turn this over again to Mr. Emmer. >> Okay, Mr. Emerald already being qualified this morning, you can proceed. >> Thank you. Um, I'm going to just
um, okay, so this is a starting with the second floor, a four bedroomedroom house, um, three bathrooms and a laundry room upstairs and twocar and again there's a, um, pull
down hatch to the attic. There's no no stair going to the attic. Um, first floor is two-car garage. We do have a fifth bedroom in the back right corner. Um, the primary living space is stretched along the rear with the
kitchen and the family room. Uh, a small living room, sitting room in the front off the entry with the dining room between the two spaces. Um, and it's a twocar garage. I mean, two, I'm sorry, twotory house.
Um so at this point we are asking for two variances. Um the first is the front yard setback.
Um 40 foot is required. Um the current house is at 25.5. So we are pushing the house the new house back uh to be 30 feet and I believe that is in conformance with the
average established setback. Um and then the second I believe I'm trying to find the form but I believe it is. And then um the second variance we're asking for is um okay we
are in compliance with the habitable floor area. We're under that requirement but we are over on the ratio requirement uh whereas 30% is required. We are asking for 39% um and the lot is
um unders sized for the zone that it is in. And as I see here, we are also asking for a let me see this.
I got my note here that we have a building coverage that we're asking for point.1% for the building coverage. So, >> Mr. Emmer, um, is it your understanding that this building complies with all the
setback requirements? >> It does. >> Is there anything else you would like to add to your testimony before we turn it over to the board for questions? >> Uh, there is not. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Does anyone the public have any questions for this witness? Yeah. >> Oh, hold on. >> Oh, you do. Oh, sorry. You start walking up while he has his questions. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Quick question. I don't know if it's a requirement, but do you uh I would defer to the board attorney, but
do you have the setback line calculations in the exhibits? Uh >> that's what I was looking for. That's why I said I think it is >> through the chair. I can provide that information, >> please. Um the the neighborhood average was 29.74 feet. The applicant is
proposing 30 feet. Um this is an increase from the 25.5 ft which exists today. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now come on up. >> Yeah. Halfway there. >> Hey there. >> So now is the time for questions to the
architect. It's not time for comments, but if you have a question for the architect, now's the time. If you want to ask questions, I just need your name and address. >> Okay. My name is Jason Ayafi Rosenson and I'm the neighbor at 15 South Cedar Parkway. >> Go ahead, sir. You got your questions.
>> Right. Hi. And and forgive me if this is a silly question, but I'm wondering if the proposal how does it affect the proximity between the houses or does it not affect the proximity between our houses at all? Because we're we're pretty close together. And just to clarify, sir, you're asking
how far away would the proposed house structure be from your current house structure? >> Correct. Yeah. Okay. >> Which which side are you on, by the way? Left or facing the house? >> Uh face if if I was facing the house, I
would be on the right side. >> All right. I mean, do you want Nick to All right. The on the left side the current setback is 5.7 ft. So we are pulling it back to
10.8. So on the left side we are pulling the house farther away from the neighbor farther away from the property line. On the right side, the existing house is 30 35.5
and we are pushing it. It's going to be 16.3 ft. So, which is and only uh 10 ft setback is required. >> So, and forgive the silly question. Does that mean it's 10t closer to us?
>> Uh, it's 35 about 20 feet closer. 19 ft. Okay. And I just want to be sure I have the right uh like or like left versus right because we >> if I'm standing I'm I'm going on basis if I'm standing looking at the house
from the street. >> The right side is 35.5. Now the left side is 7 whatever. >> So that's that's how I'm orienting myself. >> You're looking out to the street from the house. >> No. Okay. >> The other way. I'm standing in the street looking at the house.
Okay. >> So, we're on the right side then. Yeah. We have like a we have like a mini split condenser on on the side of our house adjacent to this house. >> Okay. >> So, uh does that leave us enough room to like access and maintain that
compressor? >> We are going to be 16 ft off the property line. You're I I do not know, but you're probably at least 10. So, there's going to be about 26 feet 30 feet in between the houses, something like that. So it you could drive a truck through there.
>> Okay. Cuz may maybe I would have the left and right mixed up cuz right now I feel like the houses like it's closer from like the distance is smaller from this gate to this podium. So like it's a very small distance like from my living
room window to the to the window of that house. >> So it sounds like you're on the left side because that's >> Sir just I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. Just we're 16. You're 15. Wouldn't you be on the other side of the street?
>> So >> there you go. >> Oh, wait a sec. Oh, I see. So you This is Oh, >> you're right. I'm sorry. I I I thought you were the house next door to us. >> Good thingard. Completely disregard. I
apologize for wasting your time. >> 25 years in this game, I learned that odds and even are on the opposite side of the street. So, I was formerly a postman. >> We appreciate you coming out though. >> We appreciate you coming. So, nothing's happening on your side. >> Sorry. All good.
>> Aunt would be proud of me. She's a retired postal worker. So, >> does anybody else in the public want to make any comments? >> Questions? >> Oh, questions. Sorry. Sorry. Questions for the architect. I'm sorry. >> Um, hi there. I know. So I if I'm
getting this correct, you're targeting to build 3217 as the livable square feet, correct? >> Let me get this. >> I'm just using the the 39 against the lot size, but roughly the the lot max of
3220 in ballpark >> 3194. Are you building livable space in the basement as well? >> Doesn't matter. >> We're doing a full Yeah, we're doing a full basement. >> Basement. >> We're doing a full basement. >> I understand. >> Wait, wait, just let's ask answer the
question, then we can move on. >> I understand. >> What's that? >> Are you building livable space in the basement as well? >> We may. >> You're not sure yet? >> We're not sure yet. >> All right. So, it could be a five bedroomedroom or a sixbedroom. Correct. >> Number of bedrooms doesn't matter.
>> Yeah. And it's It it does matter when you have >> it does not matter for zoning purposes. >> I I disagree with you. Okay. Thank you. >> But that's law. You can disagree as much as you want. That's the law. >> So, it says you can't do it.
>> Anybody else have any uh questions for this witness? I'm not sure where I am anymore. Please, back to you. >> All right. With that, I would like to turn it over to our our planner. >> All right. Mr. Graviano
planner. >> Okay, this is an application for 16 Cedar Parkway South, block 4010, lot 7. Um, as indicated, the applicant is requesting relief for the front yard setback. Uh, 40 ft is required, 30 is proposed. I would like to note that this
does meet the letter of the law for the averaging uh requirement in uh the code. Uh the applicant is proposing 30 feet whereas the neighborhood average is 29.74 feet. Uh this is an increase from of the front yard setback of the 25.5 ft
which exists today. Uh that variance certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria um advancing purposes of zoning um AG and I uh with no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance as it does meet the averaging requirement.
Uh the applicant is also requesting the D4 F relief uh for uh 9%. Uh this is an undersized lot 8250 whereas 9375 is required by ordinance. Uh the applicant is coming in under the habitable floor
area requirement at 3194. Um the applicant is meeting all required uh rear side and front yard setbacks. Uh the applicant is not requesting any um building coverage relief. Um the
architect did uh indicate a lot coverage relief of 0.1% that equates to 8.25 square ft. I think uh anything that's 0.1 is certainly dimminimous in nature. Um all adequate off- streetet parking is being provided on the property. So with
respect to the D4 F variants, the psych certainly can accommodate the building proposed by the applicant. relief can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan uh or zoning ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good.
>> Thank you. And would you say that removal of the garage in the back and centering of the building greatly enhances this property for all the neighbors? >> Yes, I would say that. I'd also like to note that in addition to the increased front yard setback, the applicant is
removing a deficient sideyard setback which currently exists at 5.7 ft and the applicant is bringing it in compliance uh with a 10-ft setback. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this this witness? Does anybody in the board have any the
public have any questions for this witness? Please come forward. questions or >> questions right now. Don't go far. Okay. Does anyone in the Does anyone in the public have any comments to make, please, on this application?
You're up. You're up. >> Uh, do you swear for Intel Truth Zoning Board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Good. Just state and spell your name for the record. >> Uh, Alan Baron. Okay. >> So, so South Cedar is in my neighborhood. That's why I'm here tonight. Um, for folks on the board who
are not familiar with that street, it is a very small ovalshaped street. Most of the houses on the street, there's about eight or 10 houses on the street. They're sort of historic. They're sort of historic tutors. They are on the smaller side by nature. So, that's not to say they can't support bigger houses.
The house that was there previously was using 22% of the middle space of the lot, even though the lot is undersized. So, it's not that I'm any I have no issues with with so much the size. Well, I think the main point I'm getting at is
this house in like literally no way fits this neighborhood. I've heard people say before whether a house should fit a neighborhood or not fit a neighborhood. This the style of this house, the size of this house literally would be an abomination in this neighborhood. For anyone here who hasn't seen this street,
you should drive down this street. This house simply does not fit the neighborhood uh in any way. Most of these houses are three and fourbedroom houses. This is going to go to a 5 to sixbedroom house. It is just going to stick out like an abomination. Um it's not to say it doesn't fit on the lot.
But the previous house that was there, like I said, was an 18,800 foot house, not counting the basement using 22% ratio going from that to you know 3,200 plus another 1300 in the basement of livable space. it just it's something
that belongs in an area with bigger lots or in an R R3 up. Um it just doesn't fit the neighborhood. And I know that argument typically hasn't uh you know swayed anyone on the board before, but I have heard board members say they've
driven around neighborhoods and do assess whether a house fits a neighborhood or not. The houses on the street are all very small right now. they all take up, you know, again in the 20s to uh low 20s to high 20s of the space. And so, you know, at least for
the next number of years till all these houses get replaced, this house is really going to stick out. I mean, it really just doesn't fit this neighborhood in any fashion. Um, I did a survey of this entire neighborhood and out of 80 or 90 homes in the area, there
are only uh four or five that even break 30,000. So to get have a, you know, a six-bedroom house on this street where there's only three and four bedrooms. Um, not only doesn't it fit the street, it is not a benefit to the community at all. Um, to bring in like a McMansion
house on this kind of a street where the lots are very small, the houses are very small. You heard the ne the neighbor before across the street talking about how close the houses already are. Um, so it just it doesn't fit the neighborhood. And um the best way for you to see that
is to maybe take a look at what houses nearby it look like. Um but it just seems like, you know, let's go and find an undersized lot and try to build as big as we can on it, but it just doesn't fit this neighborhood. And uh if if if if the negative of looking at C2s or D's
is we have to make sure there's no detrimental uh impact on the community, this does have a detrimental impact on the community. It really It really does. >> Thank you. Do you want to say anything or you >> I respectfully disagree with the
objector's opinion. I do this is a traditionally designed home that will fit into the uh visual characteristics of the neighborhood. Uh the applicant is meeting or exceeding all required setbacks. So, uh to make the claim that it's encroaching on neighboring
properties just isn't true because it's meeting all ordinance setback requirements. >> Thank you. Does anybody else in the public want to make any statements? >> You have anything to close with, counselor? >> I have uh I'm not going to burden you
with a summary. I just thank you for your attention. If you have any other questions for the witnesses, we're here to answer them. >> Thank you. Does anybody want to make any statements on the on the board? >> Somebody want to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it. >> Okay, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Horn. Okay, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes.
Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. >> Can I just make one comment before we offsite parking? We don't have overnight parking. So that really it doesn't come
into play. Um so even if it's people can park on the street during the day, but if you park at night on the street, you'll get a ticket. So that's not really something that you know is is um applicable. Just wanted to point that out. >> I I refer to off street parking. Everything I refer to is parking on the
site. >> Okay. >> I've never >> Okay. I was >> credit for the street parking. >> Okay. No, I thought I thought when you were said that you meant like on the street. Okay. >> No. >> Okay. >> No. >> Okay. That's That's why you want twocar garages so people park.
>> I think you have to give up your seat. >> Thank you. >> Take care. Be well. >> Block 7300, lot 36 Braen Road. Application number 2025- 100-v 6 Braton Road LLC. Applicant seeks
approval for a new fam new single family residence in violation of the following section 170-88 BB1 habitable floor area 6200 square ft allowed 6975 square ft proposed 70 751 square ft²
variance requested 170-87 CC1 habitable floor ratio 15% allowed 20% proposed 5% variance requested 70-87EB swimming pool setback 10 ft rate
required zero ft proposed 10 ft variance requested >> welcome >> welcome Richard my own law firm on behalf of the applicant roadl the principal Michael
is here with me this is a vacant parcel in the zones to brought his lifelong residence in this neighborhood which is also inhabited by his two brothers as well as
his parents block 7300 lot 30 related to war area and area ratio you do need all setbacks in the zone it's a four bedroomedroom house with a
threecar garage notably all the in the houses with a maximum height of 30 ft whereas 35 ft is permitted in the we have some balancing of the request
for the relief with meeting uh bulk standards and being lower on height than is permitted. I have two witnesses chairman our architect Michael Sigroe our planner Mr. Graviano. If necessary, in the cheap seats, I have
the art engineer. I don't think we'll need him, but I do have him here just in case. >> Thank you. >> Always good to have engineers around. >> If Excuse me. >> It's always good to have engineers around. I'm partial. We >> We have him here if any issues come up. Uh if we can have him sworn in and
qualified. >> Mr. Architect, do you swear for Intel truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please uh state and spell your name for the record? >> Of course. Michael Scro. SCRO principal Z plus Architects 240 West Crescent uh Allenale, New Jersey.
>> Okay. And can we have your qualifications on briefly? >> You may. I hold a Bachelor of Architecture from Penn State. I hold a master of architecture from Yale University. I've been the principal of my practice for 25 years. My license is in good standing in New Jersey, New York, uh South Carolina.
>> Does anyone have any multiple boards? >> I'm sorry. >> I've appeared at multiple boards across the state. >> Sorry about that. Uh, does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accepted as expert in architecture. >> Thank you very much, Michael.
>> Great. So, we were asked uh by the homeowner to uh as mentioned design a forever home. He has uh extensive family in the in the immediate surroundings and area. He's
identified this as a lot that really uh appeals and can um meet his long-term needs. Along those lines, uh thinking about aging in place and all is all that kind of entails. Uh, principally this is seen as a as a as a a kind of a a ranch
with second floor bedrooms for returning adult children, but that um Michael will uh uh obviously occupy and uh utilize the first floor uh predominantly. The proposed first floor plan is 44 uh
10 4,410 ft with a garage of 849. Second floor is 2142 bringing the subtotal to 7401. Taking the 450 square foot credit for the garage, it brings the uh habitable floor area to 6951 where 62000
is allowed. Uh you'll also notice that so that is that is one of the variances that we seek relief from. Uh Floria ratio also is 20 to be exact. It's 19.5.
um um where 15% is allowed. So um ultimately it should be also kind of noted that we conform with all bulk setback requirements. We comply with front both sides combi individual and combined uh rear yard. Uh we are uh over
3500 square ft under building cover uh for the zone. Uh the building height allowable is 35. We are at 30. So, we are um considerably under what would be allowed for uh um uh the the residents
in the zone. Uh I think it's important to know that we're not even pressing the sideyard setbacks. We have uh let me be let me be careful. So, we are we the combined 45.1
um and individual it is 15. So we're providing 19.1 on uh on the right hand side viewed from the street where 15 is needed. We're providing 49.5 where 45.1
uh is required on the garage side. So, uh, the building mass sits in, uh, from, uh, the sideyard setbacks, um, in a meaningful way that in tandem with the the lowering of the building, even
though it has very handsome pitches, um, uh, uh, it allows for a mass that presents to the street that, um, importantly steps down to its neighbors. So we have single um story forms both through the garage and also part of the primary suite to the right as viewed in
the rendering. Uh those are um uh single story. So not not only are we um stepping back from the sideyard setbacks but the the building actually uh um makes an effort to try to step down uh to the to the neighboring properties.
can quickly go through the plan but I will not belabor the point for everyone's essentially principal living space uh of a kitchen dining and family room configuration uh some back of house support spaces in
terms as you would expect commensurate with this um uh um uh type of living arrangement would be uh pantry laundry there's a small service bathroom that uh um has direct access to the yard,
threecar garage, uh with a singular stair, uh that kind of uh in many ways assues the kind of standard uh you know foyer with the sweeping stair etc. um small office uh for um um uh uh business
use and then essentially the uh primary suite on the right. The second floor is comprised simply of three bedrooms and a circulating hallway. And again, this is the rear. That's the front. This is the rear. Um,
>> you advance >> if it's been >> if there are if they're in Miss Hollis's file, we don't need to mark them. >> Appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> So, in terms of massing, you got some comments?
>> Yeah. of how we're appropriate and the site can accommodate that's our legal standard. Can the site accommodate use despite the deviations? Can you talk a little more about that? >> Sure. Sure. So obviously you know uh our firm has specialized in custom residential for 25 years. uh and and
professionally what I use as a measure to try to gauge the appropriateness of a of a of a building as you think about it on a site and then obviously in context to its neighboring um uh um homes as well is how does that house sit on the site? How does it step down to its
neighbors? What is the visual mass to the street? Um, I think in general the coloration, much like wearing uh darker colors, is is kind of slendering. The uh the the materials of this home also very high quality, durable, um,
lowmaintenance. This house will look as good um uh from day one uh as it as it will on day 30 or you know, in terms of years. Um, so it's it's durable, it's um scaled, I think, if you look at the homes immediately adjacent and then also
just along the street. Um certainly the mass of the homes the adjacent are taller. Um they're about as pro approximate in terms of width. This replaces a singlestory house. Um again holds the same front yard context does
not encroach on the front yard setback. I think by all measures it's a we we understand uh the size. We really do. But at the same time, um, the size is kind of the numbers belly the fact that this is truly a house that from a
massing standpoint on a lot that's 150 ft plus wide, um, is certainly commensurate not only with its own lot, but also the neighborhood that it sits within. >> So from an architectural standpoint, do you have an opinion on whether the lot can accommodate? I I have
>> I have zero I have I have zero trepidation that this absolutely fits the lot and will will be a very very polite um presence to its neighbors again given how it's configured how it's set back from uh uh the the sideyard
setbacks. >> One thing we have here there's no uh there's no cabana uh proposed here. So that's sort of eliminated. While not technically part of floor area ratio, we're not proposing that you have just the bathroom attached in the bathroom.
>> Correct. It was the most efficient way to handle it. And I think uh uh compliments to uh to to uh Mr. Mandlebomb uh as owner in the sense of really looking for a way to really uh think about what is this how is this house going to live um as he ages in
place here. and the desire to to to kind of fill the backyard with more objects was was not desirable. >> We have the the for the pool and the setback. Can you talk about that a little bit? >> Yeah. So, we have um uh I think I can
try to help maybe plan. We'll show this best. I could probably pull up the maybe perhaps I'll pull up the quickly the um actually it's combined. I'll pull up the site plan. Let's try to give some context.
So um sorry see if I can zoom in on that. All right. So uh essentially a uh in the ground pool is proposed obviously also meets all um bulk requirements in terms of its setback its offsets etc.
One area that we do want to highlight to the board. Um it is important that you understand this. uh it was imperative and expressed to us as not a like to have but really kind of like a meaningful lifestyle component. Um while
Mr. Mob enjoys the sun, he does not uh um farewell in direct sun. So we have a a covered entertaining space that comes off the back of the house um and immediately addresses the pool. And it was in an effort to try to create uh an
environment where he can still take advantage of of uh of outdoors and and the pool itself um and not uh suffer the consequences of being directly in the sun. >> So there's a requirement that the pool
be from a house 10 ft. Can you show the the render? >> Yes. >> That we have a pool over. We're not exactly sure the purpose of that ordinance. You think it's a >> look I I think there's a I think I think there's a practical component to it right in terms of uh we've all kind of
read >> I think Mr. Skolnick you don't want children running out of the house having children myself in a swimming pool uh it's not legal but you don't want kids running out and going into the pool. That's that's probably
>> so how do we how with that in mind >> and considering everything >> why do how are we going to prevent little children from having problems here? >> It's an excellent question. And I can assuage your uh your concerns on that in the way that the way that code handles a
pool when it is not fenced off in its own kind of entity, right? But it is part a fence, let's say, is made whole by the sides of the building. It it goes into the rear yard and makes a complete enclosure. So neighboring uh guests, you
know, no one can wander into your yard and use the pool. But if you're going to use your building as part of the fence enclosure, code requires that you have uh alarms put on all operable doors that that um uh interface with the pool. So
essentially uh and this is uh this is we we've handled this with great success and certainly we're concerned about our clients lives and their kids as well and and while Mr. Manabomb's children are obviously older, they may have grandkids one day, we want everyone to be safe. So code prescribes ways where you can't
just a child could not kind of meander out and get to the pool without some type of an alarm going off. So with that being said, >> there's let me just ask this. I think the the pertinent issue here is there's no door directly out to the pool. The
person needs to go out onto the patio to get >> Oh yeah. They would go first out to the covered entertaining space and then in a cont. There's already a distance that the child would have to >> probably I would say somewhere on the order of magnitude of 16 to 18 ft. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So an average male of
>> a certain age, not casting an explosion, Mr. Skolnick, but could probably catch a child or a grandchild before they get into the pool. Right. >> You would hope so. And then there's there's alarms to address that issue. >> Yeah. I I think in many ways and again I don't want to surmize what the rationale
is behind the ordinance but also often when you see setbacks from pools uh from principal structures right is also to not tempt let's say a high schoolaged partygoer to suddenly decide to become an Olympic jumper. So, the way that you
handle that and and it's easy like we have this rear-facing bedroom, uh, we could we could make these windows non-operable. These all of these windows are high. Um, this is in the hallway. This is, um, below 13 ft.
So, this is not double height space. Um, but it is above the covered entertaining roof, inaccessible. So, were these two windows to be made um just fixed, we would still meet our egress requirements for life safety in that bedroom uh with those and we could really preclude
access to the roof. >> So, the applicant would agree to those windows being nonoperable as a condition of approval for for safety purposes. >> Yes. to control the advent code problems here. It's obviously we've designed something
>> it's in complete compliance and obviously we would coordinate with the building department to make sure of that as we develop construction documents. >> And just to to recap, Michael salient features were at 30 ft with 35 permitted. Correct. There's a balancing terms of
massing which are intended to regulate. We needed exceed all setback requirements. >> Correct. >> And we are not approaching them >> and uh we have some tapering of the building. Just go back to the >> Sure. We have tapering of the building
and also it it should be um again reiterated that we are over 3500 square feet under uh um coverage building cover. >> Thank you. >> Of course. No problem. Um does anyone on
the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay, I'm going to call Nicholas Graviano, professional planner. >> All right. Mr. Graviano was previously
sworn in and qualified in the field of professional planning. >> Mr. Graviano, you still have your licenses. >> No. Uh, as Mr. Wel asked, no emails from DCA during this hearing. >> We appreciate that. uh you've had a a chance to uh take a look at the plans uh
certainly the neighborhood uh the aerial which provides some buffering and call that back if you want. Can you give the board the benefit of of your thoughts? >> Certainly. I I've had an opportunity to uh visit this neighborhood on three separate occasions in conjunction with this application. I've had a chance to
look at the uh board professional review letters as well as the municipality zoning ordinance and master plan. Uh this is an application requesting uh three variances for a specific piece of property known as block 7300
lot 30 is in the R1 district. The applicant uh does uh have the required lot size of the district is a little bit over the minimum lot size. Uh the applicant uh is requesting variances for the habitable floor area. 6951 is
proposed whereas 6200 is permitted by code. Uh the applicant is also requesting the habitable floor area ratio variance. Uh 15% is permitted, 20% is proposed. A variance of 5% is required. And then lastly, we've just had extensive discussion regarding the
pool setback variance. Um the zoning ordinance requires a 10-ft setback to the pool. Uh as the architect indicated, there is a in excess of 10- foot setback from the home itself. Uh but looking at the letter of the law of the zoning
ordinance, a variance is required. Uh as you heard in the architectural testimony, there's nothing in the building code which prevents uh design of the pool as the applicant proposes before you uh this evening. I think some of the key elements of this application
uh we've touched on. Firstly, this zone would allow a building coverage of 8,891 square ft. Uh the applicant's proposal before the board this evening is coming in at 5,257 square ft. Um I I think that is
important because while the applicant is requesting the FA the habitable floor area ratio variance and the habitable square footage variance, uh this is not a a building footprint that's overly burdensome on the site. Um great care
was was spent into design of this structure. These variances are really triggered from two main elements. The one being the threecar garage at 800 plus square feet. that as well as a twostory foyer which accounts for 200 something square feet. As all the time
away from your friends and family told you that the town counts that double foyer. So when you look at that excess 751 square ft, the majority of that square footage comes from that double foyer uh and the threecar garage. Um
threecar garage in a circumstance for a house of this silk is certainly customary. Um, I had a case in Anglewood Cliffs where, you know, I I dug deep into garages and the size of garages and the the current trends with auto vehicle thefts. It's certainly better to have
the vehicles stored in the garage. Uh, and that's certainly of directives from the Attorney General's office and the New Jersey State Police. Um, this is a very uniquely designed home. This was a home designed to accommodate all of the
residents main needs on the first level. The goal here was uh onele living. Um it is a house that uh meets the with it a lot. Um, the second story does have expansive hallways and and and uh
entryways from the staircase which aren't exactly living space but get counted towards the habitable floor area requirements. Um, you heard the uh attorney in the intro discuss that the applicant has
family members uh in the area uh specifically at at at 7 Braen, 26 Ross, and 36 Ross. Uh those homes measure 6,426 square feet, 7,642 square feet, and 8,283
square feet, respectively. I had a chance to look at uh all of the residential single family homes in the township of Livingston. Um there's approximately 84 homes within uh the community which exceed the square
footage um that the applicant is proposing before the board this evening. I think we could say for the most part um those homes have not caused a substantial detriment to the zone plan, zoning ordinance or or the public good.
Um the 2018 master plan discusses uh residential neighborhoods specifically to preserve and enhance the primarily residential character of the community to prov preserve and improve the quality of life. This is certainly a house which is befitting of the neighborhood. The
massing and the style is certainly consistent with the established development pattern of Braden and there's certainly no uh substantial detriment uh to the community by the by the granting of any of the variances being proposed by the applicant this
evening. Uh the master plan also seeks to promote a welcoming and aesthetically pleasing visual environment and safe residential and commercial avenue areas through creative development techniques. And what you've seen in the plan before
you uh this evening is certainly a creative development technique which uh sought to minimize the massing and scale of the property to the surrounding neighbors. You'll see that the sides of the dwelling are primarily one story in nature and the maximum portion of this
house is 30 feet in height which is 5 ft less than what's required uh by ordinance. Um certainly when you look at the block this is not the largest house in the block. There are houses of consistent size uh with 26 Ross Road exceeding uh
the square footage proposed by the applicant this evening. Um looking at the uh C variance proposed for the pool uh that certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria advancing uh purpose of zoning I uh desirable visual environment
and creative development technique. Um that variance certainly could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance as the configuration is permitted under building code. um with respect to the habitable floor area variance that also
could be granted uh under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG and I. Um with respect to purpose G providing sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens, we did touch on
earlier that in terms of the building coverage 8,891 square ft would be permitted. uh whereas only 5,257 is proposed. So that's over 3,000 square feet less building coverage than what could be permitted by ordinance. So
there's certainly sufficient space on this lot. Then lastly, the habitable floor area ratio variance. Uh the 5% being requested. Uh the site is meeting all required setbacks. The applicant will obviously meet all of the township
engineers requirement for for grading and drainage. Um, so, uh, certainly this site can accommodate the proposed single family residential dwelling withstanding the requests for the habitable floor area ratio before the board this evening. >> Uh, Nick, one last thing. You took a
look at the aerial photos when we were prepping. There are substantial buffering in trees and much of that is going to be able to be saved. Also, you know, softening any impact here. Yes, the applicant will be retaining existing vegetation on the edges and as indicated
in the architectural testimony, the applicant is exceeding all required setbacks on both the sides and the rear of the property. The front yard setbacks right on the 75 foot requirement. >> Chairman, that concludes I have the
engineer. I don't need to call him. Oh, >> not at this time. I don't think unless Does anybody have any questions for this applicant? Please. >> Yeah, I do. Uh, thank you for the presentation. Very beautiful renderings. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um, so a question is uh as I see is that uh this site is slightly bigger than a standard R1 site. Um and uh just just a observation. With that said, um can you
please explain how does the application satisfy the positive criteria for that D4 variance uh you're requesting? >> Well, as I indicated, it I I do believe it advances purposes of zoning AGNI, the
municipal land use law. uh purpose A uh to provide municipal action to promote the development of lands in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Additionally, purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for variety of residential uses
to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And you know, we we look at that term meeting the needs of New Jersey citizens. Um this this is obviously a neighborhood of of people of means. Uh this is a neighborhood which does
accommodate houses that are this size or bigger on lot sizes that are consistent with the lot sizes of the applicant this evening. Uh so when we look at that term um housing opportunities for for people of all income levels this is certainly something that advances that. And then
then lastly I touched on uh purpose I desirable visual environment. Uh the applicant went through great effort to make this primarily a one-story structure. uh over 60% of the square footage of this home does uh exist on the first floor. Um the applicant is
meeting all required setback requirements actually exceeding them on the side and rear yard um and is meeting all required off- streetet parking. So in terms of the surrounding neighborhood there there's no detriment. If anything, the applicant's proposal while needing
relief um minimizes the massing and scale of this structure by not being primarily two stories in nature. Uh frankly, I'd rather live next to a home uh that's over on the square footage in the habitable floor area that has reduced massing on the sides than
something that conforms to the ordinance that's fully two stories. And then Nick, that that key case out of Randolph on the floor area, it really on the positive criteria, it talks about does the site remain appropriate
despite the deviation. >> That is correct. This site's this site is certainly appropriate for the dwelling proposed. As I indicated, the this this variant stems from the fact that it's a threecar garage and there's a two-story open foyer uh which is very
customary for a house of this nature. >> Could you just explain to what that twotory uh foyer is in the drawing? Michael, you want to take? Yeah, we have 207 square feet there. Right in this space here
is if you if you take that area, you'll see that in the rendering here. It's most clear. So, this space is open to below. This is purely a balcony to try to stay consistent with some of the
other uh balcony amenities to um to kind of break the scale down again and and emphasize the horizontal. So, it's really this space uh exceeds the 13 uh foot allowable. So, we counted that in the F.
>> We got charged a little bit with that. So that's part of the overage on the square footage >> out of the 751 over. >> Does anybody else have any questions for this witness on the board? Does anybody in the public have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements? >> Please come forward. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Do you swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> It's John Mandelbound. >> Okay. And address >> 7 Brighten Road. >> Okay. >> I live directly across the street. I'm pretty much the only one staring directly at this house. I think it's a good-look house. I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood and I
fully support this application. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else in the public want to make any statements? Councilor, back to you. >> No need for submission. I know you have a lot more applications.
>> Thank you. Does anybody in the board want to make any statements? >> Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I will make a motion to approve subject to the condition of the non-operable windows facing the pool in that bedroom
on the second floor. >> Well, I I I would second that, but it's not just the ones facing the pool. I I I just think it should be uh or our liability. It would be nothing. No roof access. >> Correct.
>> Anywhere because I I absolutely to me it's foreseeable for your sake. To me it's foreseeable kids are going to go on that roof if they can get there. So I I just don't want to approve anything where there's accessibility to the to the roof like 10 ft over a pool. Yeah. >> I we concur.
>> Agree. >> Okay. >> We prefer it. >> Okay. So non-operable non-operable windows to >> the roof where Mr. Weissman and I would as attorneys feel you could jump off into the pool >> because we look for stuff like that. All
right. So Mr. Weissman, is that a second? >> That would be a second with those. >> Okay, we got both. All right, Mr. Horn >> approved. Mr. Weisman >> approved. >> Mr. Kaney, approved. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Ch. Mr. Rati, >> yes. >> Miss K,
>> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> everyone loves me. >> Okay. Block 1101, lot 541 West Mlelen
Avenue. Application number 2025-107V, 41 West Mlelen Avenue. Uh, incorporate. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following section 170-87
CC4 habitable floor area 30% allowed 33% proposed 3% variance requested. >> Saw you like four hours ago. >> That's a positive. Happy new year. >> Okay, we're going to start with Mr. Cedra.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Cedra, do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Mr. Cedra has been approved as an architect before this board on multiple occasions. Mr. Zedra, your license to practice uh architecture in the state of New Jersey is current. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Chairman, >> we can accept you as a expert architecture. >> Good evening. Um Oh, you want to Okay, >> man. You're fully familiar with the site and you developed the plans and can you please go over the plans as succinctly
as possible to indicate the ratio that we are looking for. Okay. Um, yeah, definitely. Um, so, uh, this is a a design for a single family house, uh, with four bedrooms at the second floor. We have one bedroom at the
first floor and one one bedroom at the basement level with total six bedrooms and five and a half bathrooms. Um um the variances we applying for here uh we
only applying for one variance which is the floor area ratio uh where it's uh 30% required. We are at 33% um >> requiring a 3%
>> correct and uh the attic for this house is unhabitable attic with the uh pull down stair. Uh it's not accessible with the stair. Uh also I would like to mention that part of the variance is 44
square ft of open space at the second floor. Um We have a double. >> We have a twotory foyer. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh also I would like to mention that we meet the requirement of uh the height
where 35 ft is required. We are uh we are at uh uh 28 28 10 and 3/4. So in all all respects this is a fully performing other%
variance of which we have double entry which was other circumstances >> council don't council don't we have uh front yard and rear yard variance on this one
>> 75 West Cedar. We have uh >> Oh, this is 41 West Men. >> It's It's a change. >> Oh, it's a 41 West Mlen Avenue. >> We took them out of order.
>> It's 41 West Mlen. >> Yeah, I I was wondering it's not what we not what we were >> Sorry. And and it's and it's funny, Mr. Barbarola, in an ironic sense because the one the F on the other one I just
mentioned is 3% as well. So you kind of all ended up in the same field. Okay. So >> there were a couple couple order changes. So Jackie asked me to do that prior to the meeting start. >> No, no, no. That that's that's my fault. This is what happens when you you run out to get a get a drink of water. Uh
Mr. Barbara roll is faster than I am. >> This time we're going to have to have water brought in for you. That's it. No more leaving the deis. >> So just to just to clear up my my my foolishness 41 West Mlen um Cedra there
is only an F of 3% correct based upon >> correct yes all the front and >> even at 3% if we were to take the credit for the foyer it would be less. >> Okay. And and the otherwise the home is compliant with all other bulk
requirements. All the other bulk requirements were in conformance >> and particularly we like we also know that you like to talk about the attic and it is not accessible. It's pulled down. >> Gotcha. >> Excellent. >> Anything else, Mr. Barber? >> No, he is all yours to any ask for any questions. >> Does anyone in the board have any
questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Back to you, sir. I would now like to have my planner Nick who is to my right and hasn't moved from the seat for a while and I believe he's already been qualified >> and we can accept him as a professional
on the record and >> you you're testifying as a planner. You've been previously qualified and in the last five minutes you haven't been disqualified in any way. >> That's correct. Nicholas Graviano Graviano Gillis for the applicant uh professional planner for the application. >> You have examined this site. You've done
on-site inspection. We also have looked at all the plans, the applications that have been submitted and are part of the record. Could you please give the board the benefit of your planning analysis of this particular property? >> Uh yes, this is a variance application for block 1101, lot 541 West Mlelen
Avenue. Uh it is a lot in the R4 zone. This is actually a lot that's oversized by roughly 500 square ft. Um the applicant is meeting the habitable floor area square footage requirement exactly 3220 on the dot. Um however the
applicant does need the habitable floor area ratio variance of 3%. Uh 30% is allowed 3% uh is 33% is proposed 3% variance is requested. Um as we indicated the applicant uh is uh meeting
and exceeding all required uh yard setbacks. the applicant exceeding the front yard setback is exceeding uh the sideyard setbacks um and the rear yard setback as well. There's an ample rear yard here of 53.2 ft whereas 35 ft is required. Uh so when
when you look at those uh sums in total um this is certainly a site which can accommodate the uh increased F request uh the variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. um advancing purposes of zoning a G and I for this
oversized lot in the district. >> I believe based upon the fact that the the application being fully compliant in all other respects and based upon the testimony of the planner indicating the compliance with the municipal land use we don't have any further testimony by
your planner and submit them to the board for any questions. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Does the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this application?
Come on up. >> No, gentleman's already been sworn in early. Go ahead. >> I'd love to ask >> You got to come close to the mic, please. I I I would love to ask the board a question or two, but I understand I'm not allowed to. Um, so I
will just make my statement and hopefully it will be heard, which is I know for myself, um, I've been to many of these zoning board hearings and it's relative to this application. I find it very confusing sometimes why variances get approved when a house can be built
that's 26 to 2,800 square ft at a 30% ratio. It doesn't seem like there's a case where the 30% actually gets enforced. And I think it would be helpful to the town and do the board a great service if both at meetings like
this as well as in the meeting minutes and the resolutions. There could be a bit more explanation on why every variant on an undersized lot tends to get approved when you can still build a substantial house at 30%. It's just
not really clear. And and I have to say that, you know, the the South Cedar thing is really going to destroy our our neighborhood in in a severe way, adding a six-bedroom, $2 million house to a a lower income uh neighborhood. Um, and
it's just not clear to me and not clear to a lot of my neighbors and people I speak to why we don't enforce the 30% when it still allows a really huge house to be built. uh you know like I said you know 26 2800 square feet not including
what you can build in the basement which is why that is relevant. So it all affects affordability in town I think would just do the board a great service if they could when they do approve these variances for undersized lots explain why they're allowing it. What's the hardship if a significant house could be
built on the smaller size lot which this one is and many of the others are uh that you're hearing tonight. So um I know that's all rhetorical. You can't really But I I would hope that there's a little bit more explanation provided to town residents on why all these variances get approved when 30% if we
were to enforce it and enforce our zoning ordinances uh would really allow substantial houses to still get renovated and and built much bigger, you know, double double than what they are with with no variance at all. So anyway, hopefully that um is impactful to someone and there's a little bit more
clarity provided to residents of town at some point. Thank you for your comments. >> And is anybody else uh in the public want to make a comment? Back to you, sir. >> Based on the municipal land use law, based upon the testimony, expert in
planning, the analysis of the municipal land use and the master plan, I believe that we have submitted a very clean application. I request your approval. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board want to make any comments? >> Does anyone in the board want to make a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve. >> Yeah, I'll third it. >> Well, I'm I'm going to second with with I I >> There's There's There's a motion and a second. That's it. >> No, I'm just saying on our resolution, the motion, which I think Mr. Sherman is
going to agree with, which is typical to our resolutions, is that we do base it usually on the Coventry standard by the the Supreme Court, and that and that I'm I'm accepting uh Mr. Raviano's testimony that this use will not um
>> affect whatever that is based on that case law that I'm making this motion. >> Okay. Miss Comp. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> You forgot.
>> Oh, sorry. Mr. Embody. Motion carries. Sorry. >> Yes. >> You forgot them. >> First meeting. We're already we are bypassing you. Sorry about that. >> All right. The PNC block 5602 lot 414
Bernett Hill Road application number 2025- 111 uh-VPN PNC Developers LLC. Applicant seeks approval for a new single family residence in violation of the following
section 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 30 ft proposed 10 ft variance requested 170-87 CC4 aitable floor ratio 30% allowed 35.95
person proposed 5.95 person variance requested >> yes good evening Mr. Sure. >> This is >> uh this is 14 Bernett Hill, applicant number 2025- 111. >> Number 10 on the agenda.
>> Original original number 10. >> Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board, John Barbaru on behalf of the applicant and I have uh Adam Winer as the architect. I also have Nicholas who is not going to be leaving the seat all night as my planner. At this time, I'd
like to have Adam sworn in, and I believe we'll have he can do a very short presentation after sworn in of his credentials. >> Correct. Sounds great. Mr. Winer, do you swear for Intel truth through the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> I knew you'd say that. Okay. Mr. Winer,
can we have your qualifications on briefly? >> Sure. I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey for over 35 years. I appeared before other boards in the state and I have a Bachelor of Architecture and a Bachelor of Science from RPI. and licensed in New Jersey is current.
>> Absolutely. >> And you've been qualified in a number of boards that testify. >> You've been doing this a few years, >> just a little bit. >> And you're fully familiar of this site. You've gone gone to the site. You've also been uh involved in preparing the plans that have been submitted and made part of the application to the board and
reference this. Could you please tell the uh give the board the benefit of your plan? >> Also go over the variances that we are seeking in reference to this particular matter. >> Okay. The the current site has an approximate 1,200 foot singlestory house
with a detached garage in the rear. We propose to take the uh house down and the garage down and construct a new two-story basically center hall colonial. Uh the house will comply with all the setback requirements. The only
thing is it it exceeds the uh habitable ratio by 5.95%. >> And there is a front yard variance. Correct. The front yard variance is uh complies with the ordinance regarding averages and it meets and exceeds the
averages. >> And do you have do you have the average for the board? >> Uh the average I think was approximately 28 28 ft and we're proposing a 30 foot front yard. Actually, we're we're if you take the ordinance as required that you did it you did an analysis of the
existing homes came up with the average of 28 ft and our proposal is 30 exceeding the average by 2 ft. >> Exceeding the average. Yes, it was actually uh 28.85 ft and the existing home is approximately 22 feet from the
>> So we not only do we meet the average but we also have increased the pre-existing condition of the existing home that's being demolished. >> Correct. Now, uh, can you, uh, go over your plan in reference to the home, uh, and and, uh, give the board your benefit
of your explanation of yourable floor ratios? >> Okay. Uh, the, uh, the home is is approximately, 1300 square ft uh, on the first floor with an additional 500 foot
garage as well, two twocar garage. The second story uh has four bedrooms and is approximately 1,500 square feet for a total of about 2,800 square feet plus the 500t garage. >> And is there a double height uh entryway here? Also,
>> the entryway is double height. Um it has a attic that's only accessible by a pull down stair and it has a full basement under the living area of the home. So if we were uh to indicate that the act even though it's double it's Livingston
counts that as Louisville area correct but it in reality based on it is not as a double entrance >> it's one floor >> one floor >> uh I submit the architect for uh questioning I believe we've covered the uh area of the front yard setback also
the uh floor area >> I have a question >> sure Um, can you just clarify on your zoning schedule, you have the required front yard setback as 30 feet, but it's 40 feet, isn't it? I'm just wondering, is
that a typo? Why does it say 30 ft? >> Based on the the ordinance that allows for the reduction, it would be 30 feet. >> It it's it should it should have been a little clearer. That's the average setback. We are we are at 20 uh what
what do we know >> the average is 28.85 feet >> but the required according to >> 40t and that's how we noticed it 40 ft. So it should be noted that the application should also indicate 40 as miss Khan indicates I agree that that should be amended.
>> Thank you. >> So not not a problem but it's 40t is required. We're proposing 30. The average setback calculations as testified by our expert is 28.8. >> Okay, we just want to >> and the existing structure is even two
feet closer to the uh the street which we are uh now bringing it back. >> Okay, we just want to set it straight for the record. Thank you. >> No, absolutely. Thank you so much. >> And for the record, we can accept them as an expert in architecture. Um >> I think Mr. I think Mr. Wel said that,
but I always say that loud. >> Uh, does anyone else in the p on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Anybody in the public have any questions for those? Please come forward. >> We turn you over to our attorney. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> My name is Michael Marlin. >> Okay. And address >> 12 Barnett Hill Road. >> Okay. So, you have a question for the architect, sir? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry you wouldn't finish by 10, but >> it would
this project affects you know uh you know my family. So I I need to clarify a couple items. Um first of all I have a question. Uh when you designed this house did you even try to get into uh under 30% within the ordinance or you
just uh straightforward went for 36%. the the outcome of the house is based on on doing market research in the area and and what the >> so you didn't try uh >> it was it was never it was never attempted to exceed it.
>> Okay. It's where it fell based on on fitting with the market. >> So uh your client is professional developer. He knew that he bought under size lot. So, uh, he didn't expect to
get house under 30%. It was not in the discussion. >> It really wasn't it wasn't the initial thought. It's where the outcome was. >> Okay. So, you never tried your >> Okay. That that's been asked and
answered. >> Yes. Uh, there's no hardship that demands this particular design. There's no sloping, no anything else that you know
was driving you with this design. >> I I don't like to, you know, I don't like to uh >> I >> cross-examine any witness, but at this point, he's making statements, not asking questions. >> No, let me let me let me see if I can assist the gentleman and see if we can move it along. I think what he's trying
to ask is were there any physical characteristics of the lot that caused you to design the home in the way you did? >> The only thing would be the fact that it's an undersized lot. >> Okay. Thank you. Um
you're going to build uh about three times bigger living space. It's going to be two store uh building instead of one. Uh this you know I I saw your design. It will oversee my kitchen. It will oversee my uh porch. Did you consider any uh
privacy issues, any architectural design that will prevent you know like a complete exposure of my family? >> Did you It's very simple. >> I think it's a very simple question. when you when you when you designed the
home, okay, you uh did you take uh any into consideration anything with regard to sight lines uh from from neighboring properties or to neighboring properties? >> Not of in terms of privacy, there wasn't any concern. I mean, you know, it's it's
up to the individuals to put window coverings and so forth. I mean, in this house, they'll probably have window coverings and and concerned about privacy. whomever occupies the home >> meets the setbacks otherwise. >> Excuse me. >> The property meets this the sideyard setback
>> meets all the setbacks. >> Okay. Do you have another question sir? >> Yes. >> Uh that mature trees and shrubs between uh your property and bett 12. Uh the trees are
extended probably like 14 15 ft into the bard kill 14. Will the uh all those trees and shrubs to be removed? >> No, there's only a call for two trees to be removed. >> Two >> two trees.
>> Which ones? >> Uh one that falls directly two trees that fall directly on the proposed garage >> uh on the garage. I'm talking about uh >> there's no other trees proposed to be removed. Okay. How you how you going to deal with that? The roots of the trees
and uh branches they extend approximately 14 15 ft. >> If they need to be trimmed, they'll be trimmed, but the the house itself is is 10 ft off the property line. >> And actually, it's so my concern is that
if you trim the roots, you trim uh this is huge trees, they will fall on my property. Well, and just so you know, sir, any any home owner, I apologize. Okay. Um, do you have do you when you're
going to do uh you know the build, are you going to have any root protection for the trees? >> Sir, th those everything that the the zoning board their job just so you understand is only about the zoning
issues presented, right? in terms of the construction, the build of the home, all those other things are all controlled by what's called a uniform construction code, uniform building code. And the builder will have to comply with each and every one of those. And the township
code enforcement is the entity which oversees this. The building department has to give them permits, has to approve those permits. So anything with regard to the construction in terms of debris removal, um tree protections, soil
erosion, all that stuff, that's all covered by the building department, sir. >> Okay. >> So if you have any questions with regard to that, you can certainly contact them and have further discussions with them. But that's not something before this board. I did I did actually I stopped by about five days ago. I talked to
engineers and they you know about the water issues that you know this property currently has and uh it's significant issue. I can proof I've been told that you know you can bring it to the board. >> Oh okay.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. No I I I understand but I'm just I'm just letting you know. >> I understand. But you certainly have every right to discuss that with the building department. >> Can I ask you a question? What you going to do? How you going to discharge uh rain water?
>> The uh rainwater we because of the increase in imperous coverage. We're addressing the increase in impervious coverage with a a detention basin. The detention basin is well oversized for the amount of the increase and any additional rain water will discharge directly to the storm drain and the
street. >> Okay. There is Okay. So, you're going to do a basin on the back of property? >> Yes. >> Basin. >> Okay. Uh, why I'm asking? Because my property is lower than yours and currently all almost all the water
coming uh, you know, to my property and I had to do significant changes. Also, uh, another issue I have with you discharging on the street. I have a proof. Uh, now we're getting >> So, we need we need we need questions, sir. So, if you have any other questions,
>> okay. Are you going to address any issue? You're currently discharging water on the street. >> Storm sewer. Huh? Storm sewer. >> Storm sewer. >> It's not exactly. I I have a proof. >> Uh the township should take care of all water. >> The township will take care of the
water. They cannot discharge any additional water off of their property than is currently discharged. They have to put together a drainage plan that gets approved by the engineering department. And fortunately unfortunately we have no privy over that. >> So I understand but uh you know it is it
is it is a hazard >> and you know I can show you because uh >> and I understand. So can they address it with engineering department? >> Of course. Of course but they will make sure that >> these applicants when they're building that when they're when it's all done if
there was one gallon of water that came off after an inch of rain there won't be more than one gallon of water that comes off with an inch of rain. >> Correct. likely it'll be less because it's going to be better graded and they're going to have a drainage system, but there's no promise of that. It won't be any greater than it is today based on
a rainfall. >> Okay. Uh as long as it's not going to be worse, >> it will not be worse. It is really bad >> per per law, it won't be worse. The Livingston has a lot of areas where it doesn't drain well. Townships on that for those reasons. They want to protect
all the residents >> incoming and existing. >> Okay. Okay. So, pretty much uh I don't have any more questions and you know because I understand many of my questions are mostly for engineering.
>> Uh but you know I still have a chance to make a statement. >> Yes, you will have a chance to make a statement. Don't move. >> Does anybody else have a question for this witness? >> Does anyone want to make a statement?
>> Oh, Mr. Grav. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. He he still has to go. >> One second. >> He's very fast. >> I know he's he's been a fixture in his seat, but he's >> and he's approved as a planner. I'll beat you to it. >> Nick has already been sworn in and and and accepted as a planner in the last two and a half seconds. No emails saying
he's he's no longer a planner. Mr. Nick, we you've heard everything. You've heard the architect. You have examined the plans. You've examined the application. You have been to the site. Uh can you give us the benefit of your planning analysis of this particular property why this variance can be granted?
>> Certainly. Uh this is an application for block 5602 lot 4 uh 14 Bernett Hill Road. Uh the applicant is seeking approval for a new single family residence. Uh the first variance uh being requested is for the uh front yard
setback. Although as you heard in previous testimony, the average setback is being uh adhered to is actually being exceeded. When you look at the proposed dwelling and the adjacent dwellings, this house is actually a touch back from those dwellings a little bit by you know
roughly 2 feet. Uh the applicants also requesting the habitable floor area ratio variance whereas 35.95% is proposed 30% is permitted by ordinance. I I would like to note that uh the applicant is under the uh
habitable floor area requirement coming in at 2905 square ft whereas 3220 is permitted by ordinance. So this is certainly not a situation where the applicant uh tried to max out the dwelling on the undersized lot which is
undersized by 1295 square ft. Um, I would like to note that today there is a deficient sideyard setback on the one side coming in at 7.2 feet. Uh, the applicant will be bringing that into conformance uh with the proposed
dwelling. Uh, the building height also is not being uh maxed out in this situation. Uh, the applicant's house is coming in at 33.76 feet whereas 35 ft is permitted by code. Um the applicant is
also uh exceeding the rear yard set is is actually meeting the rear yard setback requirement as well. Um you heard the applicant's uh professional indicate that there will be uh subsurface draining uh on this project
something that does not exist today. So looking at the uh D4 F variants, the site certainly can accommodate the proposed dwelling in that all the setback requirements are being met. Uh the applicant is not exceeding uh the
building coverage uh requirement for the district. Um so looking at those elements in totality, this variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. uh advancing purposes of zoning uh AG and I specifically purpose
G sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. So we have an application that's going to address drainage which has not been done before. It's going to increase the front yard setback and more being more conforming by two feet. It's
going to eliminate a sideyard violation and making full compliance. Those are three of the aspects that were highlighted with both your testimony and the architect. Correct. >> Yes. And the house is also um under the habitable floor area a lotment.
>> I submit Nick for any questions of the board. >> Does the board have any questions for this witness? Does the public have any questions for this witness? >> Now, does the public have any statements? >> Yes, I do. >> Please. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, I just have to quickly swear you in. Do you swear for tell truth for the
zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Just please state your name for the record one more time. >> My name is Michael Marglin. >> Okay. Okay. And your address? >> 12 Barnett Hill Road. >> Okay. Go ahead, sir. Time for comments. >> Thank you. Okay. I just want to address uh board members. It's not often that
you know I'm here. I was here a couple times. Uh actually last week I celebrated 25 years of living at 12 Bernardet Hill Road. Uh in the last 25 years, uh the area changed. When I move in, it was probably one of the greenest
area in the town. I still have probably the the best front yard left. All these new houses, they eliminate trees. Every single one, trees, bushes, they need to remove because they need a space to
extend. And this is pretty much every single house that was built on my street, they follow the same design. The trees that they have between two houses, they most likely will die. Okay? And uh because the roots currently going uh
beyond uh the line that contractor proposed, there's no way they can do it without cutting it. So trees will die. I will have a problem to remove them because you know otherwise they will fall on my property. H so it has to be
removed. And I just know Mr. Wman h made a statement at the beginning that you know it's in the good uh everything that you're doing it's in the good of the people we have professional contractors I saw
today 10 applications zone R4 most some of them uh people like ordinary many of them professional contractors when they buy a property they know that they will have to go over your limit
and board appro prove it for one reason for another variances from 3 to 16%. So may I ask you a question? Why do we need this 30% variance? Why is it law? Is it every professional knows how to extort how to
get permission to exceed it? Uh I know this applicant he didn't mention that they had uh he had a problem or difficulties to build a house under 30%. So they went and they built
straightforward 20% above your limits. So it's I understand it's committee's prerogative but my question is why do you want to keep 30% why we spend everybody here like four hours if pretty
much everything was anyway enhanced and I'm pretty sure the next wave of developers you know just uh ready for the next meeting. So thank you. This is my statement. >> Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it. >> Back to you, sir.
>> Oh, it's very simple. Uh when you have a planning testimony that indicates the compliance with the municipal land use with your with your master plan and analysis of of whether or not it is particularly suited to this property, you have the sufficient factual basis of
which the basis application. Additionally, you have an application that creates a better situation. It brings the house back further. It eliminates the sideyard variance. And the detention here is very important because I have been more and more familiar over
the last year or so with issues of turns and drainage. This this creates a positive aspect also between that testimony of the of the architect and the testimony of our planner. I believe you have a sufficient application which to grant this particular application and
I would ask for your approval. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody on the board want to make a statement? >> Does anybody on the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. I make a motion to approve.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Embati, >> yes. >> Mr. Bear, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And have a wonderful night. >> Okay. Block 3811 lot 375 West Cedar Street application number 2025-101-V Square Group Realy LLC applicant seeks approval to construct a new single
family residence in violation of the following section 170-9 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 37.25 25 ft proposed 2.75 ft variance requested 170-99
C4 area setback 35 ft required 26 23 ft proposed 8.77 ft variance requested 170-87CC4 habitable floor ratio 30% allowed 33.0
5% proposed 3.05 05 person variance requested. >> Oh, hi. >> Hi. >> You're up. >> That's it. Uh, good evening everyone. Uh, happy new year. My name is Matthew Pad. I'm from the law firm Sils Cummus and Gross and I represent the applicant
square group realy LLC in connection with this application for a new single family home. The subject lot itself is an undersized lot which is triggering the variance relief that we're requesting here today. two bulks and one uh Dvarian. Tonight, I'll have two
witnesses. I'll have my architect, Aman Sedra, as well as my planner, Mr. Nick Graviano, to walk through both the plans and why we think the justifications can be met for the request of Baron's relief. >> And I think we can accept them as experts in architecture and planning as
they've been here before tonight >> and both have been previously sworn in and they remain sworn in >> and their license is still in good standing. Uh Mr. Sedra, can you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight? >> Uh, sure. Yeah. So, we're proposing a single family house with uh total of six
bedrooms, including the one in the basement and five and a half bathrooms. Um, we also have unhabitable attic with a pull down stairs for this house. Um the variances we're applying for is
habitable floor area ratio of uh 33.05% where it's where it's 30% is required. Also we have two bulk variances which is a front uh yard uh uh where it's uh we are proposing 37.25
based on the established front yard of 37 uh.04. 04 and also we uh we have another variance for the rear yard uh where is 35 ft required uh we have 26.23
23 and this rear variance is because of the covered uh deck. Uh so the sitback is taking to the end of the covered deck. Um and um also I would like to mention that we have uh about 122 square
ft of open space at the second floor uh that it's not used but it's counted in the square footage uh because of the twotory open foyer. And uh that's pretty much everything for this application.
>> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I got one thing quick, >> please. >> Uh just for the covered uh deck on the back, would you accept as a condition of approval that it will remain open? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Anybody else? >> Yeah. So, what without the deck like going to the house, what's the measurement? Um, >> is it on here? >> 368. >> Oh, I see. 36.8, right? >> Yeah.
>> Which it which would be >> the house actually in conformance with the code. It's just the covered deck. >> So, but for the covered deck, it would conform with the rear yard setback. >> Yes. >> However, because of the covered porch that's triggering the variance relief,
but that covered porch will remain open in air. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Back to you, sir. >> Great. Like to bring on my next witness, my planner, Nick Graviano. >> Mr. Graviano has been previously sworn
in and qualified in the field of professional planning. >> I just have one comment. Can we put a his name on the in the label and put on the chair? >> Well, you know, I'll probably go a couple months with nothing. So, you know, it's you got
>> We'll get you a name tag. a name tag. >> You got to take the rays when you could get them. >> I'm just I'm just glad that people have referred to him as Mr. Graviano. Mr. Graziano. >> Yeah, that's my evil twin. >> I've been called Graziano my whole life. It's uh it doesn't even bother me
anymore. But um uh yes, this this is a very uh basic application. You heard Mr. Cedric get into why the rear yard setback relief is required. It's a very minimally sized uh covered deck. um people like that for obvious reasons to
be shielded from the sun. Uh the applicant is requesting the front yard setback relief. Uh the average setback uh number comes in at 37.04. The applicant's front yard setback is at 37.25 ft. So is certainly in keeping
with the established uh setback of the area. Uh the applicant is also requesting the habitable floor air ratio variance of 3.05%. I I would like to note that this is an oversized lot and the applicant is meeting the habitable floor area
requirement. So uh this is one of those uh circumstances where it is an oversized lot. The applicant is meeting the habitable floor area, but it still triggers the uh F uh variance. Uh certainly uh the site can accommodate the proposed use uh withstanding uh the
F variance request. >> I have no further questions for this witness. Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Anybody in public want to make any statements? Back to you, sir. >> I wave my summation
as you usually do. Does anybody on the board want to make any comments? Does anybody on the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve with the condition of approval of the no covering of the I mean the no closing in of the
covered deck. I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kane, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. Carries. >> Okay. The next home. >> No. Block 451 lot 823 Carl
>> Carile Drive applicant application number 2025-102-3 Rodak Homes Incorporated applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following section 1709 C2 front corner
yard setback 35 ft required 20.19 ft proposed 14.81 ft variance requested 17087 CC4 habitable floor area 30% allowed 35.13%
proposed 5.13 price variance requested. >> Good evening my name is Matthew Patad and again I'm from the law firm Sils Cummus and Gross representing this time the applicant Rod Homes Incorporated regarding the application requesting both bulk variance relief as well as D4
variance relief. Uh this is a unique application to the extent where it is a corner lot. Because of that, it's created several hardships. Fortunately though, our professionals have proposed plans where we will be eliminating three existing variances or nonconformities
for front yard, sideyard, and rear yard. However, we are still triggering uh variance relief that front side specifically because it is a corner lot. Uh but we are eliminating one of the curb cuts, actually two curb cuts and relocating the curb cut only on Carlile. So it's more consistent with the
character of the neighborhood. Tonight I'll have two witnesses. I'll have again I architect Aean Sedra as well as my planner Nick Graviano. And if I may, I'd like to introduce my architect. Okay. Mr. Sedra for the per Oh, that's really close. Mr. Sedra has been um approved in
the field of architecture and has been qualified as an expert in that field and has been previously sworn. >> Yep. >> Mr. Excellent. Why don't you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight? Thank you. Sure. Uh so this is a new single family house with uh total
six bedrooms and five and a half bathrooms. Um uh we have also unhabitable attic with a pull down stairs uh for this house. Uh also I would like to mention that we have about 30 square ft of open space for the twotory foyer
on the second floor. Uh it's only used at the first floor. We are applying for uh two variances. is one is the front yard on Park Drive uh where 30 ft is required. Uh the existing house that's
going to be demolished was uh 20.05 and the proposed is 20.19. Uh and the second variance is the floor area ratio where 30% is required. We are at 35.13% um with a total of 5.13%
uh variance required. Uh we meet uh the rest of the bulk requirement in relationship to the set the sideyard setback the the front the rear. Um and also we meet the habitable floor area
where it requires 3,220 and our house is 3 3,219. Uh also we meet the building height where it requires 35 and we are 31.66 ft. >> Uh that's it. >> So it's your testimony here tonight that
we're requesting two variances. One is a C variance which is a product of of it being a corner lot. Is that correct? Correct. And the second one is to have a floor error ratio due to the fact that the site is undersized. Correct. Correct. >> But the other existing nonconformities will be eliminated for the proposed
application. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. >> Okay. Thank you. Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Yeah, >> please. >> Yeah. I just want to because I think you're we've seen a lot of your designs and I happen to like them. Personally, I
think you do a great job. So when I when I see this, we're going from a single point that's 20 ft off. And so that's sort of existing, we'll call it, even though it's a whole new house, and now we're going to an entire side of the
house at 20. So in a sense, it's sort of worse. But I know how good you are at designing. But uh and the front looks great, but the side, we now have a side that looks very sidelike. 20 feet off
the frontage. Um and it's, you know, to to to the neighborhood, it's it's a front. So you're driving by and this is this is what you see. And we're being asked to grant a variance. So the whole thing is running 20 ft. I don't know if
more thought went into how to make this >> I I agree with you. I think we can dress it up a little bit and make it kind like look like a front elevation that matches the >> the nice look of this neighborhood. >> Is that what affect >> Yes, we we'll address it and make the
make it uh more aesthetically appealing. make it look more like a Yeah, that's a is that a good >> I don't know how you put that in there. >> So interpretation condition of approval. >> I got I got a lot of rumbling here. So
let's let's try to let's try to focus here. Okay. So uh condition of approval uh to uh make the uh park drive side is that the side we're talking about right park drive >> park drive side uh fit in as a frontage.
>> Yes. We'll make sure that the facade itself is consistent with what you would expect for a facade front facade of a home improvement. >> Got it. >> Um, okay. That's how Jackie maintains
clarity of thought at this time of night is always amazing to me. >> Um but uh so um I I think the the concern is that you know there's probably going to cause confusion as to the frontages because you a home can
only have one front. All right. So, uh maybe instead of the home looking like the facade of the home looking like that, maybe we can instead have some uh landscaping >> screening >> landscaping. I think that will be uh
easier for uh everybody in terms of uh resolution compliance going forward, Mr. Pada. And I think that that may resolve some of that some of that issue because otherwise it's not going to it it becomes an issue in terms of the back room uh that you know it's going to be
it's going to make it look like there's two frontages. You also don't want to upset the post office because then they won't know where to deliver the mail. >> I just have such confidence in Mr. etc. that whe whether it's I'm serious whether it's it's it's additional little
roof roof lines a side door not not that not that it should I'm just saying I would still like it's supposed to list landscaping even if it was just not part of the resolution but Mr. Cedra thought it might be a good idea and they might change that into the plans.
As a person who lives in the area and other lives in the area, I would just like to see an, you know, attractive house and I know how good you are at doing it. >> I think it would help the neighborhood. There's >> I believe we can make it. I'm not going to add doors or anything, but I can balance the windows and make them
symmetrical. >> You you can make this look uh like it should be for a this sort of lot. >> There we go. So, Mr. Cedra will uh he's got extra ink at at the office. He can certainly work his magic. >> I'm confident. >> I knew you would be, Mr. Bada
>> of all people. Um >> we're still on comments. If you want to make a comment, >> I know it's late, but I just want to make a really quick comment. I I think repositioning the house from on an angle
to actually having the front face car um is um It's I think it's beneficial to the street. I think it's a better use of the lot. Um, you have a real backyard, a real front yard. Um, and I think that it makes just a lot of sense for that street. So, I just wanted to point that
out because I appreciate you doing that. >> I concur with that comment. Actually, >> I concur with that comment. >> I was thinking the same thing. >> What are we up to? I think we're up to Back to you. >> Okay. All
right. So, Mr. Mr. Graviano has been just for the purpose of record, Mr. Graviano's been previously sworn and qualified in the field of professional planning. Mr. Pada, your witness. >> Close out. >> Yeah, I'll make this brief. I I know
it's late, but I'd like to echo because when I was at the site earlier today, that front circular driveway and that little piece almost makes it look like it's part of the rightway. So, this is certainly an enhanced design which does provide a better front and rear yard for
uh the the residents of this property. Um, as Mr. Bada indicated, this this is an application which eliminates a deficient sideyard setback which exists today because the house is pushed back in the corner. Um, also uh increases the
front yard setback from 36 to 40 feet. um and and actually slightly increases the front yard on the on the secondary street. Um certainly uh with respect to the uh front yard setback variance for the corner lot that could be granted
under the C1 criteria due to the extraordinary situation uh affecting this specific piece of property. strict application of the township zoning ordinance would create an undue hardship upon the applicant because it'd be almost impossible to get a a a
reasonable house with by meeting both front yard setbacks. In terms of the uh HFA variance, uh the 5.13% uh can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Uh the applicant uh is
meeting all other uh side uh and rear setbacks which impact the neighbors. um the the relief being requested is to the right away. So the detriment uh is isn't there to the surrounding community. Uh certainly advances uh purpose of zoning
a G and I uh specifically I desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements by creating this lot that is simply uh more functional uh for the residents of of this home and for the neighborhood.
>> I have no further questions for this witness. Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? >> Back to you, sir. >> I wave my submission. >> I thought you would again. Uh, does
anybody on the board want to make a comment? Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Sherman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Kenya, yes. Miss Wiseman, >> yes. >> M. Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Jackie, >> we got
lot 3901, lot 575 High Drive. Application number 2025- one >> 112-3, Roak Builder LLC. Applicant seeks approval for the new single family residence in violation of the following
section. 170-99 C2 frontier setback 40 ft required 37.6 ft proposed 2.34 ft variance requested 170-87 CC4
ratio 30% allowed 36.8% proposed 6.8% Eight person variance requested. >> Good evening. As previously stated, Matthew Pile of the law firm Sils Cummus and Gross representing Broadac Homes Incorporated regarding this application for both bulk variance relief as well as
D variance relief for the subject property located at 15 Highland Drive. The application is for a subject site that is an undersized lot where we'll be bringing the front yard setback back to the average setback and we'll also be eliminating a side and aggregate setback as well. Unfortunately though, we still
require variance relief and that's why we're here tonight. I have two professionals here to put it on the testimony on the record. My first one is Amos Cedra. He's my architect and if he may, I'd like for him to proceed. And Miss Cedra, you've been previously sworn in and qualified in the field of
architecture and your license is still good in the state of New Jersey, though we are approaching uh the late hour, but you're you're it's still good. Miss Cedric, go ahead. Sorry, Miss Pada. >> All good.
>> All right, Aean, were you the architect that was responsible for preparing these plans? >> Yes. >> Why don't you walk us through what we're looking to do here tonight? >> Sure. Um uh this house uh consists of uh six bedrooms and five and a half bathrooms.
We have an habitable attic with uh pull down stairs. Um we are applying for a floor area ratio variance where 30% is required and we are at 36.8%.
And including in this floor area ratio we have an open space at the second floor of 44 square ft just counted there but it's not used uh except from the first floor counted twice. Uh we also applying for a front yard
variance uh where 40 uh feet is required. We are at 37.66 66 but uh we also relying on the established average front which is 36.66 um for the neighboring properties and we
are above that we are above the 36.66 where uh was we're above by one foot. Um and that's kind of like the the major uh two variances we have. We don't have any
other variances regarding the bulk sideyard, rear yard, all good. Um the aggregate side is good. Uh also uh the habitable floor area, we meet the habitable floor area where 3,220 is required and we are at the the max which
is 3 3,220. We meet the requirement of the building height where 35 ft is required. We are at 33.06. >> Terrific. I have no further questions for this witness. >> I have a quick question. Um, so you're
filling kind of filling in the driveway and leveling that off, right? >> Yes. >> So make it kind of a more uniform area. >> Correct. >> And otherwise grading is generally the same around the house. >> Correct. >> Existing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does anybody else on the board
have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Back to you. I'd like to call my next witness, my last witness, Mr. Nick Graviano. >> And Mr. Graviano has been previously sworn and uh qualified as expert in
professional planning. >> Uh yes, this is an application for block 3901, lot 57, 15 Highland Drive. Uh this is a slightly undersized parcel coming in at 8750 where 9375 is required. Uh
the applicant is requesting the front yard setback variance as you heard Mr. Cedra indicate. Uh 37.66 is proposed whereas the neighborhood average is 36.66. Uh so the applicant is exceeding by the the average by 1 foot. Um is also
increasing the front yard setback by two feet from what exists today. I would like to also note that the applicant is uh remedying a deficient minimum sideyard setback as well as a deficient aggregate sideyard setback albeit slightly. Um certainly the front yard
setback variance can be granted under the C2 criteria. Uh with respect to the habitable floor area ratio variance of 6.8% uh the applicant is meeting the habitable floor area of the district uh 3,220
square ft. Um, and by uh meeting all required setbacks as well as proposing a on-site storm water drainage system, uh, the site certainly can accommodate the proposed dwelling uh, withstanding uh, the request for the F variance. >> I have no further questions for this
witness. >> Does anybody in the 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. >> I waved my statement.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh, does anyone on the board want to make a statement? Does anyone the board want to make a motion? >> No, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Come on. >> Just in case. Gotcha. >> Come on. >> Roll now. >> Second.
>> Did you horn? >> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Mr. Amali, >> yes. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. Uh, the last or not, >> drum roll, please. >> Block 101, lot 412, Local Place, application number 2025-113-vak builder. Applicant seeks approval for a new single family residence in violation
of the following section 17097 C2 frontier setback 60 ft required 49.5 ft proposed 10.5 ft variance requested 17087 C4 habitable floor area 18 ft 18%
allowed 21.6% proposed 3.6% Six personal variance requested. Thanks. >> Good evening everyone. Again, my name is Matthew Pada from the law firm Sils Cummins and Gross representing the applicant Rod Homes Incorporated in connection with this application for
variance relief. Uh the subject property itself requires variance relief for both the bulk and also D4. This is an undersized lot by approximately 3,000 square ft. When looking at the site itself, although a ratio is being requested here, I'd like to point out
the other bulk standards which are all compliant but for that front yard, but you'll hear more testimony about that shortly, including the fact that the rear yard has significant topo. But I also want to point the board's attention to the building coverage as the building coverage is approximately 12% whereby
21% is allowed. So it is significantly undersized for purposes of improvements themselves. Uh, with that being said, I'll have two witnesses tonight. Uh, again, my architect, Aan Cedra, and my planner, Nick Raviano. If I may, I'd like to call the architect.
>> Okay. Mr. Cedra has been previously sworn and qualified in the field of architecture. >> Go ahead. Mr. Pada. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> License still in good standing. >> It's still in good standing. >> Why don't you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight? >> Sure. We're proposing a single family
house uh with uh seven bedrooms um six and a half bathrooms in this house. Uh we have the garage located at the basement level. The threecar garage. Um the attic the attic space is unhabitable
attic pull downstairs from the second floor hallway. Uh we are applying for u habitable floor area ratio uh variance where 18% is required. We're asking for 21 21.6%.
And uh the front yard uh setback where 60 ft is required. Uh and we are proposing 49.5 ft. Uh and also we have the average uh established uh front calculation where
where it shows 4 uh 9 ft. So we meet the established front yard setback uh um requirement. Um I would like to mention also that this house uh the
floor area for the garage is um 771. So we have 321 square ft from the garage area uh counted toward the floor area ratio and also on the second floor we have uh an open twotory foyer which
counts about 135 square ft. So uh we have a total of uh 456 square ft of what we're asking toward the the floor area ratio. uh this kind this area
is allocated for the twotory uh foyer and uh the extra square footage from the garage. Um uh so as I said we're only applying for two variances. Uh the rest of the bulk
requirements are good and also we meet the habitable floor area where 4,8770 ft is required. We are at 400 4,869 square ft and also we meet the
requirement of the building height where 35 ft is required. We are at 33.5 ft. >> So the function of the requested relief tonight is because of the fact that the site is undersized. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness.
>> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Sorry. >> Yeah. Uh yeah, I don't see where the the calculations. First of all, that's I think it's a typo. The required front yard set back is 60, right? Where you wrote >> it. It should have been 60. He wrote 49,
but uh >> you say >> what were did I miss? >> Well, the 49 is actually the established uh front yard. >> What are the I didn't see. Usually we get to see the um Did I miss that on here? >> What the >> like the calculations like what? >> It should be under the
>> the table here. It's under the table. The >> Oh, it is. established fund. No, it said yeah per surveyor. There's no calculation. It's just a statement >> in the middle. >> Oh, they don't show the uh >> Oh, yeah. Oh, actually it's shown on the
survey. Can I pull out the survey? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the survey here the average >> Oh, there it is. >> Set back um calculation on the right side. Let me make it bigger. Okay. Uh these are the lots and the
distance and this is the average 49.1. >> Okay. >> 0.01. >> And I assume you didn't go back. I mean you're allowed to do that because you have the average but assume you didn't go back because of the slope >> that you wanted you wanted enough usable backyard. Is that the re
>> correct? That's the reason that we always >> and also the existing building was in the uh was in this requirement as well which is the uh the existing at 50.7 50 ft.7. >> Right. She actually coming closer to
give them more backyard. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? You've been waiting patiently. Come on up. Okay, we just need your name and address for the record.
>> Sure. Jonathan Lman, L A U T M uh 10 Locust Place, where is the next door neighbor? >> Okay. >> Could you explain to me just so I know um is it fair to say that the uh house is
uh sort of moving towards 10 Locust Place that is the being stretched in that direction? to toward you. Are you on the left? You're on the left or right? >> Um FA um if you face your structure, we're to the um right?
>> You're to the right. Okay. So, let's see. We have 32 32 feet.3 32.3 ft from the right side of the building to the property line. And then I don't know how far is your house, but I think there's a
dimension here. I hope it's for your house. It's 15 ft on the property line. your house. Now, the original
>> looks like it was 39.7. >> The existing right side 39.7. That's the existing. >> So, the new structure is closer to >> warehouse.3. Yes, it's a little bit closer >> about 7 ft. >> The minimum.
>> Is that the reason? Um, and you'll have to pardon my lay ignorance here, but there is a provision for a retaining wall. >> Yes, there is a small retaining wall just for the grading. >> Does that and and it's not a high retaining wall. It's only two foot
retaining. Top of wall is 305 and bottom of wall is 303. So it's only like two foot high from the back side. The front side is 307 top double wall and bottom is 304.5.
So 2 2 and 1/2 ft. It's not a a high wall. It's just a rubble retaining wall. Could you explain to me in lay terms my not being an architect and being um unfamiliar with all of this uh just
what's um as passing between the two houses. What's that going to look like uh to a to somebody to somebody who's walking between the houses? Is it going to come up to my knee? Is it going to rise above me? >> No, I mean I mean two feet is like this.
That's 2 feet from the ground. Okay. So, that's the height of the wall. Maybe like this or 2 foot6 like this. But that's it's not a high wall by any means. Uh the wall is put to control the grading between you and him. So we don't
touch your grading around your your your your property. Uh and just to control the grading where he needed to raise his grading little bit on that side. >> And what's the wall made of? Is it going to be cinder block? Is it going to be >> uh most likely it will be a landscape wall.
>> What does that mean? >> It's like Versa Lock. It's a landscape wall. It's like 12in wall. >> It's not a structural wall. just a landscape wall like the one that you see around the landscape when there's like difference in grading.
>> So if I'm walking between the houses, it's going to like come up to say >> just two feet. >> Well, let me ask for a clarification. It's going down to their driveway to the new driveway, right? >> Correct. >> So from the neighbor, I forget your name. I'm sorry, sir. Uh you will not
see the wall. I believe >> it goes down. It's to hold the ground from going down >> if that helps. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, was it necessary to uh what if you what if you would imagine
how startled we were after living there since 1988 to find basically the uh a proposal to to triple the square footage of the house next door? Um it's a bit startling to us and while I recognize
that and while I recognize that the statute gives you the uh amount it does um still an increase of 7.86 to 21.6% is a very big uh increase in the ratio.
Uh it's amounts to an increase of 5,055 uh square habitable feet. Um, that's a big house. We live live next door to the other to the >> Sir, you got to you got to you got to ask a question. >> Okay. That's a big house. My question
is, was it necessary to uh go from 4,212 ft to 5,55 ft? >> Well, as my question is, could you have stayed within the statutory limits?
Well, that's not for me to answer. I mean, I um as I explained also the increase in the square footage part of that is giving toward the garage and the the twostory foyer. Now,
if we take this garage area and turn it to a storage area or part of the basement, I already eliminated 321 square ft. >> So, it's not counted though. still in the building, but it's not counted. >> It's a threecar garage. >> It's a threec car garage. Correct.
>> Was that nec what >> did you consider this? Did you consider that necessary? >> So, I'm I'm I'm What's before the board? Is is the building itself and the request for the variances? And the requests for the
variances are limited to the um the floor area ratio and the front yard. Uh so the this board doesn't approve a twocar garage or threecar
garage. That's what their plans show. Uh and that's what their application is for. So questions like is it necessary or did you have to do that? That's not necessarily something the board has jurisdiction over. That's what the
applicant is presenting. I have just a couple of more questions. Um the uh you mentioned at the outset in your uh just in your opening remarks that the lot is undersized.
Um the square foot ratio is now tripled um to um 5,055 ft. you do you do you do you consider that fitting
comfortably within what you yourself termed an undersized lot? >> Yes, that fits uh pretty good with the neighborhood, the design and the character of the building as well. >> I have a neighbor across the street.
>> Okay. is you got to ask the zoning questions. You you will have an opportunity to make comment at the end though. >> Okay. Um >> I have no further questions. I'll reserve for comments. >> Don't don't move. Oh yeah, we still have
to Mr. You didn't go. Mr. Graviano. >> Mr. Graviano has to go. >> Okay. So yeah, you can sit for a second then. Okay. Sorry. >> I didn't know if there was there anybody else. >> Was there any other questions? >> I'm sorry. No more questions. >> I have no question. Thank you. Question, >> Mr. Graviano.
>> And just for the record, Mr. Graviano was previously sworn and qualified in the field professional plan. >> Certainly. Um, as Mr. Sedure indicated, there are only two variances being requested with this application. Uh, the first related to the front yard setback
requires a 60 ft proposed is 49.5 ft, a variance of 10.5 ft. Um the adjoining setback averages came in at 49.01 ft. I've also had a chance to look at the survey of the setback calculations and
the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the setback of the existing dwelling as well as the uh neighboring uh dwellings uh in the community. Um certainly that variance could be granted uh under the C2 criteria advancing purpose of zoning
AG and II the municipal land use law. Um it does meet the averaging requirement of the ordinance. So there's certainly no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of that variance. Um the habitable floor area ratio the applicant
is requesting 3.6% in excess of the 18% requirement. Um the plans do come in um at the habitable floor area requirement of the district. The 4,869 square ft uh is meeting the 4,870
ft requirement of the district. Um this property uh does uh contain adequate sideyard setbacks. I I would like to note that the uh neighbor um the house is 32.3 ft from the property line
whereas only uh 15 ft is required by ordinance. So that setback exceeds the requirement uh by roughly 17 ft. Uh the applicant is also coming in under the uh maximum building height. Uh 35 ft
is permitted. Uh 33.5 ft uh is proposed with this building. Um so so looking at these items together uh the applicant is also uh extremely under the building coverage aotment by uh a little under 9%
building coverage on this lot would be 21.26% or 4784 square ft. Uh the applicant's proposal is at 12.8% or 2871 square ft. So this is certainly a site
that can accommodate the proposed building withstanding the request for the F variance. Uh the proposal uh meets purposes of zoning AG and I and could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. >> I have no further questions.
>> Anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the in the public want to make a statement? You're you're okay. >> So sir, let me swear you in. Do you
swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Just state and spell your name for the record one more time. >> Certainly. Jonathan Lman, L A U T M-n. Attend Locust Place where the next door neighbors I and uh my wife Karen Goodman, Dr. Karen Goodman. And um we
have I have noticed uh in uh hearing all of the testimony in many cases tonight. This is basically my first exposure to this uh uh rather uh remarkable subject matter that the board
is very uh lenient in granting small variance after small variance after small variance which allows houses to expand into nearly into such into large parts of the lot. uh and uh to the point
that they take up so much of the lot that you wonder whether it's pointless or not for them to be there at all. We call these of course the slang term for them is McMansions, but um but it can't be so that to continually grant uh all
of these small variances which so dramatically expand the existing units can be good for the community as a whole. Sands make the mountain, ladies and gentlemen. And the aggregate effect of all of this on our block and on our
town must be the must be to the same effect as the um uh farmer who killed the who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Our golden eggs are our greenery and our lands. And what's happening is these lands are being slowly but surely consumed by these
small variances which allow these huge houses on smaller lots and make our neighborhoods less and less attractive to people who'd like to buy starter homes or come to the or come to the community. Um, I wish my neighbor my uh
the new property owners, the Roseacs, great profit on their venture, of course, and I'm speaking a little bit against my own interest in saying that I wish they would stay within the statutory limits and build a smaller unit and thereby take better care of the
community as as is required by the statute. I think we've heard a lot from people tonight uh uh expressing expressing the same views and uh I'd like to express mine at this point. I do thank the witness for clarifying the
business about the retaining wall which has been of of great personal concern to us. Um and I thank the board for its time. Uh there's another neighbor I think who'd like to testify. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else would like to make a
statement? She didn't expect to stay this late. >> We didn't expect to stay this late either. >> Well, we're all neighbors trying to get through this. >> You swear for and tell truth for the zoning board tonight. >> Yes. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> My name is Hana Kim and I'm the
neighbor. I live in uh 11 locus place across the street. But I just one thing I don't like this house is very wide front and very big house. I I will feel
it block my house. That's it. >> Okay. >> Thank you ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Yes. I have a very brief summation. And I just want to reiterate to this board that the application meets all bulk standards but for the front yard which is a product of the rear yard topo as
well as the habitable floor area ratio which is a product of it being an undersized lot. I also want to point out to this board that the building coverage itself is approximately only about 60% of what would be permitted pursuing to this R2 zone. And the last comment I wanted to make which is also just
recently reiterated is that the proposed wall will not be in the viewshed of that lot five and therefore will also not affect the light air in space and we hope you find in the affirmative for this application. >> And to clarify you said there was the sideyards not being violated.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Yep. >> Thank you. Does anybody on the board want to make any statements? >> Just want to make a quick statement. I know it's really late and we want to go home, but I just want to say to the
um the other gentleman left, but thank you so much for coming out and speaking your mind and telling us how you feel. It's really important for us to hear your comments. Um and we do not take them lightly. We understand. Also understand that we are, as our attorney
likes to say, a quasi judiciary board and we have to um apply the letter of the law. And the reason people come in front of the zoning board is because it's a zoning board of adjustment, right? I would say, I mean, I'm just making this number up out of my head, but I'm going to go with like 90% of the
homes in Livingston don't come in front of the zoning board. Most of the homes just are smaller and then they're just building out to exactly where they're allowed to build and they don't need to come in front of us. So, when you come to us, it's when when applicants come to us is because they need an adjustment. Most of the time it's a small
adjustment. Sometimes it's not. And you've seen tonight where we voted no or we had, you know, a lot of conversation about what we think about each application. Each application is not um we look at each one separately. You know, if we approve one, it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to approve the same one. Um and that I hope that
was evident tonight as you were listening to people because you've been here all night. You've heard that in some cases we might stand up against something. Other times the lot size is different, the neighborhood is different. Um and we look at it differently. So, I hear what you're saying and I don't think anybody disagrees in theory, but that's not
that's not what our our our role is, right? Our our purview is not necessarily doing um making the the the law of of our town, you know, that's already out there. What we're doing is we're just looking at each application separately and making determinations. So, we hear what you're saying and we
just want to thank you for coming out >> and and I'll add on to that is the reason we're here is to allow for adjustments, right? So, that's just that's the nature of the board and the way this operates. That's why they bring their professionals and they go through they talk to Jackie. There's a whole process. This doesn't just like hey,
let's run in here. So, um you know, so once again, I appreciate you coming out too and expressing and >> we we take it very seriously too. So, >> um, would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Bear, >> yes. >> Motion carries. And good night.
>> I'd like to thank >> Have a good night everyone. >> Yeah. I'd like to thank the board for staying late. Jackie especially for staying late. Who's got the longest ride home and uh Catherine back there and Andrew's around somewhere. I think he fell asleep under the uh >> yes,
>> under the desk. So, motion to adjurnn.