Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zone Board of Adjustment. Today is December 9th, 2025. If you're an applicant for a D or use variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons for the
grant of that of the variance as exists and the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should you should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require affirmative vote of five members of the seven member board of
adjustment. Other variances require a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have a right to appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision and that court may overturn the
decision of this board. If you are objected to any type of variance has been granted, you too may appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days and notice of decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of 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 Star Ledger and Westchester Tribune and a copy was also posted on the bullen board of the mun 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 make sure your comments or questions are part of the record. We will now call the role. >> Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Shaw >> here. >> Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Yuan >> here. >> Mr. Weissman >> here. >> Miss Khan is here. Mr. Beer
>> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. Um, if anyone is here for the application 77 North Livingston Avenue, that's application 2025-72-V. That is adjourned to January 27th of
next year. So, you can, if you're here for that, you're welcome to stay. If not, you can go home. So, please call our next uh applicant. >> Block 401, lot 538, Hearthstone Terrace, application number 2025-35-V. Adam and Jan Brener. Applicant seeks
approval to construct a retaining wall and inground pool and spa in violation of the following sections. 170-96A88F swimming pool rear yard set 25 ft required 17.8 ft proposed 2.2 ft variance requested. 170-96 A8F swimming
pool sideyard setback 20 ft required 14.4 ft proposed existing 5.6 ft variance requested. 170-72C 5C retaining wall 5T required one for proposed existing 4 foot barriers requested.
>> Welcome back. Excuse me. On behalf of the applicants, you just got to turn on the mic. >> Thank you. This is a case in which a small portion of a pool, a small, very small portion of a spa, and a portion of a three-foot retaining wall were
installed a few feet off from their approved plans. Uh so there are some variances required. We were here on June 11th and August 26th for some hearings. There was an issue with uh the voting membership at that August 26th hearing. So, we're
really starting uh from scratch. As Miss Khan mentioned, there's three variances. It's a seven square foot portion of the spa. Seven square feet, 73 square feet of the pool is in the
setback area, and then a portion of the three-foot retaining wall. Based on the June and August hearings, it did not seem like the encroachments for the pool and the spa were the main focuses of the
board's concern, but they're they're relevant. We we do need uh relief from those. Uh there is a little bit of a post that encroaches onto the neighbor's property a couple inches. We're going to have to remove that. That's going to
come off the three-foot wall. It can be moved. It can be moved. My client will move the wall if that's the board's preference. We're going to go through some photos that have the setbacks. We don't think it is going to really benefit everybody. Anybody, excuse me.
Um the uh the wall where it is versus a complying wall is not going to help the neighbor. I'm going to put the neighbor on. Um she's here. where she testified uh because of the grade and the very significant buffering uh also due to the
fact that moving the wall would be uh quite an expense we're going to uh request relief uh from the board. So um chairman with that uh I'm going to have Miss Brener just say a couple of words and then we have our uh civil engineer
who's also a planner. We're going to do a little condensed version but we want to acclimate. We have some new members here. Uh I don't know if they've heard one or both of the previous hearings, but we're gonna sort of assume at least for the record that we're starting from scratch if that's okay. >> Yes, it is. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, Miss Brener, you swear you swear and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. You got to bring the mic closer to you. >> Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Jan Weiner Brener. Um J A N B R E N E R.
>> Okay. And you're the uh owner of the property, correct? >> Yes, correct. >> Okay, Mr. Skolnick. >> Okay, Miss Brener, you want to just talk about what happened here and say a couple of words to the board before we get started on the technical side? >> Sure. So, first of all, thank you all for being here tonight. I know this is a very cold and windy night to be out and
you're away from your family. So, thank you for taking the time to hear us out on the third occasion. Third occasion. So, >> with that, thank you. Um, so this is, you know, I I I a lot a series of errors and and issues happened with this build.
Um, you know, this is my first experience ever doing something like this. Um, so this what, you know, it looks like, you know, I don't want anyone to think that we came into town and we kind of just threw the rules by the wayside and just decided to do what we wanted or pleased with things is more of an issue of we hired somebody that
came really well, you know, recommended to us from people in town, had done other builds, and we trusted them with this project and we trusted them to make decisions that were in line with this project. And unfortunately, that is not the case of what happened. And that's why we're here today. And I not putting the blame on the contract or
anything. In the end, it's it's on us and it's something that we have to deal with and we absolutely will deal with. But, you know, it was not something that was done on blatant disregard and that's just something I want, you know, to color that in. Um, secondly, uh, you know, I just wanted to have a pool for my two kids who are four and seven. But,
you know, that's besides the point. Um, so you know with we came here last time and my neighbor stood up and said you know that it wasn't an issue for her and that she it we have you know grading we have trees that block between the two properties sound wasn't an issue. Um the
wall is you know violating what is what is the word setback >> the setback you know principles and while you know we can move it um some issues have arised uh the stone is discontinued um and it will also I and I I'm not a structural engineer I'm not an
architect or anything but it will impact I believe the way the drainage of the pool will also be impacted I'm not sure how or what to resolve that but that that is a factor of us moving the wall Um and also it's you know a big undertaking big undertaking. I believe
it's a cement wall. Um so with that said if we have to do it we will have to but um there is that post there and if that post I think is infringing on the property line if that's something that you know the town may look to perhaps be a compromise or or something that we could do to make everybody happy. We are
certainly happy to do that and we're we're open to anything you guys suggest too that might be an appropriate compromise to to help us out here. So, and we hate even being in this position. I'm the biggest rule follower on earth. So, this is embarrassing to me that I'm even doing this. So, with that said, um
thank you for hearing us out. >> Okay. You're if if uh the board thinks it makes sense, you can move the wall and to get that out of that would eliminate one of the variances. >> Yes. >> Okay. Chairman, that's it for this witness. >> Great. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Please. >> And Mr. Wenszel, if you could cut me off if I'm being inappropriate in any way. Uh, just out of curiosity because I I I think of a solution here for a lot of the problems and it sounds like your neighbor is in support of this. So, I don't and I'm not giving legal advice.
That's why I want Mr. Wel to overrule me. I would think that typically you'd approach the neighbor for some sort of easement or lot split or something to add a few more feet so that this board doesn't even need to be in the middle of this. That
would that would certainly make, you know, me happier that everyone gets what they want and if the neighbor So I I just wanted to put that out there. What's the story on that? >> Then we need a subdivision approval to swap the property. I hold bad thought because when we show you the pictures
just you know adjusting a lot line like that to do it it's it's not going to make any practical difference in my view. >> This is to you wouldn't need adjustments and you know it might just be an easement even it could maybe again I'm not the lawyer
on this. I'm just thinking it could solve everything and keep us within compliance of law. So, I just want to see what's being considered since we're being asked to rectify what seems like unfortunately is already an existing problem as opposed to just
>> plans. It is it is uh we we had talked about uh at some point a lot line adjustment to try to do it. I don't know if an easement would solve the problem. But if you it's a good thought, but it I
don't think it would have any practical effect because the land between the two parts, it just there's a grade and a lot of trees will bring you back into it. So changing the walleye would perhaps technically solve the issue, but from a
land use standpoint, it's not going to make any difference. I don't think so. You may say that's relevant, but I'm gonna say practically speaking, going through the exercise of seeking a subdivision approval and having the
engineer draw up all those lines, even if the ne the neighbor doesn't care. I I'll profer and you're going to hear from her. She doesn't have a problem with a three-foot wall. It's just a slight portion of this wall in that setback area. Let us go through it if
you hold the thought if you don't mind. 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, sir. >> Okay, we're going to call Mike Roth, an expert in civil engineering. You can come.
>> Thank you. If I could have him sworn. >> All right, Mr. Roth, you swear to tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> Yes, I do. >> All right. And Mr. Roth. Uh, can we have Mr. Roth's qualifications on briefly? >> Sure. >> Michael Roth. Um, I've designed and managed several projects throughout the
state just like the one I'll be going through tonight. Graduated a bachelor's degree of science and civil engineering from NGIT. Uh, licensed uh PE and PP in this in this state. Both my licenses are in good standing. I've appeared before over 55 different landing boards
throughout the state. Look forward to presenting tonight. Does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There be no objection. The witness is accept as expert in we're just doing engineering >> or planning or engineering and planning.
Okay. >> Okay. So, Mike, you prepared some uh plans and we had done some exhibits on this. Can you sort of run through uh where the the spa encroachment is, the pool encroachment and the wall? and then we'll go to that third sheet uh whenever
you're ready. >> Yes. >> So these are the plans that are on file, >> correct? Yes. So the plans that are before you on each screen is sheet one of two, which is the site plan sheet from the submitted plans with the revision date of April 14th, 2025.
The right view shows the conditions that were built. Uh I'm going to zoom into that so we could see what the relief is that we're requesting. Mr. Skolnick, other than the uh color, this is what was uh submitted to the board. >> I think we submitted it with color.
>> We did submit it with color. Yeah, >> there we go. Even better. Mr. Skolnick, can you just move the mic >> for me? >> Okay. So, Mike, in my opening statement, I I called out about seven square feet of the spa, and that's backing up to the
school property in the back. >> Correct. Yeah. And I and I'll I'll run through each item. So, we have the uh constructed pool is located 14.4 ft from the west side property line and 19.8 ft from the north rear property line where
the minimum requirement is 20 ft. The constructed spa is set back 17.8 ft from the north rear property line where the minimum requirement is 20 ft. So, those are the two variances. Um the first two I'll say and the pool setback line on
this plan is shown by the blue dash line and the hatched blue areas are the areas that don't comply with the setback. So again, we're talking about seven square ft for the spa and approximately 73 square ft for the pool. Those blue
hatched areas do not comply. Next for the constructed wall, um the constructed wall is located one foot off the subject property line. We're proposing to remove that encroachment. The minimum requirement is five feet. So the the
dash line, the dash red line is the five foot setback and the hatched uh red area is the area that that doesn't comply. Um, so we we have >> so it's an installed three-foot wall
over there and we got a sort of that triangular the tri the not the hypotenus but the two legs of the wall are not supposed to be in the five foot setback area. >> Correct. Yeah. That that red hatched area which equates to uh what I'll say
is a a minor 80 square feet >> of 80 80 square feet. Okay. 80 80 square ft of wall and patio. So you got about 29 ft in this direction and about 10 ft in the other direction. >> Okay. Can you go to that third slide there with the the the exhibit?
>> Sure. >> If we can go just right into that. >> So we we prepared two different exhibits um that we kind of look at in uh in conjunction. We have an aerial map which shows the subject property outlined in
red, the surrounding properties, and we look at that in conjunction with um site photographs. >> We'll have to mark these, I think, since we're starting from scratch here. >> So, the the air So, Mr. Roth, if you go back to that one, the aerial we'll mark
as exhibit A1. >> Yes. >> And then Mr. Roth, if you flip over to the other image you're going to show, uh we'll mark that as exhibit two. which is arguably a photo of the uh the backyard. You can be more descriptive, but
>> right. Yeah, we'll say exhibit A2 is a site photograph package. It's five five photographs within that within that packet. >> Um so I'll flip back to the aerial map. So the the common property line that's
uh the focus of the discussion tonight is that western property line where the adjacent property is 10 Hardstone Terrace uh which is the the property here on the left. Um so I'm just going to kind of walk walk you through the photographs. Right now we're looking
northwest along that common property line. You can see the existing landscape buffer there. >> That's a pretty dense buffer you got there. >> Absolutely. And then we're going to flip. We're going to get a little clo now. We're in the backyard. Um same kind of view
looking northwest along that common property line. And what we did with this photograph is um as you could see the constructed pool and patio on the right side. Um we have an existing fence and then this this uh very well buffered uh
area along the fence. Um this page three of five here. What we done was superimpose the property line in red and the 5-ft setback is shown in green here. Um and and by doing this you
you really see the the visual impact and and there really is is is no impact to the adjacent property uh based upon the the topographic uh grade change uh between the two properties and the fact that it's uh extremely well buffered
along that common property line. >> So let's just run through this. You you have this marking 29.1 ft and 9.8 ft. That's that's the portion of the three-foot wall that's uh causing the need for that variance. >> Correct. That's the portion that doesn't
comply. Correct. >> And and and you heard Miss Brener say, "Look, it can be moved. They're willing to move it." Um but is it really going to do anything from a practical land use standpoint to help out the neighbor
given the great change in the buffer? I think that's sort of the question that I'll pose to you as a planner. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Is there any do you see any detriment here to the to to to the public good which our courts have said is the neighbors property?
>> Right. So yeah, I I see that there there there there is none. Um you know by moving the wall nothing changes with this existing landscape buffer. It's going to remain the same. Um so so the fact it's there today it works well. screens the neighbors property. I I see
virtually no no detriment uh to the to the adjacent lot. >> Okay. So, you know, in essence, we're saying this is a a dimminimous or virtually no detriment sort of case. Even if we could move that three-foot wall to be torn up. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and it could be placed on the green line, that would comply, right? Correct. that five foot separate that po it's only a portion of the three-foot wall. If it was picked up and moved and placed on the green line, we'd eliminate that variance. >> That's correct. >> Can I interrupt just for a point of clarification on the picture because I'm
confused? Sure. >> Otherwise, I know it's not the question time because Yeah, I see the property line in red, but you have the fence and you need a a a pool fence that the property owner puts. Are you saying there's no fence and that's the that's the neighbor's fence on the left? I'm
not sure it's fenced, but there's an agreement between the neighbors. Livingston has some rules and regulations about sort of sharing pool fences. >> Okay. So, this is a sharing of a pool fence situation. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I was understanding the picture correctly. Okay. >> And so, you you can't really make out
the grade change, but what would you say it is, Matt? Uh, >> yes. So, actually, if we flip the sheet four, you could you could see even even better by this plan. Um, I mean, you have the three-foot wall, the neighbor, there's a there's a boulder wall on the
other property. Um, I mean, we didn't we didn't shoot, you know, the top of the tree, obviously, but I would estimate it could be close to 18 feet plus or minus. You're talking about a pretty >> 18 feet from the from the patio. Whoops.
>> From the patio to the to the top of those existing trees, it's >> right. So this from the neighbor's standpoint, they they can't even see in here. >> Yeah. At at all. So >> yeah, they can't see it now. If you move the wall, they're not going to be able to see it either.
>> Yeah. That's why maybe we didn't do such a good job uh explaining this in the at the previous hearings. We we had this better exhibit uh when we were when we were here in August, but you got you got a pretty severe grade change. Correct. And then you got a rock wall on top of
that. >> Yeah. And then you got uh you got a lot of trees up there. >> That's crazy. >> Um so from the neighbors, if you were from the neighbors, they're if the if the pool and the spa and this was complying, would that would it impact their their view, their quality of life,
the aesthetics of anything from the neighbors standpoint? >> No, I would say it it has virtually no impact. >> Okay. And in terms of the uh if we look at this from the C2 criteria, we do have some aesthetic benefits of the overall project. if you were testifying not
because it's as built already but if they were starting there are can you just talk about that in terms of how you look at it from a planning standpoint >> sure yeah I would say from a C2 uh variance it does offer some some positives uh advanced purposes of the uh
MLUL I would say purpose A and I um obviously the owner has developed this very uh beautiful uh backyard area um to to advance uh purpose I we are We we do have storm water management on site to mitigate for the increase in peruse
coverage. Um this backyard design is very common for for homes in the neighborhood. If you flip back to A1, you know, you could see there's neighboring properties that have pool patios that take up, you know, a large portion of their backyard. So, I would say it's in uh character with the with
the neighborhood as well. >> Okay. If you uh if you balance those aesthetic and related benefits versus the detriments, do you have an opinion on whether we outweigh here? >> Yeah, I would say the benefits definitely outweigh any uh um uh
detriment for the project. Um and I I will note that the township storm water requirement um is actually quite high in compared to other towns. We're designed, we have a storm, we have a drywall designed for the 25-y year storm, which we're talking about 6 ines of runoff. Um
so, so we feel that we're we're um mitigating the project uh based upon that storm water management system. >> So, some additional benefit compared. So, chairman, that's most of it. I know you know some of the members have heard it's not that complicated of a case, but
our our core argument is really that this is an a no detriment or virtually no detriment. even if we were starting from scratch and it wasn't built and we appreciate the very difficult position that this puts the board in. We we understand that I've had a few cases
now. These are all quite difficult uh for you because you're faced with something that uh was built and and something happened here. Uh but we're here to try to make it uh right and and and correct it and go about it in the in
the right way. But uh I I think that the seven square feet for the spa, the 73 square feet for the pool, and a a portion of a three-foot retaining wall really imperceptible
uh to the neighbor. So I sort of done my summation, but I still have another witness to call and certainly got to open it up. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh does anybody have any questions for this witness? >> I do. So, you referred to it uh earlier that there's a post that is on the neighbor's property. Can you show us
where that post is? >> I was able to figure that out. >> So, it's uh on the Do you see my cursor? >> Nope. >> You know what I could do? >> So, that red circle represents the that corner post that's encroaching by
approximately one foot. We're going to remove that. We're not going to propose any encroachment onto the neighbor onto the neighbor's property. So, that will be uh rebuilt to to comply and be on the subject property. >> All right. Thank you. >> A follow up on that then. So, what kind
of when you remove the post, does that give us any room? Is it, you know, 3 in, 6 in, 9 in from the property line when that's gone if you're removing it? >> Yeah, I mean, we're uh we're going to get the property line staked out. Um, so it would be it'd be entirely on the
subject property. Um, you know, I'll I'll discuss with the owner. Probably should get some sort of factor of safety and be a few inches or, you know, uh, whatever the board feels comfortable with being being off the subject property.
Um what what what what can you what can you kind of guarantee if you move the post so we kind of have a number otherwise I don't think anyone will be able to if you want to spend two minutes and think about that for two seconds. Um >> I don't know how that works out but I don't know how that see how much it
helps. We could propose it to be, you know, I think a reasonable for construction tolerance, we could say it's three inches off the off the common property line and on the subject property owners land. >> Does anybody have any further questions?
Go ahead. >> Yes, I do. Can I >> please? U based uh going back to my colleagueu's question about the fence on a westerly side according to the letter that I read from township engineer that fence is yours
but it is encroaching into the neighbors property so what is your plan to relocate that >> I think we have approval already the the township has some separate regulations for how you deal with common fences and we submitted some letters so I'm going to suggest it's not really a zoning
issue it's a safety and construction code issue and I think we're okay with that. They we we submitted some letters along the way. >> So, let me say this, Mr. Sha. Uh you know uh your your engineering department
is the one that would ensure that um anything along the lines of uh code enforcement with regard to the placement of a fence, use of fence, whether it's common usage or used by one property. the engineering department would be the
one to handle that. It's not it's not part of the zoning package per se. Uh but obviously it's there. So, you know, it's a it's a valid question about it. Um and uh but in terms of the fence, the
the applicant regardless of anything that happens tonight, the applicant would need to comply with the town code with regard to fences. Miss Wal, the neighbor, she whispered that it's her fence and but I think there's an agreement in place and you have to you have to have that for because you have
to ensure that it gets maintained. If you have the pool, my clients have to make sure that fence gets maintained. I think that's sort of how we have the rules around that area. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. I just want to note that because from the March 24th, this this denial
letter was I guess it wasn't in place at that time just from >> that is correct. Uh, okay. That so it was after that after Ms. Gonzalez uh denial letter, I guess, >> that we submitted those letters, >> right? You said you submitted affidavit
or um probably affidavit or something. >> Yeah. Some sort of agreement. I I recall submitting it. The time has passed a little bit. It's been it's been a bit of time, but that's in >> I don't know. >> Um question. Um I know you mentioned um
you know in your planning you mentioned the MLUL. I think you said purpose A and purpose I. >> Can you just reiterate what those are just on the record? >> Yeah. Purpose A to encourage and guide the appropriate use of land where we are improving an existing single family
dwelling that's permitted use of the R2 zone. purpose to promote a desirable visual environment through improvements which creates a very uh scenic and nice backyard area with beautiful pool and patio which meets uh today's standards
for for modern families uh desire and is comfort from the adjacent property. It also includes storm water management to mitigate for the increase in a coverage. >> Okay. Um, just as a followup, wouldn't those two purposes still be met even if
everything was built as it was supposed to be? Like it's not that doing this further give some benefit there. You would still have all those benefits even if everything was built as it was supposed to have been built. Correct.
>> Not sure if I understand your question. >> The the backyard would still be a nice backyard with a pool with a whatever. It wouldn't it wouldn't do the the variance that you're that they're asking for isn't furthered by this. It would they would still have that even if the wall was moved or the
>> let me let me put it this way. The way the applicant presents any application is about what they're attempting to do with regard to the proposal, not what else they could do. >> Right? So there so the so it's not
>> well I could do this or that. It's what the applicant is proposing to you to say what I'm showing you and uh you have an expert who's rendering their opinion uh as to whether or not it meets the standards of uh a C2 variance. Remember
C2 variance is the flexible variance. It's not the hardship variance. It is the flexible variance which is in essence their obligation as the applicant to explain to you why they think that this particular proposal as opposed to
um not to not to measure it against another type of proposal but to say why this proposal meets those standards. So it you know it it's not about well if you could do this doesn't it do the same thing? That's not really the standard
because then nobody would come in for a variance, right? It's about when you're when you have variances in front of you, it's about whether or not it's a substantial uh detriment. It's not just a detriment. Every variance is by its very nature some deviation from the code. The
question is, you know, do you feel that this is substantial or whether or not you you agree with Mr. Roth's uh opinion and Mr. Skolnick's argument about what is in essence I'm not looking to put words into M Skolick's mouth but in
essence what he's uh trying to um articulate as being sort of a um not dimminimous but a minor deviation which is of no consequence to the
neighbor who property is being >> encroached upon. I think uh what our courts have said is you have to look at the whole project on a on a C2. >> So I think you're sort of conflating a concept that's out there on a C1. The
could comply argument. We're not arguing you couldn't have compliance here, right? Because you could always make the the wall could be pulled back. The pool could have been smaller. We we could comply. We're not saying there was a unique condition that drives the need.
So, um, on the C2, our courts have instructed, look at the whole project. We're saying that the negatives here are virtually zero. I I I could say that, right? The neighbor and and we're going to have testimony. I'm profering it. The
neighbors, I think, going to say whether they comply or what you have causes me zero harm. That's our biggest indicator because we're here to protect the neighbors from each other. That's the biggest in. So, what we need in the
benefits since we're doing a a weighing doesn't have to be that high, but that and that's that's our argument for your consideration tonight that it's really really low on the negatives. So, the positives, as long as there's at least a
little bit, we're not saying this changes the world, but you have to look at the project as a whole and it is beautiful. I don't think anybody would dispute that. It's a very nice backyard, appropriate, consistent with what's happening in Livingston.
>> I have a comment. Um, not to drag this out any longer, but I do appreciate all the testimony. Um, but my comment is I actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, I actually look at this more as a C2 variance, and I don't really necessarily even see a hardship.
>> Yeah, that's >> so I think But you, but you are asking for both. So I to me, no, there's No, it's only C We just offered just offered on C2. >> Okay. Because I thought it was both. All right, then. Forget it. Then it C2 it is. >> Okay.
>> Does anybody >> We're not that outrageous. We won't go crazy here and try to pitch a C. >> Does anybody else on the board have any please? >> Yeah. Going back to the uh aesthetic benefit first. Is there is it I always think of aesthetic benefit like to the
community. So, usually I think of what the public sees. Here we're talking about something in the back. Is that would that be common? >> No. People people do stuff on their property for themselves. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's not you know you you don't it it's a community benefit in the
sense that it is something that is in the you know like nobody I'm sure the Brenners would love to have everybody in Livingston come over and use their pool but I don't think they want to do that. Uh but I I I I I think what the what the what these type of applications, these
C2 applications normally do is to say that this is something in line with the general ideas of the municipal land use law for the betterment enhancement of property. The betterment enhancement of property especially in the township of
Livingston that it matches up with I think Mr. Roth indicated the character of uh the neighborhood, other uh pools in the other homes that have pools in the area. So, it's not just uh it's not like a personal taste, you know, it's
not like a choice between a Picasso and a Matise. It's saying, you know, just generally, is this something that is of that's appropriate for the character of the neighborhood? If that that's more helpful. >> Thank you, Mr. Weissman. Right. The legislature has given us these
categories. I call them buckets. And we try to fit our planning arguments into the C1 bucket or the C2. But every every residential C2 is, you know, for the property owner,
I think. But we're but but in the in those purposes of zoning, they said, "Look, aesthetics and appropriate places for people to live are beneficial to our society." And we're in Livingston, New Jersey here. A place where people build very nice homes. And we we like living
in that community. And we're saying that that benefits everybody by having investment and people desiring to live here and building a nice house. And the legislature says, nice aesthetics for
homes is one of the is one of the benefits. The categories aren't perfect, but we got to work with them, right? You gota Right. You're a board that gives out variances. We do our best to make these arguments into these semi
artificial categories. >> Can I follow up? No, I'm probably going to get yelled at by Mr. Wzel because uh >> eventually you will because Mr. Sherman did. So, going back to his point like I I feel like we should be looking at the
plans and Mr. Sherman addressed that if we were looking at plans and you said one's in compliance and then there's these sets of plans before it was built and we looked at these sets of plans, Mr. Sherman would have said, "Uh, well,
uh, I don't like this set of plans because I feel like we're going to get the same aesthetics if we were also looking at plans." I know I know it's going to get jump that we so I but I'm trying to assess I'm just trying to
assess whether that that you're asking us to make a judgment based upon the fact that it's because it was built if if that's what you're asking or or two if you gave us two sets of plans say look we don't want to build it where it is like forgetting if it wasn't built
we're going to improve the property I think this is to Mr. Welz's point that if if we want to put it here and we think it's going to approve and then Mr. Sherman says, "Well, what if you put up it doesn't matter. We're going to improve it. This is where we want to do it and we think that we've met the test." >> Is is that what you're asking? That's
what I'm trying to understand. Again, I'm trying and I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to come up with the the legal rationale to give your client what they what they want. >> I can't say because it was built, you have to approve it. I can't. >> No, no, I'm not saying you have to, but >> I can't do that. I'm saying that
something happened here that was unfortunate. Uh the client's taken responsibility. They've incurred substantial legal fees, engineering fees. They're willing to make some changes, but the detriment here, whether
it was built or not, whether it was built or not, the detriment is really zero. And I think that's what the immediate neighbor is going to tell you. There's zero. This is a really a zero detriment case. Yes, a technical violation of your setbacks, but with no
harm, absolutely no harm to harmless error, you might call it. So that's what we're asking you to consider. Something happened the negatives because the C2 says do the balancing in broad terms. Balance the positives and negatives. And
we're saying whether we came to you, you know, at the start or now after it was constructed that it's really a a on a scale of of one to 100. It's it's it's a zero or one in terms of detriment to the
public good. And our courts say that means to the neighbor. >> Well, hold on. Just before we just go on to this too too far, the I I know you're going to put the neighbor on, but I mean even anything
like that I've read, the court also says that approval on a C2, it must actually benefit the community, which I don't see where that is. And it if it only solely benefits the pliff, you're the applicant
in this case, which I mean this solely benefits the applicant. It doesn't benefit the community. It doesn't benefit anybody else. And again, it I'm not we discussed this in the past. I know we're doing this again. The pool
spa was one thing. The wall, which we always keep coming back to, is also another. And I I don't see how that wouldn't negatively impact zoning. Um I I understand the neighbor says it's fine, but it's something that would
affect >> We said we >> Excuse me. Can we hear from the neighbor? Let's Can we just move things along a little bit? Maybe we can hear from the neighbor and then we can have a conversation, but I feel like we're just going around in circles. So, why don't we hear and then we can have a conversation. Okay. Thank you very much.
I think you got >> Do you swear for Untel truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Nancy Wal N C Y W L K >> W O L >> W O L K. >> Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Thank you for allowing me, the neighbor, to show up again. Um, the first thing I want to clarify is that fence was my fence and the Breners um reached out to us and asked if they
could share the fence with us because it would seem goofy to have two fences smack up against each other and we were happy to do that. Um, I was actually thrilled because our fences match now which is aesthetically pleasing. So, um,
what you see there is my fence and a lot of arborite trees. When we built our pool about 18 years ago, we intentionally built um, excuse me, planted a ton of very um, big trees
because we wanted a buffer. The good news is we got the buffer. The better news is I have no idea what's going on in the Briner yard. So, I didn't know there was an issue with a wall. Um, I didn't know there was a post until I saw
a little red circle tonight. This is all news to me. Um, I honestly feel badly for the Breners because I do believe that they followed what they were told. It did not work in their favor. Um, we have zero
issue with what's going on. And I realize there could be a bigger zoning issue, but it seems like what's going on in my yard and their yard is the predominant issue. So, um, I'm happy to answer any questions or give additional
information. >> Can I ask you one question? >> Sure. >> Their project as a whole, do you think that helps the neighborhood? the the taking the whole project as a whole. Does that provide some benefit to the neighborhood by their investment in their house and in their backyard?
>> Absolutely. Um there is something I wanted to say and I'm glad you just said that. We have had construction going on across the street from us for probably nine months. I have had trucks blocking my driveway. I've had the most obnoxious
workers across the street. It has been awful. And I'm sorry. >> Don't open a pool. >> Well, I already have one. So, um, if they're forced to move that wall, we're going to need to endure additional
construction that's going to impact our quality of life further because the house across the street is not done. The trucks are still ascending every day and then we're going to have more trucks. So, from um a neighborly point of view,
I don't really want more construction. I realize, you know, it's not C2 approved and I never knew about C2 until tonight. So, thank you. But, um it's >> your lucky day. >> It is. I'm learning. I'm learning every day. >> So, um honestly, I would prefer that
there not be more construction because it's just enough at this point. But I do appreciate what the Breners have done and I appreciate that all over Riker Hill people are building beautiful homes. It's just sometimes as a longtime resident a lot when it's constant
construction. >> So >> would anybody in the board like to ask any questions of this witness? >> No, I just have a comment. >> Okay. >> Can I make a comment? >> We're good. >> Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness?
Okay. >> Okay. First of all, I just want to point out Mr. Skolnick that the reason I thought that it was C1 is because the declaration has a C1. So when I was copying C1 C2, so that's why I thought that. So I just wanted to point this out to you. So it wasn't me because I, you know, I was very careful when I copy it
from one to the other. So just so you know, I'm losing my >> abandoned got closer with the X. >> Okay. Um I give it to you. The second thing is, um, thank you so much for speaking. Um, at this point, I feel like we've said everything that we possibly can say about this application. I don't
think there's anything else to say about it. Um, and my I think that the backyard is beautiful. It's done. It enhances their property. It clearly enhanced the the next door neighbors. There's a lot of construction going on on the street.
Um, there's, like I said, there's really nothing else that we can possibly add to this application. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that with that being said, if anybody else has a comment, we might want to just put it to a vote. >> Well, do you have anything else to close with? >> No, I think I've made my my
>> I was going to say, does anyone in the public want to make a statement? >> Okay, we have to get you. >> Hi, good evening. Heather Goldstein from Clearary Gob. We represent the board of ed. We're we're not opposed to this. um in theory, but we just I just wanted to
get on the record because there is a licensing agreement between the Breners and the Board of Ed from August 12th, 2025 because there's some bushes and a fence that encroaches the board of ed's property. And I just wanted to get
on the record that this won't encroach the board of eds property anymore and if that could be a condition of the resolution if it gets passed. >> Okay. So the uh Mr. Skoleneck, you would agree as a condition of approval that uh
your client will continue to work with the board of ed to ensure that that uh encroachment does not occur. >> Of course >> or that doesn't get >> it doesn't no further. No further further encroachment. There's no correct >> correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anybody else in the public want to make any statements? What is that? >> Does anybody on the board want to make any statements? I'm gonna go off. >> Would you like to say something? >> No, I think he's just >> Okay. Would anyone like to make a
motion? >> I would like to make a motion to approve. Um, let me just state before I say that, you know, I think this is unfortunate circumstances that we're here having this conversation. Um, and I'm sure, uh, do it over again. If you ever build another house in Livingston, you might be a little bit more, you
know, cautious. Um, it is a beautiful backyard. I don't see that it's uh a tremendous burden. Appreciate the statement from the neighbor. I'm also conscious of you may not live there for forever. So we have to take all the accounts in. Um so my motion will be to approve subject to moving that post to
within um 3 in of the property line. Can can we say no further back than the wall so it doesn't extend behind the wall? So wherever you move, wherever you move the post, whatever you do with it, whatever you got for the wall, if we're not touching the wall, at least it doesn't
protrude past that, wherever that point is. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it should be tied to the prop. There should be a number tied to the property line because we're going to stake out that property line >> and that's going to be the the magic line. Um, >> well, you you have a you have a wall and a post,
>> right? >> Right. So, if we remove the post and put it back, it shouldn't pass wherever it goes. Shouldn't pass that wall. If we're kind of okay with the >> Yeah. From the back of the wall. That that that will work. >> Should line up to the wall.
>> Is that >> Yes. >> Yes. Acceptable. >> I knew we'd say that. >> So those conditions are good then. >> Okay. Yes. >> With with also the condition of approval we just discussed with the board of ed.
Yes. Would anybody like to second the motion? >> Okay, I'll second it. >> Okay, Mr. Horn >> approved. >> Okay, Miss Khan votes yes. U Mr. Shaw, >> yes.
>> Mr. Sherman, >> I'm a retort on this one. Um, >> I'll say yes. >> Mr. Weissman. Oh, wait. I missed you on. I'm sorry. >> Yes. And Mr. Weissman. >> Yeah, I'm I'm torn here as well. I'm almost I
I think you might have enough to pass. So, I it makes me happy from the homeowner, you know, as a neighbor and a homeowner standpoint. I I would hate to be in the homeowner situation. So, I have a lot of sympathy um for the homeowner in the situation. So, in a
sense, I'm hoping it passes. My vote is going to be a no just because of the uh based upon the law and I agree there is some benefit but you need a it's not just about not having a detriment it's
about uh having uh substant the benefits being substantially better than this detriment and the the if I was just looking at plans and it wasn't built um I just don't like the fact of a pro if somebody says this is really aesthetic
ally pleasing. You should put it right up uh up against it of my neighbor's property. I I I don't feel comfortable legally, although I'm happy it looks like it's going to pass, but I'm going to vote no for those reasons. >> Okay, Mr. Beer,
I like Mr. Sherman, I too am torn, but I'm going to vote yes. >> Okay, pass. Congratulations. >> We appreciate your time. We appreciate the inordinate amount of time. >> Happy New Year. We almost got there. Okay. Block6007,
lot 12, 12 Milro's Drive, application number 2025-74-V. Justin Cappuccino. Applicant seeks approval for a two-tiered retaining wall in violation of the following sections. 170-91B2B front yard fence retaining wall height 4
feet allowed. 12.99 ft proposed. 8.99 ft variance requested. 170-91B 4B rear yard fence retaining wall height 6 ft allowed 12.99 proposed. 6.99 ft variance requested 170-91B
16 tiered retaining wall aggregate height 10 ft allow 12.99 proposed 2.99 variance requested. >> Hi there. Hi. >> Okay, so I assume you're Mr. Cappuccino. >> I am. >> Okay. And you're the owner of the
property? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh besides yourself, uh I'm assuming you're going to have somebody else testify on your behalf. >> Absolutely. >> All right. So, okay. There you go. All right. Will you be testifying at all? >> Um >> we'll swear you in. >> Yeah, sure.
>> For the fun of it. Okay. Uh will will is that is that your your wife? >> Yes. >> Yes. Will your wife be testifying or just giving you moral support? >> Uh I'm not sure. All right. Why don't we swear both the end? Why don't we swear both the end? Sometimes sometimes wives will correct husbands. So, let's uh
raise our hand, raise right hand. Do you swear from tell truth before the zoning board tonight? Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh so, you're Mr. Cappuccino. And ma'am, can we just have your first name? >> Uh Christina. >> Christina Cappuccino. >> Yes. C H R I S T I N A.
>> Okay. All right. And Mr. Cappuccino, you have uh somebody who's going to present for you tonight. Who's that going to be? >> Yeah. Rick Wulmer is our engineer that's worked on the the wall project sitting right behind me. >> Okay. And uh shall we uh call him up and
uh let's start getting his testimony. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. All right. So uh you have an easel there, sir. I think it would be better if we moved it >> uh on the screen. >> Oh, come up on the screen. Okay. Very 21st century. So why don't we have you over at the podium? You got to come
around this way unless you're a gymnast. Yeah, it'll all come up on the screen. >> Yeah, we have uh we have it help >> behind the mirrors. >> There is Yeah. All right. So, why don't we get you when don't we get you sworn in, sir? >> You're good. You don't have to touch
anything. You're good. Do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can we can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Yes. Uh my name is Richard Volmar. Venictor O L L M A R.
>> All right. Mr. Vulmar, uh you're going to be testifying tonight as a >> uh professional engineer, civil engineer. >> A professional engineer. All right. Mr. Wner, uh Wulmer, excuse me. Uh you are a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. >> That's correct.
>> Licensed up to date and and active, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> And education, where'd you go? Uh I um bachelor of science um master of science uh NJIT um licensed uh engineer since 1996 um owner and founder of Blue Line Stone
Home Engineer. >> Okay. And then you've appeared before other boards and presented testimony. >> Yes, I have. >> And been accepted as an expert. Correct. >> Yes. >> Chairman, >> does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as expert in professional
engineering. The uh floor is yours, Mr. Wulmer. >> Okay. Um you can hear me? >> You're perfect. >> Okay, good. Um so what we have here is u a two-tiered retaining wall uh in the backyard. Uh the lot is a corner lot. Um
so we're basically um constrained by two front yard setbacks, which is why we have one of the variances. Um I should remark that originally uh the applicant um presented the um the
plan u zoning application back in March or so. Um at that time it was denied for um height var uh for didn't meet the height um ordinance and um so um but the benefit of that was that we were
afforded um some common some constructive criticism. At the time we had proposed a 10-ft wall. Um what they're trying to do is maximize the benefit of their backyard. Um, and a 10-ft wall, you know,
is is let's just say it's it's not as attractive as a two-tiered wall. It's not aesthetically pleasing, but it would have maximized the yard. Um, so uh we were told that um we could present that to the board if that was
our preference. Um or we could go back to the proverbial drawing board and and come up with a better plan. That better plan is what you see tonight. It also reflects the other comments that the the zoning officer had, which was to
separate the two walls by uh 8 ft, which is what we've done. And um provide some um ve some green greenery. Why isn't this working? Oh, it doesn't work on there. How about
um >> Yeah. Okay. So, basically here's the lower tier wall and then this is the upper tier wall. Lower tier wall maximum six feet 6 feet exposed height and the
uh maximum height on this wall back here is 4T. I say exposed because obviously there's a little bit that's buried in the ground and also on the upper tier wall. Um it it slopes up uh from the front of the wall to the
back. It slopes up at a 4:1 which is um it's traversible. You can walk on it. It's not so steep that you couldn't walk on it. But um that is that was provided to to be able to
basically push the wall push the wall back as far as possible and still be able to not affect the neighbor the rear neighbor behind. Um that was that was really what drove this whole project was the rear property line. Um so just to
kind of jump back a little bit there is an existing wall there now. It's about four feet high. It's a It's a CMU block wall. Not the most attractive wall. Um this is a a modernized updated It's called modular block. You've seen them
all throughout town. Um they have a decorative face um a chiseled rock look to them as opposed to the sheer kind of bland CMU wall that's there now. Um so um that wall is about 16 feet from the
from the back of the house. Um so as as you can see the the family is growing. Um so their objective is to increase the size of that backyard to make it usable um and make it a um basically a fair and
reasonable use of their backyard. Um, so what we've done, I think, is kind of um listen to the um the commentary from the zoning officer. We've met those uh those comments and we've kind of arrived at a
medium median where yes, we do need a variance for height. Um I will submit that, you know, the way the code is written, it it looks at the overall height from the bottom of this wall to the top of that. That's what
gets us to 13 feet, which is why we're here. But the spirit of that ordinance, I would submit, is a 10- foot a 10- foot exposed face of wall. And that's what we have. We have six foot lower wall and a 4ft upper wall. Um, designed that way so
that it doesn't look topheavy, doesn't look like the upper wall is going to fall over on top of the bottom one. Um, so again, back to the aesthetic aesthetically pleasing aspect of it. We think we've met that. Uh right now uh above this existing wall uh
it's it's kind it's very it's it's steep. It there's trees that they've they'll testify that they've already taken down because they were getting ready to fall on the house. Um so there was an unsafe condition. Um and it's it's also a lot of erosion, a lot of the
mud. They they've since planted some arbor arborites along here to sort of uh stem the stem the tide of of the erosion that's happening and flowing over the wall. But it's it's kind of a mess. The slope is it's it's a mess. And we think
that by providing this two-tiered system now, we we kind of meet two objectives. Obviously, the safety of of the trees will be eliminated because the trees are going to have to come down. Um and it stabilizes the slope. um will no longer have this sheer face of dirt that is
eroding onto their backyard. Uh so we we kind of meet two two positive criteria there. It's a safety issue and um and also a drainage issue. to touch on the drainage. Obviously, whenever you uh construct a wall, design
a wall, you obviously want to make sure that you provide mechanism for the water behind the wall that's going to percolate into the ground to have relief. I've done that. There's um probably you probably know them as weep holes, but there's holes in the bottom of the wall, a perforated pipe that
collects all the water and and allows it to drain out the front, so it releases any soil pressure on the back of the wall. That's how these u are able to stand up. Um I've had this question in the past at some other boards about the water. How much water is it going to
erode the property? The water that comes out of this pipe is is best defined as a trickle. Um even in like a heavy rain, it takes a long time for the water to perk down, get in that pipe, and then come and then outlet it. It comes out like,
you know, less than your gutter. Um it's not it's not anything substantial that has any kind of velocity or erosive power. It just kind of basically what it's there for is to is to release the wet soil pressure from behind the wall. Um so we've I've provided that as well
in two points here and here. Um and what else can I say? Um I heard construction mentioned that the last um last um project that you guys considered with any project you're obviously going to have construction.
Um this project is actually the overall impact of the site is is calculate to be about 3,800 square ft. Anytime you're over 5,000 square feet, you have to take um measures that address soil erosion control.
We're not required to do that. However, we've done so anyway by providing the silt fence during construction. And right here is a um what's called construction driveway. It's basically 2 in to/ inch stone that um provides for the mud tracking that uh would otherwise
occur. It keeps it from um going on the road. So, we've kind of gone beyond what um what we'd be required to do if we had to get a soil erosion control permit, but we've done it anyway because it makes good sense. It's uh it's good neighbor policy during construction. Um,
as you might expect, we are excavating a little bit. Here's the existing wall. Here's here's uh the dirt that's coming out. You might ask, how much dirt is coming out? I've estimated it to be about 200 cubic yards, which translates
to about a dozen truckloads. So, over the course of a month that it's going to take to build this, you're talking about 12 12 truckloads that are going to have to carry the dirt away. Um, I guess uh just to kind of sum it up,
I'd like to point out yes, with every variance you have to present your case um as to why what is the hardship? This is C1 variance. Um the hardship here basically is is is twofold. It's the corner lot. So, we're kind of constrained uh more so than we would be.
It's not it's not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Obviously, the rest of the neighborhood doesn't have a front yard setback on two two lot lines. Um but more importantly, it's um it's the existing uh slope that's there. They didn't
create it's not a self-induced hardship request. The slope has always been there. Um it's and as as evidenced by the fact that there is an existing wall there, we're just push we're just taking that wall and moving it back about about
10 ft. Um so that they can get a reasonably use of their yard. Um as you can as you can probably see, there's still a good bit of yard that that they're not going to be able to use, but we're dressing it up. Um it's aesthetically pleasing the wall. We're
adding vegetation on that mid tier. Um, and then at the top of it, of course, for safety, there's going to be a 4 foot fence as well. So, that's uh that's my pitch. Does anyone have any questions for this
witness? >> Why don't you go first then? >> The board was in uh five. >> I violated my own rule. Um the board was handed out uh five photographs on five
pages uh color photographs of uh the current conditions uh of the rear yard. So would you agree we'll mark this as exhibit A? Uh you need we'll give we'll give Miss
Hollis uh this set. Um and uh that is uh uh fair representation of what the current condition is. Mr. Bulmer. >> Yes, sir. You that one there is it tells the whole story. I mean you can see
those exposed roots. Um matter of fact, the tree that used to there was right Justin, there was a couple trees >> it was leaning >> that were already taken down. They were leaning. They've already been taken down. Um, but you and this this is what was there. These exposed roots here.
Here's the arborites that they planted to kind of control. Picture really doesn't do it justice. It's a hard climb for me. When I'm stood on this wall and we we're kind of eyeballing, you know, how far can we pull this wall back? It's it's pretty it's pretty steep here.
The the upper wall, I think this tree, I don't know. I don't remember if that has to go or not, but um like I said, this this pretty much shows the condition. I don't know if it gets the full flavor of how steep and and ugly this is, but it's
it is. >> So, Mr. Omer, what you're what you're what you're showing there and going to your C1 uh proofs, what you're saying is because and I think before you indicated the because
the grade and the slope uh of the severity of the grade and the slope that the property owners don't have any other option other than to use a retaining wall system in order to gain
yard uh backyard space. >> Correct. If um you know the other option would be to have no wall and just grade it up um at at a reasonable a two to one slope would be would be um sustainable. However,
um we don't have that luxury as a backyard that that that top of that cut would cut into the neighbor's yard. I I don't think that they want us to do that. Obviously, we're not can't do that. Um, so but >> sorry as we go through these photos, can can you just sorry, can you just scroll
up to that last one? So that rock at the bottom of the wall that's fresh, these rocks that you can see throughout all the five photos, they're randomly ending up in the backyard. Um, the erosion is
so bad that that ultimately like we get these and that rock doesn't look large. If if that landed on any of us, it would be pretty damaging. That thing is way heavier than it looks. And that's one of the smaller ones. I mean, you you can see in any of the photos, you know,
there's a real concern on the the safety and the erosion on that slope. And, you know, that was kind of the the thought process when we started thinking about how to fix this in the backyard. We're like, well, we're going to have to excavate a ton. We're going to have to
take down a ton of trees. And you know, the the idea was if we're already going to be going through this massive project, might as well make it something that looks good. Again, this is on a corner lot. That's the best looking picture of of our backyard that I've
seen. So, like, we didn't do ourselves justice in in terms of this argument. It is atrocious to look at. If you're walking up Paige and Melrose and you look to the left, it is not aesthetically pleasing for anyone that that has to look at it. So,
yeah, absolutely. It's for us, but it is a massive eyesore for anyone that's on that corner. So, like the idea with this is it it fixes, you know, the erosion concern. and it gets rid of all these exposed roots and um puts up something
that addresses the safety concern, but it's also good-looking and pleasant to look at in a backyard. And we reclaim 10 ft for, you know, a backyard that can be a little more functional. When we bought this house is at the height of kind of the the housing craziness and the
developer, you know, they're slapping these houses up, right? And one of the things they did is in the backyard they basically uh to clear some of the vegetation they just basically like cut off like it was just like raw cut dirt in the backyard
and it's just eroded and ended up in the backyard every time it rains heavily. And so >> he's alluding to this was a knockdown. This that the house that's there now is what like four years old. >> Yeah. >> Kind of like Yeah. So when they when they built this, they knocked the old one down, built this one, they they kind
of didn't really care too much about >> they did what they had to to sell it, which was not much a few years ago, but the backyard is has been a, you know, an ongoing issue since we bought it. >> Does anybody have any questions on the board? >> I do. Um, from looking at the
cross-sections, can you just please confirm if looking from the uh the backyard neighbors like when they stand by their property line, the top of the top layer wall, it's still like way down. >> Correct. Right. >> Yes. And and not only that, um you know,
off off the the uh the back of the property, the grade still continues to go up. So, uh that was >> I'm glad you brought that up. allows me to say that the the neighbor behind him is not there's no impact kind of like
the the project before us, but they won't even see this wall. Um you know that now the neighbor if you're facing their house um the neighbor to the left um they they have a retaining wall in their backyard as well, right?
It's it's um their yard is a little bit bigger, but the point being that, you know, we look to see is it is it inconsistent with the neighborhood is in within the character of the neighborhood. And I would submit that it is. There's there's the immediate neighbor right next door has a very
similar wall. I mean, and you can go up and down the streets and and see these walls all over the place. I say I'll say this certainly makes sense obviously for your um the top topographical uh issues you have as
about probably your only solution. So u I think it's a pretty good application. Um >> I I agree. I just have to say when I drove by I audibly gasped when I saw those roots. >> So I understand I mean I think we all understand why you're doing this and I
think this is really going to be a benefit. gasp every morning. That's how I start with the backyard and gasp. So, yeah, hopefully >> it's a tremendous improvement and it'll improve the quality of life for you and your family. Um, and I think it'll be
beautiful. Um, um, and you won't have rocks pouring down into your backyard anymore. It'll be safe, >> hopefully. Does anybody else on the board have any questions? >> Uh, first say looks great. I think you did a great job and I want to say how much I appreciate you. one coming up
with a plan that keeps the the five yard setback, you know, as well as uh listening to the town because it sounds like our town uh was it the engineer zone official had a great idea. I think this makes sense and so I want to say how much I appreciate it. I agree. I
drove by the property so I think it's a great design. My my question is uh the the trees I think there might still be trees high above on the neighbors property. Is that still going to be equally safe? That was the one concern I had of those trees, not as far as your
neighbors concerned of them being looser or something and falling down on you. So that was my question. >> So the short answer is, you know, no, we we can't we can't impact their their their trees, their tree line, anything
their root system. So I I would submit that we're not undermining um anything close to their property. I I would double check it, of course. Um, you know, once they get into construction, if there are some issues, we're going to have to maybe work out an agreement with them to temporarily
protect those trees. Um, you know, so that >> till you till you back fill the dirt. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because that's a great point is this is the final condition, but we got to rem we got to remove dirt to get that geogrid. Geog grid is the horizontal mesh that that lays in the in
the dirt to give it its stability. So you you kind of have to move remove and then put back. So yeah, um if if the board feels so moved to make that a conditional uh approval that um you know during construction the
engineer, township engineer and myself will be out there to just ensure that that that is preserved. So, we'll make it a condition of approval not to affect neighbor trees. >> Yeah. >> All right. Does anybody else on the board have any questions? Does anybody in the public have any questions?
And I'll just make a sidebar as a fellow civil engineer. Just be real careful with how far your geog grid goes back and everything because obviously that's a bad slope and that's >> Well, okay. So, you'll love this. There's actually geogrid in the slope >> to like above the wall top.
>> I've got it. I've got it in the slope to stabilize the slope as well. So, >> you might have to go under the other wall. >> Well, >> or use lightweight fill maybe. >> Yeah, it's um well, it's the upper wall that I had the concern with. >> Yeah. And I don't want I wouldn't want you to lose it. Slough it off below and
Yeah. You know, you know, but I just wanted to >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Just because I've seen it happen and don't want to >> I thought you were going to say that the geogrid goes underneath the property line and and >> Oh, no. >> because I have another client that did that, too. >> Oh, that's good. No, no, no. It's, you
know, I've seen these walls as you probably have fast. >> Yeah. Yeah. They're all cool. Watch it on YouTube. >> Okay. Um, does anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve.
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Horn? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shaw? >> Yes. Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Um, Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer,
>> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> And obviously, good luck with the growing family. >> Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All the good health. >> Please call the next application.
>> Block6007, lot 12. Oh, I'm sorry. That's We just did that one. Okay. Block 3,400 lot 160. Yeah, that's that. Block 3,400 lot 1 68 Springwood Springbrook Road application number 2025-86 V-V Romesh Jetty and Swatha in applicant
seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following sections 170-98C2 front yard setback 50T required 40T proposed 10 ft variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21%
allowed 25.11% proposed 4.11 1% variance requested. >> Hi there. Hello. >> How are you? >> So I assume you're uh >> uh Romesh Jetty. >> Yes, I am.
>> Uh and uh Swatha >> I came close. You're you're going to be you're going to be kind down. It's really hard to see. Need the bigger glasses. You're the property owners tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you have some people that are going to testify on your behalf. >> Yes. Who are you going to have testify on your behalf?
>> So, we have Mr. Aean Cedra, our um architect, and Mr. Nick Graiano who's will be >> test. So, are you going to be testifying at all or allow those fellows to do all the talking for you? >> Um, for the most part, they'll be talking, but um you >> All right. Well, why don't we do this? Why don't we just get sworn in just in
case? Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. And you're going to call Mr. Sedra first? >> Yes. >> I knew you would. All right, Mr. Mr. Cedra, let's bring you on up. All right. And when Mr. Cedra gets to his uh spot,
Mr. Cedra, we'll swear you in. Do you swear from Tell the Truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Sedra has been qualified as an architect for this board on many occasion. Mr. Cedra has a uh license uh
to uh as an architect in the state of New Jersey and that license is up to date. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Chairman, >> does anyone on the board have object a question of objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, we can accept you as an expert in
architecture. >> Um we uh designed a new house for this lot. Uh the zone is R3 and um it's a single family house where we have all the living spaces at the
first floor. Also we have a guest bedroom uh located on the right side of the building back the rear uh right side. Uh the floor area at the first floor is 1,728. The garage area is 436. The the garages
we have two car garages. their side loaded uh on the left side as you see. And um the basement which uh the image on the left uh shows just one big open space and also we have
a playroom and a bedroom uh included as part of the basement uh layout. Uh the livable area in the basement is uh 1,728. Um the next sheet where we showed the on the left uh presents the second floor.
We have four bedrooms uh was closets and bathrooms. We have uh three bathrooms located at the second floor. We have also a laundry room. Um the attic space is also accessible from
a pull down stairs located at the front of the interior stair going up. Um the design of this house oh the let me also um give the livable area at the
second floor is uh 1,791. The floor area ratio is 25.11 uh with a floor area of uh 3,519. Uh we uh the design of the house it's a colonial style uh house with gable roofs
u and uh we also uh used materials like um board and batten in the gable end and as also we used horizontal um uh hardy siding at the base and uh also at the
second floor as well. Uh we have also a base of stone at the bottom of the building and it's uh you know colonial style house with modern accents where we have some casement windows. Um the
the height of the attic uh measuring from the attic floor to the lowest point of the ridge is 6'6 with the collar tie being at 4'6. Um, we also have an open area counted uh
at both levels of uh 44 square ft. And uh also I would like to mention that the family room is a singlestory family room. Um so we are applying for a floor area ratio variance of uh 4 4.11%
and we are not exceeding the habitable floor area which is the three uh 3520 we are at 3519 that's M Cedra is are you or is Mr. Graviano going to speak to the um the uh front
yard setback? >> He is going to speak. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come forward. My name is My name is Alan Baron. I'm a
resident of Livingston. Um I just wanted for clarification because I didn't understand. >> Can we just I'm sorry. Can I just have your your last name again, sir? >> Sure. Baron. B A R E N. >> B A R >> E N. >> En. >> Is it okay if I give this for the
written record? I don't want to be on YouTube. >> Okay. All right, no worries. Go ahead. >> My wife will kill me. Okay, if that happens. Um, >> just make sure you got to stay by the mic. >> Sure. >> So, the one thing I just didn't fully understand, but that could be my understanding as well is so you
mentioned that you're not exceeding the max HFA for zone 3. So I guess my question on that is then why do you need the 21 to 25%
variance? >> Actually Mr. Graian will uh >> oh okay >> we'll describe that for you inconsistency. >> Okay. >> Does anybody else in the uh public have any questions for this witness?
>> Okay. I think we can move on. Okay, Mr. Graviano, you want to test? Okay, he knows where all the mics are. >> Okay. >> Tech, huh? >> All right. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Graviano has been
accepted as a planner before this board on uh many occasions and Mr. Graviano's license to practice as a planner in the state New Jersey is up to date. Correct, Mr. Graviano? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Chair, >> does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the
witness accepted expert in professional planning. >> Thank you, chairman. Always a pleasure being here. Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving and we'll have a great holiday season. Um the applicants before the board tonight actually requesting only one variance that is for the
habitable floor area ratio. Mr. Wel uh posed the question regarding the front yard setback. The applicant is meeting the front yard setback despite the fact that a variance was indicated on the uh agenda uh as well as the notice. Uh the
applicant is meeting the required 50 foot front yard setback. >> So Mr. Graviano, just uh correct me if I'm wrong. The for for 68 Springbrook Road, the front yard setback is actually 50 ft. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> And the zoning table then needs to be updated. >> Yeah. There there there might have been some confusion. The existing front yard setback is 40T. The applicants actually increasing the front yard setback 10 ft to 50 ft. >> All right.
The plan show also >> but uh hold on Mr. Graviano >> that says >> everything says 40 >> at least on the site plan.
>> So just for the record the um >> is this >> Yeah. What do you have? What do you have then for the rear yard set back? >> Sorry, I must have been given an older set of the plans. >> This is why you got to rely on the paper
version, Mr. Graviano. You know, this is >> Yeah, digital is is is not as uh not as good. All right. So, there is a >> front yard setback, but um I'm sure you have some testimony as to that. Yes, that is consistent with the existing
front yard setback or the current dwelling um part of the established neighborhood development pattern. Um just to clarify some of the questions that the neighbor had uh before um as as the board knows and I'm just doing this for the public's education, uh
Livingston has both a habitable floor area ratio requirement and a maximum habitable floor area square footage requirement. And what Mr. Cedra was indicating in his testimony is that the applicant's plan uh meets the maximum
habitable square footage requirement but does need the uh habitable floor area ratio requirement. I would like to note that this is a a slightly undersized lot. Uh 15,000 square feet is required. Uh 14,15 square ft is existing and
proposed uh with this application. Uh the applicant does not require any other uh setback relief before the affforementioned front yard setback which is consistent with the existing front yard setback of the dwelling. Today um I did a a visual survey of the
neighborhood uh uh both uh in in person as well as aerials as well as the uh analysis of the tax data of block 4010. Uh this is certainly a dwelling that would be in keeping with the uh established uh development pattern of
the area. Um when looking at a habitable floor area ratio variance, the applicant must demonstrate that the site can still accommodate the proposed dwelling withstanding the request for the habitable floor area uh variance request. Uh certainly the applicant is
meeting all the side and rear yard setbacks. Uh there is a minimum rear yard setback of 40T. The applicant's actually requiring providing a rear yard setback of 50 feet. Uh the applicant is exceeding both the uh minimum sideyard and aggregate sideyard requirements uh
with this proposal is also meeting the off- streetet parking required for the proposed dwelling. Uh certainly uh looking at this in the context of the proof for the F variance. The applicant certainly advances purposes of zoning and m of the municipal land use law
specifically uh purpose a promotion of the public health safety morals and general welfare and that's being done by providing a new dwelling built to current code standards and modern living arrangements. Additionally advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety
of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And as you could see in the impeccably designed house by Mr. Sedra, it certainly advances purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. I certainly think the
applicant's uh modest 4.11 uh F request uh can be accommodated without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance as well as the public good. Um, with respect to the front yard setback variance, I I believe that also uh can be granted under the C2
criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG and I that were given with the uh F uh variance analysis. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this one? >> I do. Uh, Miss Graviano, do you have a
front yard setback analysis for the neighborhood for this property? >> Give me one moment. >> Thank you. Mr. Sedra indicated that the analysis was not performed because there were not the three houses to to perform the analysis. So, the applicant kept kept
the front yard setback uh that existed at the dwelling today. The applicant's actually exceeding the rear yard setback if it's the board's desire. Is there space to push the house back? Mr. Cedra. >> Um,
it just gonna make the lift side a little bit tight to make the garage side entrance as we show it. Um, Uh, also I would like to mention that I spoke with the engineer today about the setback and they told me that the FEMA
map shows the 40 uh ft um setback line as being what's known in this area in the neighboring properties along with this house as well. And that's what they call also if you look in the survey on
the right side of the survey you will see a dimension called 40 ft building sitback line where FEMA 2006. I'd also like to note that this is a little bit of a unique configuration in terms of this block. Um the house sits
in the mi middle of two dwellings neither of which front on Springbrook. And when you look at the house on the aerial, the the front yard setback does line up with the side of the houses on both Birchwood and Rumpson Road. So this
is really a house that's within this block. The only there's only one house that fronts on Spring Brook Road. And that setback is consistent with the sideyard well the sides of the dwellings on both sides of the street.
I have a question. So the application states that the applicant is Mr. Jetty, >> but on this plan it states that the owner applicant is RODAC. So who actually owns the property at the owner? >> Okay. So can we get this site plan corrected? Because the site plan owner
applicant is ROD, not >> that I could probably Okay. All right. Well, that any applicant would have to when they present um formal plan, if they get approval,
when they present plans to submit to the building department, those updated, revised as built plans will have to be um updated accordingly. >> The will update the plan and the the applicants are the homeowners of the property.
Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any please? >> Hi there, Alan Baron. Um, this shouldn't affect the applicant's request, but I'm a stickler for kind of details and it
may affect uh the the way the variance is being asked for. So from what I see, this lot is a 14841 lot. So if you just do the simple math of dividing the max lot size for an R3,
which is 3520, by that lot size, which is 14841, the variance you need for that is 23.7 or or 2.7 variance, not 411. So I'm just a stickler for facts and not giving out variances we don't need to be giving out. So they only actually need a 23.7
variance, not not what they're asking for. >> Thank you. >> Is that something you guys >> actually the the lot size as per the survey at the civil drawing is 14,00015 >> in in in
either case there would have to be a variance requested whether it's 23 or whether I understand point but you know the applicant is requ the applicant the applicant has utilized
the services of professional to say it's that the the F is 25.11 >> um >> I think I think you might have had it we're getting 4.11 up here on the >> all right well >> you will make sure that's correct right Mr.
just for the comfort of of the neighbor, you know, the applicant is bound to the plans that were submitted to the board in terms of, you know, location and configuration and size. So, um, we're we're comfortable with the calculations and the variances being requested by the
applicant this evening. Okay. Does anybody else in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay. Um, your testimony is done. Then anything else or is there any other statements you want to make? >> I can just make a quick statement,
>> please. >> So, we've moved into this town in 2018 and we've and we plan to live here for a long time. Um we have our parents visit us and uh that is one of the reasons we we want a bigger house and we are taking
this massive project on and u yes we are hoping to build this house and live in this town for a long time. >> Okay thank you. Does anyone in the board anyone in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? Does anybody in the board want to make a
statement regarding this application? Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> approved. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes.
>> Miss Yan, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Deer, >> yes. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, board. >> You're welcome. All right, we're gaining speed here. Let's do the next one.
>> Block 3402, lot 31,52 Rumson Road. Application number 2025-89-V. Scott Hoffman and Aneruda V. Karmakar. Applicant seeks approval for a first and second floor addition in violation of
the following sections. 170-98C2, front yard setback, 50 ft required, 41.29 29 ft proposed 8.71 ft variance requested 170-87 C3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 21.75%
21.75% proposed 75% variance requested >> push button >> there you go >> there you go welcome aboard >> it's good >> okay so uh can you tell me who you are >> uh my name is Anir Karmar I'm a resident
at 52 Ramson Road, owner of the property. >> Okay. You're you're you're one of the owners of the property. >> Yes. >> Okay. And >> I'm Kawi Walawkar. Uh I'm his wife and also a co-owner. >> Okay. And uh besides yourselves, is there anybody else going to be
testifying with regard to this project? >> Just us. >> Just you. Okay. Uh you understand that this is there are two variances you're requesting. one is a front yard setback and the other is what's known as a habitable floor area ratio.
>> Now, habitable floor area ratio is what's known as a uh Dvariance and a Dvariance requires the uh affirmative vote in favor by five board members. So, it's not four of the three. It's not a
majority, it's a super majority. Uh and um you're you're certainly free to proceed on your own. Uh normally applicants bring uh their architect or plan or
whoever they want to. But if if you're ready to proceed, we'll I'll swear you in and you can proceed tonight. >> Okay. Yeah, let's do it. >> Okay. And just so you're aware that if the board votes the project down that you will not be able to present the
project again in its current uh position that you would have to uh revise the project. Just so you understand that because you're not represented by attorney. So I want I want you to understand what's what's going on. >> That's fair. >> Our architect is present here.
>> I'm sorry. >> Our architect is here if >> your architect is here. Will the architect be testifying? >> No, >> they can decide later. They can decide later. No, >> we can decide later. >> They can decide later if they need to bring. >> Well, let's let's let the attorney run
the meeting. Sorry. >> Okay. Um >> Okay, here we go. >> Yeah, I know. The without the bow tie, it was hard to tell who I was. Uh it's all right. So, let's swear you in. Do you do you swear or affirm and tell
the truth for the zoning the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Uh go ahead. Why don't you tell us what you want to do here? >> Okay. Uh so I think this is kind of similar to the previous project. So we live uh around the corner from
that house. Uh so uh we have been here since 2017 and in the last few years few things have changed. Uh so we have our my in-laws visiting us more. Um I am working from home more. I don't have a home office
right now. Uh my kids have grown. They're both teenagers. Their friends uh coming visiting a lot. We need a little bit more space. The house that we have is a 70 year old split level house. We are not rebuilding. We are just
extending a little bit in the back so we get uh extra space. Uh so the front yard setback that you see is a pre-existing uh non-compliance. So uh the the wall the front uh wall of the house is
already uh I think 40 1.29 ft from the road. So that doesn't change. Uh the only real uh variance we asking for is the HFR. And uh way we did that was we were looking we are not
going to be able to do a project of this size in future in near term right. So we want to make sure that we take off the things that we want. So we want a proper master bed we want an office we want a bathroom uh with the bedroom for when
her parents come by and visit us. Right. So once we designed the house uh with the architect uh then this is a derivative of that. We didn't reverse engineer saying, "Oh, let's start with 21 and then design the house like that."
So that's where we are at right now. >> So sir, um other than the pre-existing front yard, the home as proposed meets all the other setbacks. Yes. >> For the town, the rear, the sideyard,
and the height, all those are met. Correct. You're not going to violate any of those. and that the um amount of habitable floor area, the actual square footage you're at or below that standard. You're not asking for a variance for that. >> Yeah, I'm not. I'm not.
>> And even for the HFR, we are just going a little bit above the uh ask. Uh but it meets all our needs. >> So, right there is an image of the lot. If we can make that a little bit smaller so we can see the whole lot. >> Mhm.
So, >> okay. >> He's There you go. So, um that lot shape is is on the one side on the right side is is on an angle. So, it's that's a little bit irregular
>> from a normal rectangular lot. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so your front yard is your front yard is slightly uh smaller than your rear yard. So you're you're somewhat under sized. Yeah. >> Because of that.
>> And your uh hab floor area ratio overage that you're asking for that variance is not even a full percent. It's 75%. Right. >> Yes. >> All right. So you're you're not that much over. >> Okay. >> That's Yeah. Yes. And the house to the
right is the corner house. >> So that's where the Ramson and Springbrook meet. >> Okay. That's where the >> uneven. Okay. So, it's a dimminimous violation, right? And as
um as our attorney indicated, everything else is uh within the rules. We're not violating anything else. and the one violation is existing. Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? Witnesses.
Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does the architect have any questions for the witness? >> Just checking while you're there. I want to keep you involved there, Scott. Um, >> yeah. Oh, yeah. I'm going to call them out. Um, does anybody in the public want
to make any statements regarding this application? Does anybody on the board want to make any statements regarding this application? >> Does anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> approve.
>> Okay. Mr. Horn, >> approved. Mr. Sha >> approve. >> Mr. um Miss Yan >> yes. >> Um Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer >> yes. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. >> This is our first time joining this. I
really appreciate you guys taking time and the patience you have because it's not easy sitting two and a half hours. >> You did a great job listening. >> Thank you very much. >> You you were better off without the architect. Yeah. >> Okay. Um,
block 4200, lot 5663 Hillside Avenue, application number 2025-93-B, Alta Asset Management LLC. Applicant seeks approval to construct a a new single family house in violation of the following sections. 170-98C2 front yard
setback, 50 ft required, 44.6 feet proposed, 5.4 4T variance requested 170-98 C4 rear yard setback 40 ft required 36.1 ft proposed 3.9 ft variance requested >> welcome
>> good evening Diana McGovern from the law firm of Gash and Pamco on behalf of the applicant Ala asset management can you hear Yeah, you're good. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, ladies and gentlemen, we're here tonight for uh two
C1 variances that have to do with a corner property. My client, Ala Asset Management, is the owner of 63 Hillside Avenue, which is located in the R3 zone. We are seeking to de demolish the existing uh home which has
non-conforming setbacks and uh build a new one family home on this trapezoidal corner property which has a drainage a sewer easement that runs directly through the center of it creating several hardships. Um, we are proposing
a home that complies with the required floor area ratio 19 of We're proposing 19% where 21% is permitted. Due to these existing hardships, uh, we are requesting the two variances as I mentioned. One for a front yard setback.
Uh, we're moving the orientation of the house to face Belmont Drive. As I noted before, we're on a corner. So, we're required to have a 50 foot front yard setback. We're proposing a 44.6 6 foot. So we are short by 5.4. And for a rear yard setback, we are required to have
40T. And we're proposing 36.1 foot for uh variance of 3.9 ft. I have two witnesses tonight. I have Camille Rzacowski who is our uh he's the owner of the he's the managing member of Alta
Asset Management. And also we have Charles Baldanza who you get three for the price of one in terms of experts. He is our architect, engineer, and planner. He's licensed in the state of New Jersey in all three of those aspects. >> Yes.
>> M. McGovern, who you who do you want to call first? >> We're going to call Camille first, please. >> Okay. Sir, do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. And you're um with Alta Asset Management, correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. McGovern. >> Okay. Um Camille, what is your
relationship to Alta Asset Management? >> I am the managing member and owner. >> Okay. Okay. And does Alta Asset own uh the property at 63 Hillside Avenue? >> Yes. >> And when did you when did the company buy that? >> Uh in August. >> Okay. What is currently on the property? >> Uh it's a single family home.
>> And you propose to tear it down. Why is that? >> Um the sing the the home has is in complete uh disrepair. The foundation has collapsed on on the right side of the house. Um there's been water intrusion uh for years. Um there's rot,
mold. I mean, the house is not uh not not fixable. >> And what is the proposed house uh that you'd like to build there? >> It's going to be a center hall colonial. Um I've done a number of projects in town, so it's going to be very similar to some of the others that I've I've constructed. Um, it's going to be an
open concept on the first floor with a formal dining room uh office for the work at home family uh with an in-law suite for any family members that are elderly and can't go up the stairs. We'll have a separate little u bedroom
with an en suite on the first floor and the second floor is going to have four bedrooms and three bathrooms um and a finished basement with a recck space and a gym and things like that. >> Thank you. Now, um, you're changing the orientation of the house to Belmont Drive, correct? >> That is correct.
>> How will the front yard setback I realize we're a corner property, but how will that line up with the other homes on that side of the street on Belmont, if you know? >> Sure. So, um, uh, we are the, uh, only R3 lot on that side of Belmont. All the
other homes are R4. Um, even though we're on the corner and we really don't qualify for an established setback, what I've done is to make sure that we're going to be in line with the surrounding neighborhood. We did do a laser analysis of the of the uh four adjacent homes
down Belmont uh to ensure that we will meet a at least a setback in line with those. So, um the setbacks of the other homes were 44.4, 4 46 and 43.8.
So that's where we arrived with the the uh front yard setback as we currently designed it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I have no more questions for you, but the board may have some. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Back to you. >> Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Baldanza. Do you swear for Intell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Can we please have your uh name for the record, sir?
>> Yes. Uh the name is Charles L. Middle initial Baldanza. B A L D A N ZA. >> Okay. And uh I understand that you're a triple threat. Uh you are licensed as a an architect, a planner, and an engineer
in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes, that is correct. And my licenses are up to date. And I'll also add I had the I've had the uh pleasure of testifying in front of this board on uh several previous occasions. So, uh, Miss McGovern, are we going to have this as
which testimony for now? >> So, because it's kind of long, we're just going to we're just going to just combine the whole thing to move this along. Um, it's >> brevity being the soul of wit. >> Yes. Okay. >> All right. So, uh, can we just
concerning you going for the triple threat, can we just have your education just so >> Yes. Um my educational background is I have a master's degree in architecture from NGIT and I've had my own design firm since 2014.
Um and again my um my I've uh testified in front of land use boards throughout New Jersey. >> And you're a licensed planner? >> Yes. >> In the state of New Jersey. And it's current your license. >> Yes. >> And you're also a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. >> Was that by degree or by time? It it was
by um >> on the basis of experience and taking the test. >> Yep. That's that I just you didn't mention an engineering school. That's why I thought you did. Okay. Um >> uh does anyone on the board have any questions objections regarding this witness?
>> There being no objections, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture, engineering, and planning. >> Thank you. Charlie, could you take us through the existing site? >> Okay, so um we're at the corner. We're at the intersection of Belmont. Um
Belmont and Hillside. We're at the corner. Um we're on the uh um the northeast intersection of Hillside and Belmont. Uh we're located in the R3 zone. So you can see on this um let me
try to zoom in here. Um having a little trouble here. Uh, as you can see from the the key map, we're in the R3 zone. The R3 zone begins right uh there's two properties across the street and we're the only property in the R3
zone before the R4 zone begins uh on Belmont. Um the area of our property is 18,452.8 ft. That's 42 acres where 15,000 is required in the R3 zone. The property is uh somewhat irregular in shape in that
it's trapezoidal. Uh the major characteristics are it's a corner lot. So we have a very constrained uh building envelope which you can see I'm show emphasizing with the pointer. Uh we have a very constrained in uh uh building envelope because of the shape
and due to the fact that we need to provide a front yard setback from each uh of the princ of the streets that we front. The other uh principle, you know, main issue that I'd like to point out is we have a 10- foot wide sanitary sewer easement which goes pretty much dead
right through the middle of a lot. And that was our big design challenge um in trying to deal with this and trying to design uh the home and comply with all the other requirements. Um so, let's talk about the existing home
that's on the lot. You saw some pictures of it previously. I'm going to point out a couple things. So, uh, as Camille mentioned, um, it's it's um, it's an it's an older home. According to tax records, it was built in 1956.
It does not comply with several of the bulk standards. Uh, frontage from either street. It's um so it's it's it's it's as little as 17.7 on the on the uh on the Belmont side and
it's uh I think it's 41.9 uh on the um on the hillside side. So the house is non-conforming. And let me point out one other fact about this house. Um the deck is built right over the um the sanitary
sewer. So, we haven't been figured out how that happened or if that was allowed to happen or if that was somebody built that without permit, but but I think it illustrates that we have a non-conforming house uh as far as the bulk standards. And the mere fact that they had to build a deck or they did
build a deck over that easement just shows how much of a challenge it is. Um, I also want to point out just as far as the the way it's looking. So, the house faces Hillside, which you can see from my pointer, and it and the two houses across the street, they face Belmont.
And again, as I mentioned, they're in the R3. They're on undersized lots, which really and it conform more with the R4 standards from from from my analysis. And what we're doing is we're proposing the new home to face Belmont. So, it it's really going to um I think
fit into the neighborhood, but I'm I'm jumping ahead. Um let me briefly mention as far I don't know what just happened there. Okay. As far as the grading uh and and the proposal uh of what we're doing here um
we are maintaining the existing grades on the site. Okay. And we're also uh as far as storm water goes, we're going to be providing uh sea pitch pits. So we have a drainage system. So, we're going to be maintaining the existing drainage patterns and we are going to be uh uh
improving the drainage even though we're slightly increasing the impervious area. We're going to be more than making up for that by having a drainage system. And let me also mention for completeness that we did get a uh engineering review memo and we're going to comply with uh
there's only a few points raised, but we're going to we're going to comply with all of those points. Um, so if I may describe the the proposed building, we're going to be putting a house as as Diana mentioned in the in the introduction, we're complying with the uh habitable floor area ratio, the hab
habitable floor area uh you know uh square footage. We're complying with everything except for the front yard setback and the rear yard setback. Um, as you can see, as I'm demonstrating on the site plan, um,
the the existing house, so so we measured the existing houses, as Camille testified to, and we're and we're dead on as far as what we proposed because the average of the existing um, homes comes out exactly to it's almost like we
planned it. Uh, the average front yard setback is 44.6 and that's exactly what we are proposing. So, it fits in very well with the Belmont um streetscape and you can see a little piece of the uh neighboring home and you can see how it
it it it fits right in our proposed setback. So, that's the front yard. So, that's obviously the the the the most logical place to place the uh the proposed home on the lot. And then as far as the rear goes, um we're slightly
off. We need uh 40 feet is the requirement. we have 36.1. As you could see, if we if we cut the house down, it really minimizes the utility of the house. So, we have a normal size house proposed. Uh there's nothing uh uh you
know, out of the ordinary about the size based on the fact that we're complying with all the other bulk standards. If we had slid the house page right, you know, to the south uh to conform with the rear yard, we would have made the front yard, we would have made the front yard even worse or
not worse, but you know, less conforming with the bulk standards. So, so we feel this is the absolute um most logical design and placement of the house on this particular lot. Um
so >> what is behind on the other side is the school property. >> Yes, there's a school property um which can be seen in this tax map and on the area. So there's an empty so if you if you were traveling along hillside there's like a you know it's an open
area which as my understanding is it belongs to those to the to the school. Um, if I don't know if you want to go into just the the actual drawing of the house so the board can see. >> Oh, yeah. Okay, >> I can do that. Um,
>> yeah. So, um, I could talk a little bit about the house. Uh, we comply with the habitable floor air calculation. Um, we have a total of um, uh, 34.99. Um,
as far as howable floor area, it's a um it's a two it's a, you know, two-story home. Um, the the home really comply, you know, is really, I think, very similar to many of the homes in a neighborhood and many of the other projects we've done in
Livingston. Um, as far as uh we have we're using Hardy Plank, we have a carriage garage door, we have some vertical siding, we have some accents which are uh standing seam metal roof. Um, you know, in general um I have to
say that um I have a longstanding working relationship with Camille and we've done many projects and we and and architecturally this this fits in very well with the neighborhood and with Livingston. Um we have some stone accents on the front. Um, I will point
out we have a um a bedroom on the first floor, which is something that uh is often asked for in my practice. Uh, we're hearing more and more about people want to have a bedroom on the first floor for convenience for in-laws, uh, you know, aging in place, that type of
thing. Um, >> okay. So, we can move into planning. Why is this a C1 variant? >> Okay. Um, talking about the variances, um, and putting my planner hat on, I guess I'm transitioning over to the the
planning role. Um, so just to be clear, there are two variances requested, the front yard and the rear yard. I'm going to go back to the uh site plan because I think it's uh illustrates it. So um, the required front yard setback uh, as I
mentioned in the R3 zone is 50 ft. We're we're we're proposing the 44.6 six. Um, uh, for exactly the reason, not to repeat myself, was was the the rear yard is because, uh, we don't want to make
the front yard more, you know, non-conforming and our front yard at the proposed uh, 44.6 complies with, you know, is is complies with the neighboring properties. Um, the site is suitable for the project. >> Can you just point out where the sewer
easement is in relationship to the project? this dash line here. Uh, let me see if I can just move it over here. Yeah, it's this dash line. This is the sewer easement which continues from Belmont. So, you can see it's it's a it's a it's a dagger right in the middle
of the lot bullseye. Uh, that we had to work around. >> Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I didn't >> Okay. So, um I want to talk. Would you say that because of the the sewer easement being straight through the lot that it
obviously you can't build on the sewer easement? Right. Absolutely. >> So any any applicant would be forced to build either on >> because the orientation I'll just call it the top and bottom. Either the top of that lot or the bottom of the lot. Right. >> Yes.
>> So you're you're you're living within the constraints. There's very specific physical constraints to this lot that prevent >> any applicant from building a uh home on the lot. And the top part of the lot
gives you more be fair to say that that gives you more space to build than this bottom half which kind of narrows down. Correct. >> Because the nature of the of of the line. Would that be fair to say? >> I would say that's that's very accurate.
So, all things being equal, because of that very unique, weirdly unique uh set of circumstances where you have this this sewer line running through the lot, you have to build the the the prop the building
where it's at. That's really what this is coming down to, right? >> That is absolutely what it's coming down to. Yes. Yes. And I I I think you uh you uh articulated that very well. I I wholeheartedly agree but you know by reason of the exceptional features of this lot uh we clearly uh qualify for a
uh and you know our requested aboard is for a C1 variance um due to those constraints of the uh of the lot. >> Okay. Um would this in any way be detrimental to the zone plan? Well, no, not at all because I've reviewed the master plan for Livingston and it
actually talks about um one of the goals in the R R3 zone is to me is to um is to uh uh have the setbacks conform have conforming setbacks to the existing neighborhood context and it um uh uh
specifically talked about uh situations like this and and we as I mentioned in uh previously we are fitting in exactly and designing to the uh to the setbacks uh that are that that exist in the neighborhood. >> Is the negative criteria also satisfied
in terms of are there any negatives that you can see? >> Um yeah. Um absolutely. Um there's no substantial detriment to the zoning uh uh regulations master plan. Um the replacement of this uh 1956 dwelling um
which is with a with a different single family home in this residential zone for the benefit enjoyment of future and current residents consistent with the goals of the master plan and uh due to the fact that we're uh providing a drainage system that we're enhancing the
street shape along Belmont and uh uh fitting in with the neighborhood. Uh in my professional planning opinion, we are uh um uh do not have um any benefit, you know, the benefits far outweigh any detriments.
>> That that would >> I don't know. >> Okay. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? I have one quick question. Two quick questions. You have an egress staircase coming out of the basement. >> I see that is correct. uh when the
basement is not going to be a separate apartment at all. Right. >> No, there is no kitchen in the basement. >> So, you would you would agree as a condition of approval that that that would not be used as separate living space? >> That is correct.
>> And there's no available height in the attic to have living space too, I believe. Right. >> Is that correct? >> That is correct. We're going to have a pull down stair going to the attic. Okay. Does anybody else on the board have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements? >> Back to you, ma'am. I don't have much to say other than this is a beautiful new home and fits in with
the neighborhood and it clearly satisfies the C1 criteria between the shape of the property. The fact that it's a corner lot and we've got that sewer easement that just means you build on one side or the other and they've picked the best side that they could possibly build on. Thank you.
>> When we get to statements, I had a statement. >> Okay. Does anybody on the board want to make a statement? >> Okay. Uh so um so and I I thought you met the to to me it seems like I think this will be a big improvement for the the neighborhood. So I think you met on C1
and C2. Um it looks nice to me. Uh so it's sort of a request. It's in my neighborhood. I'm not 200 square feet but I it's in very close to my house. So it's also which is on hillside. uh when you drive. So, it's more of a request because I'm telling you, I think you met the standard for the variance and I
think it would add value to your home. The side facing hillside, which is sort of a main road, it's a double line road in town, so a lot of people use this road. And the side, the side facing hillside, it's not very aesthetically
pleasing. And I I feel like just looking at the plans, I feel like it could be like one of them's a bedroom. That could be a window. It could be windows in the garage. One's the mud room and it could be a door to sort of give, you know, hillside an appearance of almost another
front to it. I feel like it could add value to the house and the neighborhood. >> We we can't we can't design homes, but I'm sure >> my member of the public. >> I'm sure that Miss McGovern will certainly convey that to her client. Uh and uh that's all I was asking.
>> Maybe uh thank you. May maybe they would uh take that into consideration, but that's certainly up to them. So they they're Miss McGovern is very good at communicating to her client. >> I would just like to say one very very quick thing. That's a very very um busy intersection,
>> right? Um and then when school is in session, I'm sure you've seen the lines of cars and the kids and the crossing guard. So, I think that the builder needs to take extreme care when it comes to trucks and um the sealed fence and nails and all that kind of stuff and the
debris because it is I mean you have seen it and it's crazy you know between the hours of like two and three. So, just you know it can't be a condition but just so you know that it's something that really I think should be you know pay attention to. Well, my client has young has a young daughter and
understands that. Exactly. So, um I'm sure every effort will be made >> just to point it out and you put have it on the record that that's definitely something to be taken into consideration. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else want to make a statement, comment, or other? >> Does someone like to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve subject to the conditions as stated regarding the basement as well as the attic. >> I'll second it. Okay. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw,
>> yes. >> Miss Yan, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Miss Convotes, yes. Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Take care. >> It's busy there on the weekends, too. Trust me, I spent many many a day on
that soccer field. for the next application. Okay. Okay. Block 4200, lot 5, 71, Hillside Terrace, application number 2025-96-V, RODAC Homes. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following sections.
170-99 C2 front yard setback uh 40 ft required. 30.17 ft proposed 9.83 ft variance requested. 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 36% proposed 96% variance requested.
>> Hillside. >> Good evening. My name is Matthew Pada. I'm with the law firm Sils CS Gross and I represent the applicant tonight regarding this application for both hab ratio and front yard setback. What the applicant's looking to do here for the
subject. Did you want to pause me? >> No, don't bo don't don't bother with me now. >> Oh, I didn't know. I didn't know if you were trying to make eye contact. >> No, no, no. Okay, you got it way. >> Uh the applicants here tonight proposing to demolish the existing single family home and in doing so construct the new
single family home. Although we are here tonight requesting ratio variance relief as well as front yard setback relief. I want to bring to the attention of this board that number one uh the floor area is absolutely conforming with what is allowed within this bulk within the bulk
standards for the zone. But more importantly this application will be eliminating two variances for both sideyard as well as aggregate sideyard. And although we are requesting front yard variance relief, we are improving the existing condition for front yard.
Not a lot, but it is an improvement. I wouldn't necessarily say the single family home that exists today is dilapidated, but it is close there, too. So, we are looking to bring this more into character the neighborhood and modernize the existing lot itself. With that being said, I'll have two witnesses
tonight. I will have my architected as well as my planner, Nick Graviano. If I may, I'd like to call my first witness, my architect. >> All right, Mr. Cedra, you sworn in before, but you swear firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> Okay. And Mr. Cedra has been qualified
as a architect. Mere, well, not mere maybe about 30 40 minutes ago, but I'm sure that his uh license to practice architecture in New Jersey is up to date. >> Correct. >> And we can accept him as a expert in architecture. >> All right, Mr. Cedro, why don't you walk
us through what we're looking to propose here tonight? >> Sure. Um we are proposing a single family house located in R4 zone. Um if you uh look at the floor plans of
this house, the first floor uh hosts the living spaces and also we have twocar garage um facing uh hillside terrace. Also the first floor has uh one guest uh bedroom with its own bathroom and
closet. Uh the area of the first floor is 1,215. This is the livable area and the garage area is 434. Uh to the left of the first floor, uh
I'm sorry, to the right of the first floor is the second floor. Uh the second floor consists of four bedrooms with uh bathrooms and closets. And also we have a laundry room. Uh the
area for the second floor is 1,423 uh with a total floor area of um 2,638 and the floor area ratio is 36 with a 6% variance required for the floor area ratio. Um
the attic is only accessible with the pull down stairs from the second floor. And also we have um at the second floor we have uh at the rear of the house we have a balcony small balcony 6'8 by 12
ft. Um to the far left we have the basement. Uh basement is uh one open space uh and also we have two small rooms, one office, one bedroom. The area for the
basement is 1,215. Um uh the design of the outside it's a colonial style home with um uh board and batten at the gable end.
And also we have hardy horizontal uh siding. And we have uh some accent with the standing seam metal roof on top of the first floor. And um just to dress it up a little bit, we also have a stone at the base of the
building. Um uh the elevation next to the front elevation is the rear elevation and um you see the balcony at the second floor. Um the we have an open space of uh 71
square ft. Uh this open space located at the entry foyer. It's counted two times, but it's only used at the first floor and uh we we're only applying uh for two
variances. One is the floor area ratio and the other one is the front yard. That's all. >> So, just a few questions for you. Just to confirm again, we do have an area in the front four area where we're double counting approximately 71 square feet pursuant to the zoning code. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And the slot is approximately about 21% under size. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the proposal itself is requesting a variance relief of an additional 6%. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Would you say that 6% is roughly about
the size of a bedroom, give or take? >> Yeah, plus or minus. Yeah, it's uh 6% is like 439 square ft. So maybe it's a bedroom with a bathroom. >> Yeah. Or the walk-in closet or something to that. >> Thank you. I have no further questions
for this witness. >> Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I'll make just a quick comment on the elevation. I was a little concerned with the size a lot, but I saw you you brought down the roof to six on 12, and
I think that helped to bring the massing down a bit. So, I think that's that's helpful in this particular case. Um, no question. >> No, make a comment. Just a comment. >> So, just a comment. >> I I thought the 612 helped to bring the massing down because
>> sure >> the R4s do get tight. Um, anybody in the public have any questions for this on this? Back to you. >> All right. I'd like to call my last witness, Mr. Nick Graviano. >> Mr. Graviano, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes, sir.
>> And Mr. Graviano's been qualified uh 37 minutes ago as a planner and his license to practice as a planner in state New Jersey. Is up to date. >> Yes, I'm more experienced now. >> Okay. More experienced than he was before. >> He always has. >> And then we can definitely accept you as
an expert in planning. >> Thank you. Um I think Mr. Prasad's introduction as well as Mr. Cedric's testimony uh did a good job set setting the forth the elements of this application. Block 4200 lot 5 71
hillside terrace. The applicant is requesting the front yard setback variance where 40 40T is required. Uh 30.17 ft is proposed. The 9.83 ft variance is being requested. Uh this lot did qualify for for the front yard
setback averaging. of setback study uh was conducted for the six qualifying lots in the area. The average setback was 29.93 ft and the applicants at 30.17 ft whereas 28.28
exists today. So the applicant is increasing the front yard setback and is within the average of the six studied lots in the general vicinity. Uh the applicant is also requesting uh the F variance whereas 30% is allowed.
This application is 36% 6%'s being requested. Um as previously noted uh this slot is a little bit over uh 2,000 square ft smaller than the requirement of the district. But the applicant did go through great care to design a house
that's befitting of the lot, befitting of the neighborhood. Um it it's not a situation where the applicant's getting aggressive with the habitable floor area. As you all know, the R4 per permits 3220 and the applicants before the board with 2638. So the applicant is
uh approximately 580 square ft smaller than the maximum habitable uh floor area of the district. Um no other setback variances are being requested. the applicant has adequate off- streetetreet parking both within
the garage as well within the driveway. So certainly when examining the F criteria uh the applicant can accommodate the proposed single family dwelling withstanding uh the F variance being requested. The proposal certainly
advances the purpose of zoning a G and I A related to uh replacing this house which has certainly seen better days with a uh newly designed structure designed to current standards and to current uh desire desires as well as
promoting purpose G to pro sufficient space and appropriate location for variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And lastly, it promotes purpose I desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. There's
certainly no uh substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of an F variance. This is a pretty modest single family house in a single family zone. With respect to the front yard setback variance, as you know, it meets the averaging aotment. However, the board
deems that to be a variance. uh that variance certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG and I without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. >> So is it your testimony that we have satisfied the requirements for the averaging of the front yard setback?
>> Yes, we have. So for this proposed application, would you say that it is a uh a balancing uh the proposed bulk standards considering the fact that although we do have a ratio variance, we have eliminated three other variances and taking consideration the site constraints uh the habitable floor area
is approximately 583 square feet below what is permitted. >> Yes. Um you know touching on some of those uh setbacks that are being improved uh an 8.12 feet exists today whereas 10 feet is proposed so the applicants a little bit uh under two
feet that's increasing the sideyard setback also increasing that aggregate sideyard setback which is deficient as well. So uh certainly uh with the C variance which is also termed a benefits vers versus burdens variance and in the planning world the benefits of this v uh
application certainly outweigh any detriment of of granting the variance. >> Great. I have no further questions for this witness. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? I'll just uh I'm going to resend my last comment because I had my packages mixed
up because you have so many of them. So that'll be for the a different >> positive comment. We'll have to wait. >> Yes. Yes. I resend my positive comment. >> Does anyone the public have any questions for this
happens? Um >> does anyone in the public want to make any statement regarding this application? Back to you. >> I want to keep with that Shakespearean quote, so I'm going to wave. >> Thank you. All right. Does anyone in the board want
to make any statements? >> Does anyone in the board want to make any motions? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes.
>> Uh, Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. >> Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan votes yes. Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I assume you're not moving. >> No.
>> Be awkward. >> Wait. application. I'm sorry. Um, I forgot. Okay. Um, block 4904, lot 2550 West Hobart Gap Road, application number 2025-97-V,
Road Roodach Homes. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following sections. 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30% allowed 36% proposed 6% variance requested
>> for just something >> sure >> okay so I'll read that application block 4010 lot 28 Roosevelt terrace application number 2025-98-V. Should I read slowly?
Okay. Roach Homes applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section. 170-87 CC4 habitable floor area ratio 30%
allowed, 36% proposed, 6% variance requested. >> Good evening. >> Hi there. Roosevelt. Make sure you >> Yeah, I got I got I got the order now. >> Okay. So,
>> I'm sorry, Matt. >> So, we're going to do Roosevelt right now. >> Yes. >> As soon as Nick comes back, I'll let you know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Needs to call a client. Uh, good evening. My name is Matthew Patada. I'm from the law firm SS Cummus and Gross and I still represent Rod Holmes Incorporated in connection with this
application for Hav Ratio. The applicant is here tonight proposing to demolish the existing improvements in order to construct a new single family home for a site that is essentially undersized by approximately 22%. In doing so, it will be eliminating three variances for front
yard, sideyard, and aggregate sideyard as well. All other bulk standards are conforming, but for the ratio itself. Tonight, I'll have two witnesses. My first witness will be my architect, Aean Cedra, and my second witness will be my planner, Nick Raviano. And if I may, I'd
like to call my architect, Aean Cedra. >> Please, >> Mr. Cedra. Uh, just for clarity, um, you swear if I tell the truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Cedra's been accepted mere moments ago as an architect and, uh, chairman, we
should >> we can accept him as expert architecture. Mr. Cedro, were you the architect in charge of preparing the proposed plans here tonight? >> Yes. >> Why don't you walk us through those proposals? >> Sure. Um, this is a a new single family
house in R4 zone. Um the first floor um consists of the living spaces and also we have a guest room at the first floor. Uh twocar garage and the livable area at the first floor is 1,193
square ft. Such a small house. And the garage area is 4334. Uh the second floor on the right consists of four bedrooms uh with closets and bathrooms. We also have a balcony on the right side uh corner uh
overlooking the rear yard. Um uh the second floor uh livable area is 1,418 with uh a total floor area uh livable floor area of 2,611.
Uh and the floor area ratio is 36%. Um the the attic is accessible uh with um pull down stair located uh at the second floor hallway. Um to the far left we have the basement
uh which we have an office and a bedroom in the basement and the rest of the space is just open space for recreation. Uh the second floor uh there is an open space at the second floor. Um it's about
70 square ft of open space counted two times but only used at the uh first floor. The front of the house it's a colonial style house. We proposed the stuckco for
this house with stone at the first floor. And also we have uh accent with the standing seam roof between the um between the first and second floor. Uh we gave it some modern accent with
the windows being uh casement windows throughout the whole house. Uh the rest of the elevations we're using um uh hardy siding uh the two side on the two sides of the
house and the rear. Um again we're applying for uh a floor area ratio uh variance where 30% is required. We are at 36% and that's the only variance we're
applying for. Few questions. >> Sure. >> First question is >> apologies. Uh just a few questions for you. My first question is the attic itself. How is that accessible? >> It's only accessible with the pull down
stair located at the second floor hallway. >> Okay. And for this zone, technically speaking, what is permitted for h floor area is 3,220 ft. Correct. >> Correct. And what we're proposing is approximately 600 square f feet less. So that is consistent and well balanced
with the other bulk standards. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? >> I'd like to call my last witness, my planner, Mr. Nick Graviano. >> Mr. Graviano, do you swear for and tell
truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano has been qualified in the field of planning. Mr. Chairman, >> excellent. We can accept him as an expert. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> Okay. This is an application very similar to the last one, although the
benefits by this application are actually a little bit greater than the last one. This is an application for specific piece of property uh known as 8 Roosevelt Terrace, block 4010, lot 2. Uh the applicant is requesting a habitable fluary ratio variance whereas 30% is
allowed, 36 is proposed, a 6% variance request. This is an also an undersized lot by a little bit over 2,000 square ft. Uh the applicant is increasing the front yard from 34.69 ft to 40 ft. Uh
the applicant is uh eliminating an existing deficient uh sideyard setback of 4.58 feet uh bringing it to conformity with 10 feet. Additionally increasing an aggregate sideyard that exists today from 11.29 ft to 21.69 ft
which is in conformance uh with the uh ordinance standards. Um, similar to the other application, this zone does allow a 3220 uh, habitable floor area square footage. Uh, the applicant is 609 square ft less in that requirement, coming in
with a dwelling at 2611 square ft. So, when you look at all these elements combined, the applicant is getting uh, rid of a great amount of existing nonconformities, bringing many elements into conformity. Uh looking at the requirements for the habitable flu area ratio variance uh the applicant
certainly uh can accommodate the use on the site uh given the variance request uh can also advance purposes of zoning AG and I without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. >> Terrific. I have no further questions for this witness.
>> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public want to make any statements? Come on up, please. >> My name is Alan Baron. Um, just to give
some context on kind of why I'm here tonight, I'm an R4 home owner. Um, I think Livingston has a like the rest of the country, a severe housing crisis. It's not clear to me how we're actually managing that. Um, so I'm here to learn.
Um, and I just I just wanted to give so I want just to give some my perspective on this particular variance. I think given that this lot is an undersized lot, I think asking for a variance to bring it up to what should be the
minimum for an R4 makes complete sense. So, you know, make giving them a variance so they can build as big as you could build on a 9375 variance makes a lot of sense and they're they're building smaller than that. My only comment would be I think
um talking about it complying to a 3220 shouldn't really be the context because you would need a 10,000 700 700 square foot lot to do that and you're 3500 square f feet short of that. So the real question is it's the lot
minimum size is smaller than what should be required um for other R4s and we should look to conform that up to the the minimum that you would be able to build on a on a 9375 which is you know getting you up to a 2812 not a 3220. I
think there's just too much of a of a impetus in town to take every R4 lot and want to make it 3220. And it really has to be based on the actual physical lot size, not just the max. So, it's just a comment that, you know, as we think about R4S, we really need to think about
not overbuilding for those lots um relative to the lot size. But this one clearly, you know, is well under that. It makes a lot of sense to equalize it to get it up to what would be comparable to a 93775 lot. So, >> thank you. That's that's appreciated. I know the town council is constantly
looking at um lots and rules and everything else to try to do what they can to properly manage it for the town folk. >> And I I would just I would just have one one last comment. I think the thing that just not myself but others struggle with is um uh there's a lot of nice new
building in town but there is this kind of oxymoron between all the building that's going on um the unaffordability of town. I have a a 30-some uh daughter and and two grandchildren and they can't afford to move in this town for sure. I
mean 30omes can't find anything. So when you start building these, you know, 1 million, 1.9 million homes, there's, you know, every every home we do rebuild, that's not kind of using the same footprint, but building bigger, we we reduce our starter home inventory. And while we have that going on on the
building side, you know, we have the state telling us we need to build 450 units of low-income housing. Those two things happening at the same time don't make a lot of sense. Um, if anyone on this committee would want ever want to have a cup of coffee and talk about it, this is not the forum. No, no. Obviously, we appreciate that, but you
know, obviously we can't control what the the price is of the home. Um I'm would love to have you cut it in half and I might pick up one, but um see what happens. We can talk consultant actually. >> I think I think the big for me the big difference is I've seen beautiful I've
seen beautiful knockdowns and renovations where they kind of maintain the integrity of the existing footprint. maybe they turn him into a a 4-3. Um, but then you see how then you then you also do see the uh you know the the
seven sixes and the sixes and you say you know >> who who who in their three generations are moving into this house and how long are they going to be able to afford it till it goes belly up. So you got a lot of that and a lot of those houses do sit on the market for a very long time before they sell. One in one in our neighborhood actually actually no
kidding on Roosevelt across the street. Go look at the history for that house. Sat for four years on and off the market. Price decrease. Price decrease. It didn't really sell for four years. That big house on the on the on the uh on the north side of Roosevelt, right across from where you're building. So,
>> uh developers need to take care to not overbuild because they'll sit with them for a long time. Anyway, >> fortunately, unfortunately, beyond our pervy. So, but yes, thank you. Good comments. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um back to you then. I wave my summation. There we go. Would any of the
board like to make uh any comments? >> And would someone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Weissman. Ei. >> I wrote that down on purpose. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Yuan, >> yes. >> Miss Khan votes, yes. Mr. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Proceed. >> You're good, right? >> Yeah. No conflict. I'm sorry. I I I apologize to the board. We had to take it out of contr to check on something for me. There's no conflict. >> Go ahead, Mr. Pad. I'm sorry. >> No worries. Uh, good evening. My name
again is Matthew Fam from the law firm Sils Cummus and Gross and I represent Rodak Homes Incorporated regarding this application for H4 ratio. The applicant is looking to propose a demolition with the new construction of a single family home that would also include a new
driveway porch and also a patio for this undersized lot. The Howell floor area itself that's being proposed here tonight is conforming. And similar to the other applications this board heard tonight, there will be an elimination of an existing variance uh specifically
front yard. With that being said, I will have two witnesses here tonight. One will be my architect. My second will be my planner. And if I may, I'd like to call my first witness, my architect, Aean Cedra. >> Okay. Hopefully for the last time tonight, we'll swear you in. Miss Cedra, do you swear for
>> you swear and tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I I do. >> All right. M Sedra has been qualified in the field of architecture. >> We can accept him as expert. >> All right. Mr. Sedra, were you the architect responsible for the architectural plans that that are before this board tonight?
>> Yes, I am. >> Why don't you walk us through what we're looking to do? >> Sure. Um, for this lot, we are proposing a single family house. Um in sheet A01 on the right side uh you
will see the first floor plan where we see all the living spaces and also we have a onestory family room um separate kind of like separate from the house at the at the back of the house. Um, and we
have also a guest room with uh a sliding door that uh gets uh gets out to the rear patio and uh twocar garage. We have two-car garage facing uh uh west Hobart.
Uh the area for the first floor is 1,520 and we have a garage area of 432. Um the left side of the first floor is the basement where we have uh open space, bar area. We have a bedroom and a
playroom. The bedroom has its own uh egress window. Uh the next sheet A02 is the second floor. On the left side, we have four bedrooms with bathrooms and closets. Also we have a laundry room located at
the hallway. Uh the attic is accessible through pull downstairs from the hallway and we have an open space of um 42 square ft
um located at the stair foyer. Uh this open space uh counted two times but only used at the main level at the first floor. The livable area for the second floor is 1,620.
The floor area is 3,140 with the floor area ratio of 36%. uh the the design of the exterior it's a colonial style home with board and batten at the gable end and also we have
James Hardy's horizontal siding as the wall facade and then uh we have a base of stone uh culture stone at the at the base. Um um
we have a a small balcony 4x12 of the master at the second floor. And as you see in the rear elevation, the family room, it's only a singlestory family room. Uh as far as the variances,
we only applying for one variance here uh which is the floor area ratio where it's uh 30% required and we are at 36%. And we actually eliminating an existing nonconforming
uh front yard variance. >> That's it. >> And just to confirm, the attict itself is only accessible by pull down. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I will make a statement about the roof,
though. I really like that 6 on 12. Um, >> to put that on the record on the right on the correct application. Um, does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Come on up. >> Do this long enough, I'll I'll learn the right questions to ask.
>> That's okay. It's all good. Can you tell me what your what you what do you have for the lot size? >> The lot size I I have 8,730. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Okay, back to you. I'd like to call my last witness. Please do. >> Graviano.
>> Oh, there you are. >> Mr. Gravian, do you swear firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Graviano has been qualified in the field of planning and uh no emails, right, Nick? >> No. >> Okay. We can accept them as a as a
>> I don't think anybody at the state's working right now about it. >> Thank you. Uh just this one is requesting one F variance. The applicant is requesting 6%. Um as the neighbor just uh indicated uh this is a 8,730
square foot lot. Um the lot's roughly 645 square foot less than what's required by ordinance. Uh the applicant is proposing a dwelling which is below the habitable floor area by roughly 80 square feet. Um this lot's a little bit bigger than the last two that were were
subject to the to the board's approval. Um the applicant is uh creating a modest increase to the front yard setback of roughly a foot to bring it into conformity. Um the applicant is also a foot less in height than what's required by ordinance. So it's certainly like the
other applications uh keeping in mind the context of the neighborhood, the lot itself and the surrounding community um that F variance can be granted um advancing purposes of zoning AG and II without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Um
certainly a a nicely designed house that's uh in keeping with the neighborhood character. I also did have a chance to analyze the uh neighborhood um on foot as well as uh through aerial and tax records. Um there there's certainly a good amount of uh homes that
are the same square footage uh on similar size lots within the surrounding community. >> I have no further questions. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Did anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay. Does anyone in the
public want to make any statements regarding this application? >> Come on up. >> Hello again. It's all right. Welcome back. >> Um, >> sorry. Let's get you warning. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight,
>> Alan Bear? I do. >> Okay, go ahead. Um, so the last conversation we had gave this very good context and I I first just want to say I I can't tell you how much I appreciate the challenge that you all on the board have and having to
balance the requests that you get from applicants and variances and making those accommodations and at the same time trying to safeguard our zoning laws and representing the rest of the town of Livingston that's not here. I can't tell you Mr. Dr. Weissman, how much I
appreciated your no tonight. It's a hard balance that you strike. Um, and the conversations that we just had around, well, the town council is working on it and it's out of our purview. This is a perfect case where it is exactly in your
purview. So, when I looked at these three houses that were bought by a developer, not by a family who owns them, they knew they bought three undersized lots. I think it's very flexible and nice that the town of Livingston decides to accommodate um
property buyers like that to say, "Hey, listen, we shouldn't have any R4s that are below 9375." So, anyone who does buy an undersized lot, it's an anomaly and will help get you up to the 70 the 9375 that really every R4 should have as a minimum. That
to me is a a perfectly reasonable accommodation to make of anyone who buys an undersized lot. In terms of that balance, I'm an R4 property owner. My lot is exactly 9375.
I cannot build bigger than 2812. That's my max. I can't go up to 3220. My lot size doesn't accommodate it. And these folks know when they bought the lot that they bought the size for that they'd have to build a 2600 square foot house or if they got a variance they could
maybe get it up to 28. But instead they buy an undersized lot and they hope to come here and get the 30% 30% HF ratio that everybody else in the town of Livingston has to live by. And they look and seek a variance for no
good reason other than they want to build a bigger house and make more money to sell it. And that's every house that we do that to, we lose another starter home. And so I would I would representing the other R4 owners in town
very much support the applicants variance to get them up to the same size house they could build as any other R4 owner um who owned a property lot like mine at 9375 which would allow them to build a 2812
lot. That would be approximately a 32.2 two ratio with a 2.2 variance would get them up to building the same size house that they could build on any R4 lot that had the minimum, but their lot is smaller than that. So, they want to be
able to get that variance and that that part of the variance, the 2.2 makes total sense. Building above that is completely an arbitrary decision that you have to make. whether that poses a hardship or not or whether it's helping the community, I would make the case that that harms the rest of the
community and is actually against um enforcing the zoning laws that are in place, the 30% that all the other R4 owners have to live by. There's no good reason why you have to buy an undersized lot and build up to 3100 or 3200 ft. >> I'll let me just quickly address one
thing is that the zoning laws allow for 3220 square ft. So you can build up to 3220 square feet in an R4, but you would be possibly over on your ratio, which is what these past
few applications have come in saying we need ratio as opposed to floor area. So third, you could build to 3220. You might go over on your habitable floor area. You'd have to come to us to get relief. So any owner, any homeowner could still do that.
>> Correct. But without without seeking relief or a variance, you have to build to the actual lot size. Um, so if you're under 10700, you're you're you're building below the 3220 and you're building closer to 2812, which is, you know, >> or if you're at 6,500, you could be
building down to 1,800, which might not be >> right. But now, if you if you if you're telling the rest of the R4 owners in town, don't worry about it. If you want if you have a 9375 lot and you want to build bigger, just come to us and we'll give you a variance. Then that's the message that you would be sending that
it's not a big it's not a big leap to jump. You know what I'm saying? Um but from our perspective, the lot size has to support what you're building. And listen, I think if you build buy an undersized lot, you're pretty lucky if you can come to this board and get a variant so that you actually can build
to the minimum. um trying to build to the maximum um when you've already knew what you were buying. It seems like you know starting to say when when do we decide that we're going to enforce the 30% ratio that
everyone else lives by. I get you people who come to break that ratio. They're break they could be breaking it because of you know a setback or a non-conforming site. They're not doing it just because they want to build bigger and and and make more profit on on a house. So at some point we need to
control and make a decision in town that hey, you know, 20 years from now, >> let's target a 20% inventory of starter homes that are >> Okay, sir. I don't mean to interrupt you or anything, but thank you so much for making your point. It's very well taken. It's very, very well taken. And thank
you very much for coming in front of the board. It's community members like you that, you know, give us perspect that that um coming from you, it means a lot and we appreciate that. So, thank you very much. And if you have any questions, you can always get in touch with us as far
as what the lot requirements are and the setback requirements are. We'd be happy to go over those with you, but we also adhere to the, as our attorney likes to say, we're a quasi judiciary board. So, we have um certain legal restraints as well. So, thank you very much for coming tonight. >> Can I add one thing also?
>> Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. I want to add also which I again I just want to reiterate. I also appreciate I think it's great that you're coming out. I think it's great anytime that member it gives us such a much informed view of what our fellow neighbors are thinking. So I think it's
>> one more last comment. Just make one last comment. >> Last one. >> No, you can't. No, sir. You can't. No, no, >> well the second the second point I wanted to make because you brought up a point again. It's not just for you, but you the um our neighbors bring up a
point. Obviously probably a lot of people feel the same way. I wanted to clarify it's not we're not just bound by uh the town laws. It's not just a number. There's also uh the municipal land use law and some case law that goes along with it. So what you're hearing
tonight is you're hearing there's uh sections that go under what's called a C1, a C2, and then there's the uh the ratio which was goes under D, which is a it's a different standard. is as these experts can tell you that we're somewhat
bound by the law. Okay? Because they're these these experts are are proving to us or show giving us evidence that a lot can accommodate which is a little different standard than just the square footage, right? And we have to listen to
that as well because as a homeowner, you don't want the the town to be liable for for not approving something that we have very good testimony and we agree with that a lot can accommodate which is might be a lesser standard than a square
footage. So it's not just we look at the number and go we we and I agree with you. It's not like dimminimists are close enough. That's not what's happening here um that we think that they're close. you know that we're relying on a different standard based upon the statute and case law.
>> Thank you. Okay. Um I think you said you were done. Did you say you were done? I don't know. Quick. >> Oh, you're done. Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? >> Yeah, I actually want to make a quick statement. Oh, I'm sorry. And yeah, thank you so much. And just what I wanted to say is exactly what uh the uh
commissioner just stated was that I believe that the proofs were put on the record specifically that the subject site can balance the relief that we're requesting here tonight and that is exactly what the case will ask of us. In addition, we have also eliminated a variance and taking in consideration the
fact that the H floor area is less than what is permitted within the zone and the elimination of the variance. I would imagine that we substantially outweigh any detriment that could be caused by this single family home. Not to mention the fact that as of right now, the state is currently going through the fourth round obligations for affordable
housing. Affordable housing doesn't just mean a unit, but also the bedroom count as well. And as we've heard multiple times from members of this public, bedroom count is very important to this township, especially considering that as the community grows, the uh how do I say
this appropriately? Um the parents of the parents want to stay in town and sometimes they also need accommodations within this house. And that is the exact focal group that we're concentrating on. So I hope this board finds in the affirmative. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sorry I cut you off your board. >> You never apologize.
>> All right. Someone want to make a motion. >> Make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> All right. >> Mr. Horn. >> Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sherman.
>> Yes. >> Uh, Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Miss Convot. Yes. Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Wish everybody happy holidays. Happy new year. >> Happy new year. >> Happy new year.
>> And adjourned. Motion to adjurnn.