Good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is November 25th, 2025. If you're [clears throat] an applicant for a D or use variance, you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons for the grant of the variance
exists and that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston. You should also be aware that in order to be granted such a variance, you will require affirmative vote of five members and 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, 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 of decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're objectored to any type of variance has
been granted, you too may appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision. If you file an appeal, I ask that you please copy provide a copy of your complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the open public
meeting act, also known as Sunshine Law, adequate notice of the meeting was provided to the Star Ledger and West Essics Tribune and a copy was also placed on the Bulling Board in the municipal building. In addition to having notice posted, notice the 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'd like to address the board, please come to the front and use the microphone so we can make sure your comments or questions are part of the
record in advance because everyone will be gone at the end. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Um, and could we call the role please? >> Absolutely. Looking forward. Okay. Mr. Kenya is here. Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Sha >> here. >> Mr. Sherman is out. Mr. Yun
>> here. >> Mr. Wiseman >> here. >> Okay. Miss Khan >> here. >> Mr. beer >> here. >> Okay. We have a quum. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um if you are here for um 20 Melrose Drive
application 2025-74-V, please note this has been adjourned to December 9th. There'll be no further notice on that application. >> Okay. Can you call the first application of the night? >> Absolutely. Yeah. Block 5101, lot 28. Uh
15 Woodland Terrace application number 2025-69-V M [clears throat] uh Michelle and Andy Cohen. Applicant seeks approval for one-story rare addition and deck in violation of the following section 170-98C3
right side yard setback 10 ft required 8.76 ft proposed 1.24 24 ft variance requested. 170-98 C3 left side yard set back 10 ft required 9.6 proposed uh 0.4 ft variance
requested. >> Okay, welcome. >> Are you taking the lead, Mr. Dubinet, or >> um I think Michelle would like to just say a quick thing, but >> Okay, why don't we do this? Um you are Michelle and Andy Cohen. Okay. Uh, can
you please raise your right hand so we'll swear you in? Do you swear affirm tell the truth for this zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And um, Mr. Dubet will swear you in as well. Do you swear affirm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Mr. Dubin has appeared before this
board on multiple occasions, been qualified in the field of architecture. U Mr. Dubinet, uh, I'm going to make a wild guess that your license to practice architecture in say New Jersey is up to date. >> Not too wild. Yes. >> Okay. Uh so uh through you chair I think
we can accept Mr. Dubet as an expert in architecture. >> Unless there's any objections. Not seeing any. Uh we can accept you as expert in architecture. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So if you if [clears throat] you want to proceed, you you can. >> Thank you. Um Michelle, my name is
Michelle Cohen. This is Andy Cohen, my husband. and we've lived in Livingston for in our current house for 32 years. Um, we love our street. We love the neighborhood. And um, never spoken a
microphone before. And, um, we have two kids who went through Livingston public schools. Um and uh um just thank you for considering our application.
>> Thank you. >> And then you want um and you hired Mr. Jubet to handle the architecture on this project for you. >> We did. >> Okay. So, uh Mr. Juven, you want to >> Yes. >> us take you through this architecture? >> Yes. Thank you so much. Um happy
Thanksgiving everybody. Um this application requires two variances. Both are sideyard setbacks. Both are existing nonconformities and the need or the ask is that we
it's about let me step back a second. It's the house was built in 1941. It's a sidehole colonial. It has had no previous additions to the home. Although the exterior has been very very well maintained and there has been some interior renovations. This will be the
first edition uh this house gets. Uh there'll be no F uh or uh no F uh variances needed. We're we're significantly well I shouldn't say significantly. We have a very small lot but there's no F needed in this
application. just sideyard setbacks. And the need and the want is um quite simply they have a an attached garage. Sorry, I'm never good at manipulating
this. We have an attached garage um that we'd like to build a mudroom behind the garage. This way they could go well from their garage into their mudroom into their kitchen right now. Um, and I'll just show you some photographs. I think
that's the best way to give you a visual. Um, so in this photograph um, what you have in your package, basically this is the back of the garage and this is the entrance to the kitchen. So our proposed addition is a one-story
addition to the back of the house and in that addition there'll be a bathroom. They haven't had a bathroom on the first floor in 25 years. And a mudroom, cubbies, closets situation. So the sideyard setback existing is 8.76
and proposed is 8.76. So we're going to extend the existing nonconformity. Really quickly, the lot is 50 feet wide. So in the R3, the minimum required is 100. In the R4, the minimum required is
75. So the hardship is is I think based upon the existing lot and it's very interesting woodland terrace uh the one side of the street you know they're all 50 ft wide so it's it's very common that most of the homes are less
than 10 and it'll be a one-story addition in this portion of the property. And the second variance that we need is we'd like to put a deck on the back of the house. And we'd like it to line up with the side of the house on
the right side, which is well in this photograph too. The right side is this is the dining room window right here. So the plan is to can't wait. Put a sliding glass door. We walk out the
door onto a deck. Uh the deck is about 2 feet off the ground and we'd like to line it up with the edge of the house. The edge of the house is 9.6 feet and the deck would be at 9.6 feet and it's a violation about 3 in. And the only reason we're asking for that is because
we're here asking for the mudroom side. Otherwise, yes, we could pull it in three inches. But since we're here tonight, we'd like to ask you for the few inches to just make it line up with the with the house. Um, and real quickly,
and that's our proposed uh project. Uh, this is the proposed deck with the slider. And on the left side is the mudroom edition. And then it kind of I hatched it in with some new material here. This is the mudroom edition. Um, there'll be no
entrance uh from the mud room from the outside. you have to go into the garage into the mudroom. And I think the positive aspect of this application is we get them uh a much needed a little extra space in the
house. There's I don't see any negative impact to the neighbors of the neighborhood. And that's our application. >> Thank you. >> So you're keeping the offsets that are existing right now? >> Yes. And um no no new violations really
on either side. >> No. >> Okay. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this applicant? >> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this applicant? Does anybody in the public want to make a statement?
Does anybody in the board want to make a statement? >> Does anybody in the board want to make a motion? >> I will make a motion to Sorry. >> Make [laughter] a motion. I will make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Wow. >> We are hungry to approve everything. So, >> thank you very
>> Mr. Horn. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sherman. Oh, he's not here. Uh, Miss Yun. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations.
>> Thanks everybody. >> Okay. Block 4802, lot 4,25 West Harrison Place. Application number 2025-73-V Iconic LLC. Application seeks approval to construct a new single family house
uh new garage in violation of the following section 170-87 CC4 uh habitable floor area 30% allowed. 36.98 proposed uh 6.98 person variance requested. Welcome.
>> Good evening. How are you? My name is Venet Maven Curve from Maven Curve and Patel. I represent the applicant Iconic LLC. Um and uh I have testimony today from the architect as well as the planner who's seated to my right. So
with your permission, I'd like to begin with the architect. >> Okay. Well, we start with Mr. Cedra. All right. Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. M Sedra has been qualified as an architect before this board on many occasions and I know for a fact that Mr.
Sedra's license is good because otherwise he wouldn't be here tonight. >> Yep. Correct. >> Be on his way down to Trenton to renew the license. Uh so uh I don't see any reason chair why we wouldn't accept him in as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Does anyone on the board have any objections?
There there be no objections. We can accept you as an expert architecture. Sure. Thank you. Uh this is not actually the architecture plans. [snorts] >> Uh this one actually is the architecture plans, but I'm not sure why it's not in
sheets. Can I share my file? >> The low Hello everyone. >> Okay. Okay. So, we are proposing a single family house here. It's not a big house. Uh it's such a small house. Um where we have all the living spaces at the first
floor. Also, we have twocar garage facing the street. Um we also have a guest bedroom at the first floor. Uh the area of the first floor is 1,376. Uh and the garage area is 439.
Uh on the left side you will see the basement floor. The basement floor consists of one big open space on the left and on the right we have a bedroom with its own egress access. We have a shared bathroom, mechanical room and a
storage room. The area for the basement is 1,376. Um, the second floor consists of four bedrooms with closets and bathrooms. We have uh three bathrooms in this house at the second floor and also we have a
laundry room facing the front. Um, the design of the exterior of the building, it's a colonial style home. We have some uh AAC panel uh a lot of windows uh standing seam roof above the garage
and also we have board and batten uh siding and also horizontal lap siding and the base of the building is made out of stone. Um the drawing under it is the rear elevation has the same concept where we
have also casement window used for this building. Um the second floor area is uh 1,619. Uh the floor area the floor area uh of this house is 2995
with the floor area ratio of 36.98%. Uh we are applying for 6.9% u variance for the floor area ratio. This is the only variance we're applying for. Um the attic for this house is only
accessible from the second floor through uh pull down stair. And as you see the roof line, we have a hip roof in the middle with no windows. And then um and then we have these gable gable end roof that ties to the hip roof. Um the height
uh inside the attic from the attic floor to the underside of the ridge beam is 8'4. Uh that being said, the collar tie will be installed at 5'8 uh from the attic floor. Um and also we are in conformance with
the building height where the code requires um the maximum per code is 35 ft. We are at 33 feet 8 and a half. Um on this sheet you will see the diagram
that shows the square footage of the floor that I mentioned. That's all. >> So so sir just to be clear the design doesn't involve any expansion into the setbacks and or an increase in the building height beyond the acceptable limits. Correct.
>> Correct. No no expansions. >> Okay. And in your opinion, does the propo proposed architecture preserve adequate light, air, open space for the property? >> Correct. >> Conformance with the other houses around here? >> Correct. >> In your professional opinion, does the
project improve the functionality and livability of the home? >> Sure. Yeah. And does the design modernize the home, improve the aesthetics and enhance the the neighborhood? >> Correct. It improves the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood. Yes. >> Okay. But overall, would you say that it
maintains the character of the neighborhood? >> Correct. >> And uh would any portion of this new construction create any sort of adverse visual impediment as it relates to the neighborhood? >> No, not not really. I mean, it's a colonial style home and it's very well
known in this neighborhood. >> The style of the house. >> I don't have any further questions for this witness. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I do. >> Please. >> Um, on the first page of the diagram, it states there's a twotory foyer, but
yeah, when I look at the second floor, it looks like above that twotory foyer is a study room in the laundry room. So, I think something's incorrect. I'm sorry, which diagram you >> on the first page of the architectural plans. >> It states twotory foyer.
>> Oh, yeah. That's that's a I'll change that. >> Okay. So, >> it's not really two story foyer. >> And in your calculations of your square footage, you assume that was a one story. >> Correct. If you look at the last sheet, the diagram doesn't show any two story. It's a we count the whole square
footage. >> Okay. If you look at the AO3, uh, so that that's a type. I will remove the two story. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? That's it for this witness. >> All right. At this point, I'd like to list the testimony from our planner. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano, do you swear for intelligence for the zoning board tonight?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano's been um qualified in the field of planning on many occasions. Uh Mr. Graviano, your licensed to practice as a licensed planner in New Jersey is up to date. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay.
>> Does anybody on the board have any objections? There being no objections, we can accept you as a expert in professional planning. >> Thank you. uh Nicholas Graviano, Graviano Gillis, architects and planners for the applicant. Uh what is before the board this evening requested one D4
habitable floor area variance. Uh whereas uh the habitable floor area 3 is required. The applicants at 3698. Um as you heard in previous testimony, all other setbacks are being met by this application. I would like to note that
this is an undersized lot whereas 8,098 square feet exists today whereas 9,375 square feet are required by ordinance. That's what's nec necessitating this D4 F variance. I would also like to note
that the applicant is 225 square feet under the habitable floor area requirement at 2,995 square feet. So, it's just a touch under 3,000 square ft. So, it's a it's a modest home. I would also like to note that the applicant is fixing a currently
deficient sideyard setback which exists today at 8.4 ft. The applicant is bringing the new home into the conformance of the R4 district at 10 ft. I would also like to note that the applicant is under the building coverage requirement. Uh 24.3%
is required. the applicants coming in tonight before the board for 23.5% so uh the site is not being uh overburdened by the F variance request as you know uh with the F variance the
it's the applicant's burden to prove uh that the site can accommodate the proposed building given the request for the F variance uh certainly the site can accommodate the proposed building given that it meets all required setbacks also meets the required building coverage of
the district and is under the height requirement uh permitted by the district. This proposal certainly advances uh purpose uh a of the municipal land use law promotion of the public health safety morals and general welfare but providing new housing that's built to current codes. Uh,
additionally, it provides uh advancement of 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 saw with uh Mr. Sedra's impeccably designed building, it certainly promotes purpose
eye, a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Uh there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the board's granting of the habitable floor area ratio variance this evening.
>> I have no further questions of this. >> Does anybody have any question? [clears throat] >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for this applicant? >> I have a question. I just need a clarification. Um on the civil plan um the zoning table there are two lines of
the lot. One is a lot area of 8,000 plus square feet. Another one is a lot area within 125 ft of street line. Can you um explain the different like um how big is the lot?
>> Uh as I said previously the lot is 8,98 square ft. >> Okay. So it is an undersized lot for the district. >> Um there is a second line says lot area within 125. So the 6,91
square ft that lot area has that's not the real actual lot area, right? The lot area is 8,000. >> No, that that's so the lot's longer than 125 ft. >> So that's that's why you have those two separate numbers.
>> See? Um, but that's an existing condition. So, the uh administrative officer does not call that out as a variance. >> Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification. >> No problem. >> Did anybody else on the board have any questions for this applicant, this
witness? Um, does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Nope. That's that's it for this witness, I guess. Um, No, just just just say no. No closing.
>> No. No. Yeah, we're just going to close. >> Okay. Uh before you close, anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this application? >> Feel free to close. >> All right. So, uh the testimony you hear today address both the positive and negative criteria required for approval
of this variance. U as you heard, the applicant seeks approval to permit the the H F of 36.98 where 30% is permitted. No other variances are being requested and the proposal complies with all setback height and uh lot coverage
regulations outside of that. Uh so the only relief that's uh involved is interior massing that is the amount of interior habitable space and it's not an expansion of the of the uh exterior bulk or footprint of the home. Um we uh you've heard uh very credible testimony
that it advances the zoning purposes, the benefits outweigh any detriments, uh and there's no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. Uh it also remains consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood and it doesn't impair impair the zoning plan or zoning ordinances. So for these reasons,
the uh variant should be granted. Um the law states that the variant should be granted where a deviation from the zoning audience would ordinance would advance the purposes of the municipal land use law and the benefits would substantially outweigh any detriment. We believe that that's been proven here today. Uh and we would appreciate a
positive result on this application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anyone on the board want to make a statement? >> So this is a really interesting street. I don't think I'd ever been on the street before because on the one side you face the post office and the construction for Summit Medical and on
the back you have this really large lot and then you have Hobart Gap. So, it's really interesting in that there's the original. Let's see. It's it's pretty pretty long. Um it was I'm looking for the number. Is it No,
>> 149. >> Um rear yard setback. Where is that? I can't find Here it is. Um 72 was the existing, right? and now it's 49. So, you're really doing all the building in the back, which you can because you have that that lot in the back. So, the bulk of the house you won't even really see
from the street and also bringing the house in a little bit to meet the setback requirements. Um, I think it's um fits the street aesthetically and I think it's a positive addition to the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else want to make a statement?
Does someone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it. Okay. Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Cha. >> Yes.
>> All right. Uh Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bear. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. >> Have a great Thanksgiving. >> You too. Thank you for your time. >> Okay. Block 1303, lot 66, 7, Taff Court.
Application number 2025-99-V. >> Have a good one. >> 18 Tower Road LLC. Uh, applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 170-87 BB4 habitable floor area
3,220 ft allowed 3398 ft proposed 178 variance requested. >> Good evening everyone again. And it's my great pleasure to be before you. >> Welcome back. We haven't seen you in a while. >> I'm Steven Champus. Nice to see you. >> Still.
>> Yes. Still. May I be seated? >> Please be comfortable. Put your feet up. [laughter] >> Well, good evening everyone. Again, it's my great pleasure pleasure to be here this evening. This uh evening we're here on behalf of 18 Tower Road. Don't let it throw you off. Uh it regards property at
7 Taft uh Lane. Uh the property is the subject a court, forgive me. seven ca calf calf court and we're seeking one variance this evening with regard to habitable floor area the flat number. Uh we're requesting variance to have 178
square ft uh in access of the maximum permitted. Uh you're going to hear testimony that the lot uh that's the subject of tonight's application is the largest lot on the block. It is approximately 40% larger than the minimum lot area required under the ordinance. Uh the pro project uh
proposal comports with all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance save one. Uh we have some testimony this evening on behalf of the applicant by John uh Babula. Mr. Babulla is a licensed architect. So he prepared the plans that are subject to tonight's hearing. He also brought an exhibit with
him to give you a little flavor of the neighborhood and uh the size of the lots around us. So without further ado, I'm going to ask Mr. Babula be sworn, place his credentials on the record, and then give us his testimony. Hey, do you swear firm tell truth to this uh zoning board tonight? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And uh as M Chevz indicated um has been um qualified as in the field of engineering >> uh architecture. >> Architecture. >> Yes. >> Okay. It's the tie. It's throwing me off. Just slip it down. Um field of architecture uh before this board in the
past. >> Isn't that funny? That's the That's the truth. >> Yeah. It's it's like it's like a Samson without the hair. Um so uh Mr. Bula has been qualified in the field of architecture uh before this board on prior occasions and your licensed
practice in the field of architecture in state New Jersey is up to date. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh chair. >> Um does anyone have any objections to this uh witness? There being no objections uh we can accept you as an applicant as expert in architecture.
All yours. >> All right. Very good. Mr. Bull, why don't you tell us a little bit about what's on the property today and describe the lot, the size of the lot, the shape of the lot, the improvements on the lot, and then what's proposed as part of this application. >> Okay. Today, uh, as it exists, uh, there
is a split level dwelling, uh, on the lot. Uh, the lot is known as seven Taft. Um, and it is, um, 3,400 uh, uh, square feet in lot area where 12,000 is
required. Uh the lot size is 92 by about 120 uh where 75 by 125 is required. Uh the existing um front yard is 35.5 where 40 is required and we are proposing 40.4. So we're actually improving an
existing nonconformity. Uh the sideyards are required to be 10 on each side. Um existing is 12 and a half and 11. Uh we're actually improving that as well, making the new house more narrow where we're going to have 15 and a half on one side and 16 on the other. Uh the
combined sideyard required is 27.3. Uh we will be at 31.5 which is um about 8 8 ft better. Uh the rear yard 35 uh 35 ft is required in the rear yard. We will
be at 44.4. uh the habitable floor area. Uh this is what requires the v variance. It's a maximum of 322 or 300 3,220 square feet. We will be at 3,398
ft which is 178 square f feet over. The habitable floor area ratio is 30% required. We will be under that at 25.3%. Maximum building height is 35 ft. We are at 33.3 and the maximum building coverage
allowed is 3,500 um 3353 and we are at 2245 so almost 1,000 square feet under the building coverage. All right. Now, Mr. Babulla, you were kind enough to prepare a an exhibit for tonight's hearing uh
and uh consists of uh copied a tax map, some photographs. So why don't you first identify for us uh the number of pages on this exhibit uh what the contents of the exhibit are and then perhaps you can tell us a little bit about the exhibit >> and for the record we'll refer to it as
exhibit A1. >> A1 works. >> Sure. Uh sure. A1 uh consists of six pages. Um it starts off with the uh tax map and um about five properties that are neighboring our subject property. >> All right. So let's take it page by
page. So, why don't we hold off one second? Yeah, hold on. Hold on. You're moving too quick. So, so let let me ask a couple of questions so that we can all catch up with your train of thought. Now, the first page of A1 is a copy of the tax map of the township. Correct? So, it's
an official document, >> correct? >> Now, I noticed that uh it appears that the subject property is highlighted in green. Is that fair to say? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, you've also identified uh four other properties by addresses. What addresses do you list there?
>> Uh to the right is um number five Taft and then on the corner there it is number 26 Washington, 28 Washington Court, and 30 Washington Court. >> All right. Now, uh the subject property is highlighted in green. What is the lot area of the subject property?
>> Uh about 13,000 a little over 13,000 square feet. >> And what is the minimum lot area required by the ordinance in this zone? The R4 zone. >> Uh 12,000. >> Now, I made a statement earlier. I'm sorry. I think you misstated that. If you just take a look under the required
>> Oh, I'm sorry. The the lot area required is 9,375. >> Okay. So, a little under 10,000 ft. >> Correct. Now, I made a statement earlier that this lot was 40% larger than the minimum lot area required. Is that an accurate statement? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, take a look at the other lots
on Taff Court. How does our lot compare in lot size as compared to the other lots on Taff Court? >> Uh, is it's bigger than all the other lots. >> Okay. So, we are the largest lot. >> Yeah. >> And I assume it has something to do with the geometry, the fact that we're on the elbow or bend of the road. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. So now let's talk about the other properties that u or the other pages of the exhibit. So why don't you walk us through the next page of exhibit A1. >> Uh the second page is a area of photograph uh from uh Google Earth taken in uh April of this year. And it's just
showing the the mass of the other houses that we're comparing it to. Uh the roof lines that are there um as compared to our house and our new house. >> Page three. >> Yep. Page three. Um so if you were coming off the main road and you were
traveling down Washington, uh number 30 is Washington. Um on here is the page three. It's uh lot 70 and it's approximately 2,982 square feet with a lot area of 10,400. And then uh the next page we have 28
which is next to it. Uh this is another two-story colonial. It's a newer house here. This house here is approximately 3,100 square ft uh with a lot area of 9,600. The following page, this is uh 26 Washington, which is the one that is on
the corner. Um, I'm showing two pictures of this here because it is a corner lot and just to show the mass uh as you turn onto Taft that it does look like a much bigger house than it is. Uh, and this house is approximately 3,000 square ft with a lot area of 9,100
square ft. And then the next and last uh house is the house next door to our house, five Taft. This house here is approximately 3,480 ft with a lot area of 12,000. >> Okay. Okay. So, is it fair to say that the house that's immediately adjacent to
the subject house is on a lot that's slightly smaller and the house is slightly larger? That is correct. >> Okay. So, Mr. Babulla, why don't you tell us a little bit about how uh you're proposing to improve seven Taft with the new house? Maybe we could take a look at the diagrams, show us what the house
will look like, and then walk us through it. So, uh, we designed a, um, modern two-story, um, farmhouse kind of style, uh, with, uh, vertical batten board siding, uh, some architectural peaks, asphalt shingles, and, uh, some cultured
stone and, um, standing seam metal roof to to break up some of the textures. Uh, that that theme is, uh, for all of the, uh, elevations. Uh, we have a a full basement, full open basement here for utilities.
Uh the first floor is consistent of uh most of the living area with the uh family room open to the kitchen, a living room on the left side, dining room on the right side of the foyer, uh twocar garage. Behind the two-car garage, we have a guest bedroom with a
full bathroom and a half bath on the first floor. The second floor we have uh four bedrooms and uh two bathrooms with a laundry room as well on the left side here. >> Okay. Now, it seems to be a common
concern as to whether there'll be like staircase going up to the attic, whether there'll be habitable area up there in the attic. Is there going to be a such >> No, there's going to be no uh habitable space in the attic. We have a set of pull down stairs to access that attic area. Um, and the attic area itself is
about nine feet high to the peak, but the collar ties will be uh at around six and a half to seven feet. All right. Now, Mr. Babull, I'm going to read um a line from the or a couple of lines from the 2018 master plan of the township and it's specifically on point with regard
to the ordinance from which we seek relief. And then there's a standard of concern that I'm going to ask you to address. In the uh page 24 of the 2018 master plan, it reads, "The larger homes resulting from tearowns, rebuild, or expansions may so greatly exceed the
size of their immediate neighbors and others in the neighborhood as to alter the appearance of that neighborhood and adversely affect the visual environment of the zoning district. So, can you tell us whether this proposal for an additional 178 square ft of floor area
in this house would have such a negative impact?" I don't think so. From the street, it still meets all the setbacks and it um because it's a larger lot, it this lot can accommodate this size house. Uh again, it meets all the setbacks, so you won't be able to tell uh it that it looks bigger than it
should uh to the properties to the left. It's conforming with them and it's it's uh in line with those. >> Now, as far as what's there today and compared to what you're proposing, how is functionality affected? Uh the the split levels are difficult to
to get a good living area with. There's many stairs to deal with. Uh trying to put in an addition on a split level um it always makes it look lopsided because you have to either go over one side or the other. Uh so this this kind of just makes it more uniform.
>> Okay. Now with regard to the overall visual appearance, let's say you just added another level to a split level or uh you came up with something uh in expanding it in some other way. How does this uh impact the visual appearance of
the property as compared to what's there today or even what's could have happened if we just added to the existing house? >> Again, I think uh this this blends in better. This is a more modern style. Uh it's more pleasing to the eye, I believe. And with the split levels, they're they're just um they create a
lot more roof lines than than you need, I believe. >> Okay. Now, let's talk about sideyard combined. The ordinance requires a 30% sideyard combined as compared to uh both side setbacks. So, tell us how do we comport with sideyard combined?
>> Uh we are under the sideyard combined. Uh required is 30% or 27.3 combined and we are at 31.5. And what about just a standard sideyard setback? >> Uh the 10 10 ft is required and we are 15.5 and 16.
>> So the house that you're proposing being narrower than what would otherwise be permitted by ordinance, would you say that that would be a benefit to the neighbors as compared to having something that was at the setback line? >> Uh yes, certainly. >> Okay. So this is even a better alternative than what the ordinance would permit. >> Correct.
>> Okay. I don't have anything further for Mr. Pool. Does anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Babula? Can >> you just repeat what were the what were the setback the new setback lines >> on the sides? >> Yeah.
>> Uh 15.5 and 16. >> Those are the sideyards. Does anyone else on the board have any questions for this witness? um through your chair council. I note on the tax map and maybe and it's also shown on uh
what's up on the screen that on the one corner of the home there is a drainage easement and a sewer sewer easement is is that am I correct on those?
>> It says it's a 10-ft uh sanitary sewer easement. >> Okay. So, it's two separate easements. >> Um, I think it's all one. A sanitary sewer. I think that's the main line that runs through there.
>> Well, because I'm looking at you show I think you show uh 20 foot wide total easement. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Yes. But because on the tax map it's one says drainage and one says I
think one says sanitary sewer. I see that. Yeah. >> Okay. So, uh we would agree that as a condition of approval that uh those easements would be unaffected by any construction going on here. I believe
that those are related to township uh easements. >> Yes. With the exception of the driveway, which we're pretty much leaving the existing driveway where it is, and that easement does go over the driveway. Um >> the the current driveway is is already located >> in that area. Correct. Yeah. Okay. But
none none of the new construction will affect the easement. >> We did receive commentary memo from Anthony Maruchcci, the assistant township engineer. He commented on the easement and had no concerns. >> Okay. But as a condition of approval to continue to >> maintain
whatever the requirements are of the ement, >> some basic form. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this applicant? >> More statement.
>> What? What's uh he's got close first before we do a statement. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. Um >> well, let me let me ask let me put out there somewhat of a statement, but I want to get your spine. I'll tell you my concern because I want want to give an opportunity to answer here. Here's my concern. Um and I think it looks great.
The house looks great. I think it's a great improvement to the neighborhood, the design, the look, etc. What what I get concerned about is the legality of going over what's a hard cap on the on the square footage for this zone. Um so it seems
like there needs to be uh a benefit to the community that substantially outweighs go violating what is the maximum. So my and in this particular case, if there's something like a double wide
lot, then I could see it. It makes sense to fill up the lot. It would be better for the community as a whole to have that we would want a bigger house on such a lot. My concern here is that the actual face of the lot, you know, which
the the public sees is only 65 wide, which is actually, I think, 10 ft shorter than the required and and much shorter than all the rest of the block. And now we're putting uh this house that's going to violate the current
zoning square footage. And it seems like somehow we have to make the the leap. And that's what I'm asking you to help me with that just having a large backyard should somehow warrant that
who if you have a big I don't I don't want it to be that if you have a big backyard you just uh build a a bigger house. Um and I I do appreciate which I do and it was an influence on me that you are making it narrower in the setbacks and all the improvements. So I
don't want to discount that. I think that is important that that does influence me. Um it's just that we're going 178 approximately one bedroom size over, you know. So then I start to ask myself, why not just keep it within the code? It's why not just make it 5% less
of of 178 and and then and then we're in compliance. So that that's that's what I'm grappling with here that I'm having a problem with. >> I'm glad you asked and you know why? I have your answer. >> Oh, okay. So, uh, in anticipation of that question, I would bring to you, uh,
it's actually found, I can't plagiarize the, uh, Cox horn book, so I'll read for you from section 35-2. And it addresses these type of variants. It should read, uh, reads as follows. Um, Randolph Township, I'm sorry, Randolph Town Center versus the Township of Randolph
324 NJ Super at 416 and PEL division case. Therefore, the applicant for such fd4 variants need not show that the site is particularly suited for the more intensive roof uh uh more intensive development. Rather, such an applicant
must show that the site will accommodate the problems associated with a floor area larger than permitted uh by the ordinance. So, the benefit >> that wasn't ratio, that was floor area. Thank you from Randolph. Okay. >> Yeah. Now uh as relates to the standard
of proof if you consider this as the Dvariance which the board has historically considered that even it's the flat number it's not the benefits to the neighborhood uh standard like you would have on a C2 and and it's an unusual standard and the Supreme Court has yet to speak on it but it the
standard that is is held by the appellet division which we are you know which we deal with is that will the site accommodate the problems associated with the additional floor area That's the positive criteria. Of course, the negative criteria still remains will there be any substantial negative impact to his own plan, the zoning ordinance.
And I believe that if you know, you consider what Mr. Baboula stated that because the lot is 40% larger than what's uh required by the ordinance even though it's a little narrower but it's a the actual shape of the property is a trapezoid that allows it to be larger
because it's narrow in the front and pans out in the back that we do u satisfy the concern that the site can accommodate the additional floor area. Now you look at the additional floor area it's 178 square feet. So the first answer question you may pose is well why
don't you make it comply but that's not the standard. The standard is can the site accommodate the additional floor area. So with that being the the standard of proof we submit to you that the site can accommodate the additional floor area. Now that standard is
something that we're um we're required to satisfy and I believe that we've satisfied it. So I'd ask that you just limit your decision- making to what the standard is for this particular variance. And now when you look at the negative criteria, certainly it's a vast improvement from what's there today as both in function and appearance.
Secondly, as Mr. Babula pointed out, the house immediately to our left is on a smaller lot and it has a larger house. And then the two other houses immediately contiguous to us are are appearing the basically um similar in character and on also smaller lots. So
this being the largest lot and not being the largest house, it certainly is appropriate for this particular lot. Now, I know it's not your standard review of hardship. I mean, you're always trying to figure out where's the hardship. Well, there's no hardship. So, that being in case you could forget about it because it's not the standard. So, it's the standard in this Randolph
Township case. So, we ask you to apply that. >> What's What's the name of that case? >> It is um Randolph Town Center versus the Township of Randolph 324 NJ Super at 416.
>> Can I see something as well? Thank you so much for explaining. I appreciate that. Um the other thing and we I guess this is sort of what we're talking about. We haven't actually said it is this lot is not quite but almost an R3, right? And the R3 proposed um lot size
is 15,000 square feet and the it's 3520 is the habitable floor area. So we're under that coming in at 3,400. So we're under what an R3 would be. So it's sort of in that sort of fuzzy gray area. So I do believe that this house does accommodate or the lot does accommodate
the house. >> And you know what's nice about that is that the very function of the board of adjustment, not to lecture you on your function, but is to pro provide for adjustments in the zoning when you know not everything fits within the confines of the zoning and sometimes you need a
tailor made suit depending on the circumstance. So we ask you to adjust the zoning as it relates to this project. >> Well, thank you for >> Yeah. Thanks. and and and I'm also commenting so I live about few blocks away from there and the current house it feels like it's never ending it's
constantly addition addition right so cleaning that up you put one nice house I think would be a uniform house would be better versus what's there today so yeah good job >> just I want to just clear something up with regard to Mr. Kenya's uh statement. You
are not within the 200 foot zone when you said you live nearby. >> Absolutely not. If I was, I wouldn't be here. >> No, I just, you know, just >> just nor did I receive a letter. So, >> we don't need to. >> Just one for the comment. I mean, it's about 178 square ft o over. However,
given it has the double foyer, which I calculated to be about 110. So, that's a little quirky nuance. Yeah, I do math. So if you take the double out, it's really about 68 square feet over. So a minor adjustment. And again, as we said, it's a oversized lot for the area. So um
I think it's a good addition to the neighborhood. >> And as the attorney say, you got to be a little flexible. So [laughter] >> anybody else in the Does anybody in the public want to make a statement regarding this application? Councelor, back to you if you want to close. Uh, I don't have anything else to
say. Thank you for your time and your consideration and we'd appreciate it if you would approve the application. Thanks. >> Does anybody want to make another statement? >> I think with statement out, anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> With the uh with the conditions of
approval that we stated during the hearing with regard to the easements. >> Yep. >> Okay. Mr. K. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sha. >> Yes. Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Wiseman, >> I am going to approve. >> Approve. Yes.
>> Approved. [clears throat] Okay. Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. Take care. >> Okay. The next one, block 4,800, lot 5713, Crescent [snorts] Roar, application
number 2025-77V. Zack Goldstein. Applicant seeks approval. a first and a second floor addition and rear roof porch in violation of the following sections. 170-99 C2 front yard setback 40 ft required
36.22 22 feet proposed 3.78 ft variance requested 170-87 CC4 habitable floor ratio 30% required 34.75% proposed 4.75 person variance requested.
>> Hi there. >> Hi. >> I assume you're uh Mr. Goldstein. >> Yes, sir. >> Welcome aboard. >> Thank you. >> All right. So uh Mr. Goldstein, you're here and you brought your architect. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay, I'm I'm Okay, I'm I'm back on my game. All right. So, Mr. Goldstein, are
you going to be making a statement because we're going to swear you in >> or we're just going to rely on? >> Yeah, I'm the architect testify on his behalf. >> All right. Can So, can we please have your name, state, and spell your name, ma'am? >> My name is Ruchi Dhar. I'm here as an
architect. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey, New York and Maryland and I have testified before many zoning boards. I have bachelor's of architecture degree and uh I'm also ENAB certified >> and my license is active. Uh the address
is 81 Falcon Road, Livingston, New Jersey. >> Okay, very good chair. >> And just uh one question, where was your education for the record? >> I did my BR from India but I got evaluated through the registration board here. Just for the record, we always ask
>> I'm AIA and ANARB certified. >> Perfect. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions, objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objection, the witness is accepted as an expert in architecture. >> All yours. The floor is yours. >> All right. Thank you. I'm going to describe the project. Uh, the project is
located at 13 Crescent Road, Livingston, New Jersey. It's in the R4 zone. uh lot is 57, block is 4,800 with the total site area of 8,581 square ft. So my client acquired this in
2021. It's a single family colonial home. The existing home has three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and an attached onecar garage. We are proposing one-story edition of 225 square ft and a porch in the rear of the house where we
currently have a a patio. Um I can show you some pictures of the house. That's the front. Um this is the side. This is the back of the house with the paved patio. This is the left side. So uh we are proposing a one-story
addition of 225 ft in the rear and uh also a 662 ft of addition on the second floor. Now, this addition would allow basically a reconfiguration of rooms on the first floor and the second floor. Um,
here's the floor plan. Uh, this addition would basically create five bedrooms, three bathrooms on the second floor. The proposed exterior finish would be board and bat, vinyl siding, asphalt shingles on the roof. And that's that would match the existing
house which also has the vinyl siding and the asphalt shingles. My client's family is growing since they purchased this home in 20 um 20 21. Thank you. And with the second child now in the household, the additional space would be
needed to accommodate their needs and they plan to stay in Livingston for a long time. Um I want to review the two variances now for what we are asking. One is the front setback variance which is as per the zoning regulation 170-99
C2. The minimum frontiard setback required is 40 ft and we are proposing 36.22. U let me show you the site plan. This is an existing house which is a two-storied
uh existing home and this has an existing condition of 36 feet 258. and we basically are um doing the addition at the back and the first flow addition of 225 square feet. So our variance
request is 3.78 ft since the proposed front setback is 36.22. The second variance that we asking for is the habitable floor ratio. We are under the habitable floor area number which is basically the maximum required
is 3,220. We are under that. The one that we're asking for is the habitable floor area ratio. As per the zoning regulations 170-87-C4 the required is 30% of the site which means 2574
ft is what's required. What we have proposed is 2982 which is basically 8 34.75% of the um site and hence asking for a variance of 4.75%.
So these requests for these two variances are due to the hardships that are caused due to the lot size. If you see the R4 zone um the standard size is 9,375 and our site is 8,581 which is
undersized. The lot width is standard is 60 ft. U I'm sorry the minimum lot width is 75. what we have is 60 ft which is also these are pre-existing non-conforming conditions um and hence that's the ask for the two
variances tonight the positive aspect that I see the positive criteria that I see is that this house is going to go well with the neighborhood it's a colonial house uh they will get the open layout adequate lighting adequate open
space for their family and the design would basically support the master plan goal of Livingston which is basically preserving and enhancing the community's residential character. I think the addition is compatible with the architectural style of this house.
It fits well with the neighborhood and going back to the negative criteria. I'll just touch few things. I don't see that there's going to it's going this addition is going to increase traffic in the area [snorts] and there's no substantial negative impact. the um it's overall going to
improve the value of the house. The design of the house is going to be aligning with the neighborhood style and I don't see a substantial decrement detriment in the to the public good. I can go over the plans if you would
like to see. >> I don't know if that's necess necessary. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. Okay. So, we have an undersized lot. >> Correct. >> And if this was a fulls size lot, you probably wouldn't be before us for the >> for the area. Right. >> Right. >> Um shape
>> and uh Right. So, you have the shape which is also you're keeping the setback. So, that's pre-existing. >> Um >> it's just the front setback that's pre-existing. >> Yep. Um Okay. >> Otherwise, we're keeping the side setbacks and the rear setback and
>> Yeah. >> All right. Does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this application? Does anybody in the board want to make any statements regarding this
application? >> Does somebody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Horn >> approved. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya approved. Mr. Sha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mission.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Good luck. >> Block 2904, lot 2124 Oakwood Avenue.
Application number 2025-82-V. Dorothy McCabe. Applicant seeks approval a first and second floor addition in violation of the following section. 170-98C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 30 ft
proposed 20 ft variance requested. 170-98C3 sideyard setback 10 ft required 9.11 ft proposed which is existing uh 0.89 89 ft variance requested 170-87
L1C corner lot 40 ft required 14.76 ft 76 ft proposed 25.24 ft variance requested. Okay. So, uh who's Dorothy McCabe? Okay. Hi, Miss McCabe. All right. So, you're
self-represented. You're the applicant and uh yes, ma'am. And >> I'm Sarah McCabe daughter. >> Reading. >> Oh, well the the I had the I had the I had the cliff notes version. >> Okay. So, we have we have we have the McCabes. All right. [laughter] So,
obviously you're gonna Yeah, I know. It's the It's the tie. >> We're all We're all We're all muddling our way through it. Uh All right. All right. [laughter] >> Uh, so, uh, why don't we, uh, swear, um, one or both of you is going to Okay,
sure. All right. Why not? Uh, do you swear affirm, tell the truth, uh, before the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. All righty. Now that we got through that, why don't you tell us what you got and uh, fill us in a little bit on what your plans are. >> Sure. Just um, you know, we need more
room. Basically, it's a tiny house. [snorts] It's a tiny house and so um we've got um you know my daughter and I live there now plus we have an 80 pound um therapy dog so we need more room. It's an older
house. It hasn't been I think it was built what is it 90 uh 37 maybe when it was built and it hasn't changed at all since then. Um so we're really looking to get some more wiggle room. my grandson who now lives in Virginia is
going to move back to New Jersey and take up more space. So that's basically our our request is just to we need more wiggle room. We need more room to move around a little bit >> and the lot itself is just very narrow and long. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So you have an undersized lot, right? I'm reading that correctly. >> Yes. And in the front, why don't you describe uh to the board what you're doing in the front?
>> Oh, in the front there's an existing screened in porch, and we're going to just enclose that and make it into the foyer. And then the um the steps to the porch will just kind of turn to the side and run along the front of the house.
>> Okay. And you have a question. >> So if I if I read this correctly for the three variances, right, they're all preexisting conditions. >> Yeah. >> Right. To the current house. You're not
actually changing any of the current setbacks or anything. You're just reconfiguring any correct the space within that compound of the current non-conforming issues. Correct. >> Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horn. I was trying to get there. Um [laughter] I just takes some time.
>> Yeah, a little slow. Um okay. Does anyone in the board have any other questions for these witnesses? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this these witnesses? Does anybody in the public want to make a
statement? I didn't think so. Does anyone in the board want to make a statement? I'll just say that I think that um this is a great addition to the street. There's a lot of construction on Oakwood right now a lot and I think this will be perfect with everything that's going on.
I think it fits the lot perfect very nicely. Um and um I commend you on the design. >> Thank you. We're excited. >> Yes. I I I'll [snorts] I'll second my colleagues comments. It's trying to make things fit without going crazy and
that's appreciated. So, >> and it's a great neighborhood. Yes. >> You know, it really is. >> Would anybody like to make a statement? >> Would anyone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Horn, >> approved.
>> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Mr. Shaw. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Miss Yan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. from Carish. >> Congratulations.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> I can't wait to see it. >> Me, too. [laughter] >> Just make sure the architect gets moving on it. Okay. The one without the tie. I mean, you're supposed to have a tie. Bow tie. Okay. Architect bow tie. He's out of whack today. Take care.
>> Block. >> He's been trouble for years in town. So, [laughter] >> block 2906. Lot 42. 21 Beerbrook Lane application number 2025-83-V Drew Goyle and Upsa
applicant seeks approval for the sideyard sideyard addition in violation of the following section 17098 C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 35.66 66 ft proposed 14.34
ft variance requested 1709 C3 aggregated side 30% required 17.66 66 person proposed 12.34 person variance requested. >> Welcome. Good evening.
>> Good evening again. [laughter] >> Hi there. >> Okay. >> Um yes. Uh so sir uh why don't we find out who you are? >> Sorry, can you repeat that? I didn't get that. >> What's your name? >> Drew. >> Okay. So you're the property owner, correct? >> I am.
>> Okay. Okay. And you have your architect with you tonight who's going to handle uh the presentation for us? >> Yes. >> Okay. Good answers. All right. Why don't we swear you in again just >> My name is >> My name is Ruchi Dhar. I'm a licensed architect.
>> You're you're you're you're good. This is this is all my time. I'm good for >> Sorry, >> I have the wrong tie, but I'm good on this one. >> Do you swear for him to tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> That's right. >> Okay. and Miss Dart was literally
minutes ago accepted as an in the field of architecture. Uh so >> we can accept her as a as a expert in architecture. Thank you. Moving >> right along. >> Did you ask her if she got an email? >> No, no, no. There wasn't time for an email. [laughter] >> I'll straight away jump to the project
and describe a little bit about 21 broke plane Livingston. This project is in the R3 zone. Uh lot 42 block 2906 has a total sight area of 15,036 square ft. My client got this property.
It's a split level home, single family detached in 2020. The existing home has five bedrooms, four bathrooms, and an attached two-car garage. We're proposing a singlestory addition of 388 square ft. Now I can show you on the site plan
where that is. Um it's on the side of the dwelling and this c will accommodate an additional bedroom and a one bathroom. Uh the maximum height of the proposed addition would be 12'5. The um the proposed exterior finishes
would be vinyl siding asphel shingles on the roof and that would match the existing house appearance. The two variances that I'm going to just talk about is the front setback and the aggregate side setback. The rest of the
regulations, they meet the zoning. Um I can show you the chart. The only two variances we asking tonight is the front setback and the aggregate side setback. So the front setback is the minimum
required is 50 ft. Proposed is 35.66 66 ft asking for a variance of 14.34. The second variance that I'm going to talk about is the aggregate sideyard setback. The minimum aggregate required is 47.4 four which is basically based on
the um the lot width at the um at the house which is basically 158 ft and our lot measures 158 ft at this um which I can show you the
location 18 158 ft and this 30% of the sideyard setback would come out to be 27.9 ft which is basically 17.66% 66% of the lot width. Hence we asking for a variance of 12.34%.
I can uh now talk about the two cype variances which are driven due to the lot shape. The lot is irregular shape. It's a triangular shaped. Um if you see this the front it just tapers down at
the back. We meet the sideyard setbacks which is on one side it's 10 ft. What we are asking is the front yard and then the aggregate of the two sideyard setbacks. Um from an aesthetic standpoint, the
proposed addition is designed to align with the existing home. We are kind of matching the roof line. Also supports the master plan for preserving and enhancing the community's residential character. The addition is compatible with the existing house and it fits well
in the neighborhood. Um I don't see any negative impact. No increase in traffic. No um not it's not different in design compared to the neighborhood design. And the storm water management is was also my concern. But this would be handled by a civil engineer which uh would be hired
by the client later after the variance is approved hopefully and uh he is going to handle the lot surface drainage plan for uh before the permit approval. So hence I believe um it doesn't have
any substantial impact and I uh I can answer any questions or concern you have tonight. >> All right. So the mo most of your problem is just due to this the shape of this lot which is about as triangular as you can get. Right. >> I don't know if we have many more
>> this bizarre shape. >> It is it is the weird shape of this site um that creates this issue with us. Yeah. Um, and all you're doing is really extending on one side. >> Yes. >> And you've actually kept it uh 10 feet from the line to maintain that
>> side back. >> Yeah. So, you kind of squeezed it in as best you could there. >> Correct. >> And the only reason that the front yard setback is increasing from the current, you're keeping the house straight. The curve of the property just means from that end point, right?
>> But otherwise, you're keeping it to the same flat to the card. >> Correct. That's right. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for this witness? Got any questions or statements you want out there in the audience? >> I didn't think so. Okay. Um, does anybody at the board want to make any
statements? >> Yeah. I' I'd also add that maybe more comfortable when you visit the site that the uh the neighboring lot is is above because I looked at it and you could have done something where you gone straight up and generally we approved straight up but I see you went out but I
don't I think that's actually less intrusive to the the neighbor because their their grade is is higher up to the left. >> Yeah. The topography of the site is like it slopes from one end to the other which is basically north to south. It slopes down about six feet. So Right. >> Yeah. You're right.
>> That actually I do have a question. I'm sorry. So you're going to the slope is going to go into the house or you going to add walls? >> Um so this is a one-story structure, >> right? >> It's going to align the floor the new addition. >> Correct. But I'm talking about that side slope. How does that land? Where does
that land? I was trying to figure that out. >> So it's going to slope towards the house, but the the civil engineer would be proposing some kind of a French drain to cater that. Okay. >> Because all the rain >> So you're not going to add a wall or anything though. You're not going to um >> separate with the retaining wall. No, >> I don't think so. I mean, that's
something I'll leave it up to the professional >> to help us. >> Depending on where it is, you might need to come back for that. >> Uh right now, we don't anticipate that a retaining wall would be required. They're gradually going to slope it. >> Yeah. Okay. I just was that was something I forgot. Thank you. Um does
anybody else have any statements to make? Would someone like to make a motion? >> I think she did a wonderful job. piece of puzzle to fit in that kind of >> unusual lot. So that that's great job. >> Thank you. >> And if that I can make a motion to >> Please do.
>> I'll second it. >> What would be a motion for to approve? >> To approve. >> To approve. >> Okay. >> Second the motion to approve. >> All right. Mr. Kaney, Mr. Horn, >> approved. >> Mr. Shaw, >> approve. >> Okay. Miss Young, >> yes.
>> Mr. Wiseman, >> approved. >> Miss Kant, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Good luck. >> Okay. The last applicant >> block 4707 219 York Terrace application number
2025-84-V. Eric >> uh I was like first time ever I had a hard time. So thank you. Applicant seeks approval for the second floor addition over existing garage and front porch in violation of the
following section. 170-99 C2 front yard setback 40 ft required 31.58 ft proposed 8.42 ft variance requested. Second one 170-99C3
aggregate sideyard 30% uh required 26% proposed which is existing 4% variance requested 1709 CC3 left side yard setback 10 ft allowed 7.66 66 ft proposed 2.34 ft
variance requested 170-99cc 3 right side yard setback 10 ft allowed 8.25 ft proposed 1.75 ft variance requested >> okay welcome
>> all right and um so you are let's get you sworn in Mr. Chev. And if I mispronounced your name, I apologize. Uh you swear affirm tell truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay. >> All right. Why don't you tell us why you're here? What you got? And
>> Okay. So, u first off, my architect has two other meetings tonight. That is why he could not come. But I have been to a meeting here before in 2018. So, I and I've listened to these so I think I'm familiar with it. Um I'm the homeowner. >> Bring on. >> What was that?
>> Sure. So, I'm the homeowner. Um, I moved in in 2015 with my wife Barbara. We now have two two sons, five and seven. Um, we did put on an addition, uh, an office edition off the back of the house in 2018. Um, where we went straight with
the sides of the house and that variance was approved. U, the variance we're requesting today is to go over the garage with a master suite to extend our current relatively small bedroom. uh add in a closet and add in a master suite, a
second bathroom on the upstairs because uh my boys are starting to get older and we're going to need a second bathroom. Uh so in terms of the variances for that, it would be the two sideyard uh setbacks. Uh again, we are maintaining
the exact same with the garage and the other side of the house is existing. We're not touching the other side of the house, but in terms of over the garage, um again, we're just matching. Um and again in the rear we're matching with the current back of the house. Um
so that I think is all with that one. And then in terms of the front yard setback um we are currently uh already too close to below the 40 ft. So we are um we are going closer than we are now.
But if you look at one of the photos that I have, um we currently have a kind of falling apart little closed in breezeway that we would like to replace. And um really the front of our house is kind of plain right now. We would like to just make it look a little more
appealing and add a a covered porch across the front of the house. And um a lot of the other houses in our neighborhood do have these porches and we think it would look really nice and fit in and we we really like the look of it. Um, yes, it is closer than currently that breezeway. Um, but we are going to
um pull that sidewalk back a little bit hopefully that we so we can um have a nice sitting area out front of a modest size six feet, but um we would it it's not habitable space and it's just going to be um covered with some columns.
That's our our goal. Um yeah, then the only other hardships would be just that our lot is kind of tapered in and squeezes in on the sides. Um we do get along great with our two next door neighbors, so I don't think that's an issue, but um again, we're
only a couple feet under. Um and then and I did attach some um we did get an adjacent uh we got some um the setback survey of the adjacent properties. Um they're all we're all fairly fairly the same. We all do have
this similar kind of small enclosed porches u or closed breezeways. Across the street there are some of these longer porches that we we do like the look of. Um and we just kind of want to spruce up the look the front of our house just cuz um it's from the 40s and you know we would we're going to be
doing all new siding uh probably a new roof at the same time just to spruce up everything. So I think that's the overall scope of the project. And I would like to say I was also the last the last hearing in 2018 as well. So let's try to keep this quick. [laughter] I got lucky both times.
>> That's a lucky spot. >> Yeah, it's true. >> All right. So you're uh you're building directly over the garage. You're not changing any of the uh offsets of setbacks there or anything else. >> Correct. >> And the only thing is really the front. You have an undersized lot though, right? >> Mhm. >> Pretty uh 2,000 ft under.
>> Mhm. >> So some of that might go away if it was a fulls size lot. that's also slightly awkward shaped, >> I guess, if you want to call it as a word. I There's no particular >> name for the shape of your lot. >> Squeezed. >> Yes. So, um I think it's a I think it's
a nice addition. Squeezing it in kind of. >> Um I don't think the porch is a problem. I was on the street. Seems to blend in well. Um >> areas under >> and have both floor areas under. Yes. As my cohort to my left noted. Um, does
anybody else have any questions or comments? >> I I appreciate I feel like everybody takes these older houses in this town and just takes them down and starts over again. And so I appreciate you trying to modify it to accommodate your growing family. And trust me, having a 12-year-old son, I don't know how the hell you're sharing a bathroom with the
two boys. So, um, that to me is your hardship. [laughter] >> I have a question or more of a clarification. Yes. Uh so from the picture um there's a little uh door not not even a doorway a little like uh bulb
out you're actually just extending it. Yeah, it's going to be it might come out one more foot, >> right? That's all. >> But it is going to be the full with >> Yeah. So already the full front is already there. Just extending it to a bit longer, right? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Understood.
>> Anybody else have any questions, statements, or comments? Anybody like to make a motion? >> I'd make a motion. >> I'll second it to approve. >> We are. We are. >> He's playing the role of Tom Herman tonight. [laughter] >> Okay. Mr. Horn >> approved.
>> Mr. Kenya approved Mr. Sha >> yes >> Mr. Miss Young >> approved >> Mr. Wiseman >> approved >> okay Miss Khan >> yes >> Mr. beer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you very much, guys. Thank you.
>> I hope not. I hope this is our last one. [laughter] >> That was the goal. >> Motion to adjourn. No pizza for