Hey, hey, hey. Good evening and welcome. Welcome to the public hearing of the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today is September 25th, 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 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'll require
a firm vote of five members of the seven member board of adjustment. Other variances require a majority of four members to grant that variance. If you're an applicant for any variance and your variance is denied by this board, you have a right to appeal to the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of
decision and that court may overturn the decision of this board. If you're objector to any type of variance has been granted, you too may appeal to Superior Court of the State of New Jersey within 45 days and notice decision. If you do file an appeal, I ask that you please provide a copy of
your complaint to the planning administrator, Jackie Hollis. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, also known as the Sunshine Law, adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the Star Ledger and the West Tribune, and a copy was also posted on the Bolden Board of the Municipal
Building. In addition to having notice posted, notice of this meeting was placed on the township's website. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time. When the time comes, if you would like to address the board, please come to the front and use
a microphone so we can make sure your comments or questions are part of the record. We will now call the role. Mr. Kenya. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya here. Mr. Horn >> here. >> Mr. Sha Mr. Shai is not here. Mr. Sherman >> here. >> Miss Young >> here. >> Mr. Weisman
>> here. >> Miss Soho >> here. >> Miss G. >> Yes. Here. >> Mr. Beer >> here. >> We have quorum. >> Great. Um before we get going, we have four uh three applications that are adjourned to October 28th. There will be
no further notice. That is for uh 20 Cambridge Road, 10 Twin Oak Road, and 24 Cliffside Drive. So if you're here for any of those matters, you can go home and we'll see you in October. Otherwise, Mr. Kenya, will you call the
first application, please? >> Absolutely. Would love to. Block 409, lot 1633 Mount Haven Drive. Application number 2025-66-V, Rodak Homes. Uh applicant seeks approval
to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 170-87 BB4 habitable floor area 30 to20 ft allowed 3519 ft proposed 299 ft variance
requested. >> Good evening. My name is Matthew Patada. I'm from the law firm Sills and Gross. I first want to say for those who celebrate, happy new year. >> Thank you. >> You betcha. Uh we are here tonight to discuss an application that was carried over from last month. Reason being is
that we heard the comments from both the board and the public and we understand that the proposed improvement itself had to be more consistent with both the zoning ordinance as well as the master plan. Initially we had pro offered to reduce the size of the hab floor area by approximately 300 square ft because we
thought that was satisfactory considering the fact that it was an oversized lot. With that being said, we have since then further reduced the habital floor area. now by approximately 479 square f feet that the total I believe is 3519 and we will have tonight two
professionals testifying to both the proposed changes as well as the variance relief and our architect Aean as well as our planner Mr. Nick Rabiano. If I may, I like to just call my first witness up, our architect, Aean Cedra, to go over the revised plans. >> Please do. >> Okay. Miss Cedra, do you swear for tell
the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Uh, I man Cedra, last name is Cedra Sed. >> Okay. Mr. Cedra has appeared before this board on numerous occasions, been qualified as an architect. Mr. Cedra, your qualifications as an architect in
the state of New Jersey are current. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you're going to be testifying as an architect tonight? Correct. Okay. Uh chairman. >> Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? >> There being no objection, the witness
accepted as expert in architecture. >> I would just ask that your uh experts uh bring it home >> in terms of uh the testimony. Okay. >> We're going to try our best. We're rounding third. >> I knew you would. >> Hopefully. >> Hopefully. And Mr. Sedra, just to confirm, your license is still in good standing.
>> Yes. >> Terrific. All right. Why don't you walk us through those proposed revisions that we have made? >> Um, so we revised the floor plan that was uh submitted last month. We reduced the size of the building and the footprint. Um, the layout in terms of
the numbers of rooms and design didn't change much. We just reduced the square footage. Um, for example, the first floor used to be uh 2016 square feet. Now we are at 1,729
square ft. Uh the garage used to be 447. Now it's 438. The second floor used to be uh 1,982. Now it's uh 1,791.
So we have a total of u habitable floor area of uh 3,519. the previous application uh the number was 3,99 998 square feet. So we reduced the size
of the building by uh 479 square ft. That's the reduction we did. Um the habitable floor area ratio we are at 21 uh.6863% which is way under the the 30% that's
required uh by the R4 uh zone. Um we also reduce the height of the building uh by approximately 1 ft. Um the we have an open space uh on the
second floor for the for the twotory foyer. Uh this space about 43 square ft. Uh it's uh counted two times but it's only used at the first floor. Um the design of the exterior uh it's a
colonial style home. We um you know we used some uh stuckco on this house and stone at the base. Um and also I would like to say that the design of the exterior can be tweaked by the contractor. Sometimes they change the
material on the outside. Um but uh the overall design uh as you see it's a colonial style with uh some modern uh accent. Um we we have also casement window dark roofs uh and we
have standing seam roofs at the front of the building. Um, and the attic is only accessible from a pull down stair located at the second floor hallway. And
the attic height from the ceiling from the top the the floor of the attic to the underside of the roof is 6'3 and the collar tie is at 4T. Um, that's pretty much everything. Also,
I would like to mention that we eliminated the front yard variance. So, now we we're in conformance with the front yard. Um, >> and Mr. Sel, real quick, can you just walk us through on the floor plan just briefly on what was reduced? >> I don't think that the floor plan has
anything really for the board to consider. I think we're just talking about reduction the overall size, right? >> That's correct. >> Yeah. you know, floor plan doesn't really it's not really uh jurisdictional and applicable. So, the issue is actual
floor area, how he cuts it up. Yeah. >> Bedrooms don't really matter. >> Uh so, >> okay. >> I have no further questions for this witness. >> Does anyone in the board have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Okay, your next witness. I guess >> I'd like to bring my my last witness, my planner, Mr. Nick Graviano. >> Okay, Mr. Graviano, you swear for untell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano's been uh Can you
please state and spell your name for the record? >> First name is Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V is in Victor. I A N O. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano has been accepted as a planner before this board on many occasions. Mr. Graviano, your license to practice as a professional planner state
New Jersey is current. Is that correct? And that's how you're going to testify tonight as a planner. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I hope that. Go ahead. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness? There being no objections, the witness accepted as an expert in professional planning. >> Okay. I know the board has a lot of
cases tonight. I'll keep this brief. The applicant is before the board this evening requesting a C variance for the habitable floor area. Whereas 3220 is permitted. The applicant's requesting 3519. I would like to note that the applicant
when revising the plan took into consideration the maximum habitable floor area of the R3 district which is 3520. This is actually a lot that exceeds the minimum lot size of that R3 district. So it's certainly a proposal which took into consideration the characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. Uh that relief can be granted under the C2 criteria. With the C2 criteria, as you know, the hardship need not be demonstrated. What must be demonstrated that it relates to a specific piece of property? Here you have block 49 lot 16 an oversized
irregularly shaped lot 16,271 square ft whereas 9,375 square ft is required. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that it advances purpose of zoning of the municipal land use law. This proposal
advances purpose a promotion of the public health safety and general welfare of the community and some other things of note for this application. Uh this application reduces existing deficient sideyard and aggregate sideyard setbacks. Therefore, this proposal is
more in conformance with the zoning ordinance requirements. Um therefore promoting purpose A of the MLUL. Additionally, it it 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 then lastly, it promotes purpose I desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. Uh there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of the applicant's variance request. This is an
extremely oversized lot. This lot can accommodate the additional modest 299 extra square feet with the additional 6,896 square ft of lot area that this lot provides. Uh, additionally, there's no substantial impairment to the master
plan or the public good with this proposal. >> I have no further questions. >> Does anyone in the board have any qu questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make
any statements? Does council want to make any statements? >> I appreciate the offer, but I'll wave. Does anyone in the board want to make any statements? >> I'd just like to say thank you, Rate. I think you uh heard some of our concerns in the last meeting and I think you've
appropriately addressed those. So, I appreciate that. So, thank you. >> I'll second that. I'll third that. >> Sounds like almost like a motion. I wait for the chairman. >> Would anyone like to make a motion? >> I would make a motion to approve. >> I will second that.
>> M Mr. Sh Mr. Horn >> approved. >> Mr. Chairman >> approved. >> Mr. Kenny approved. Miss Young, >> yes. >> Okay. Mr. Wiseman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. beer.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Motion carries. >> The button there. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The next >> Please call the next block 21103 lot 2012 Laurel Avenue. Application number 2025-59-V
shown and Shalaka Jooshi. Uh and >> hold on one second. Yeah, because Mr. Mah's not here. >> No, no, Mr. >> Yeah. Yeah, we're right. >> All right. Not 10:30 yet. >> Yeah, you're correct.
>> Yeah. You're great. >> Open. I did it right. >> Yes, >> you did. You did it. Not only did you do it right, you did it great. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Okay. Can I go now? >> Feel free. >> Absolutely.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. I'll repeat myself. Block 21103, lot 20, 12 Laurel Avenue. Application number 2025-59-3. Sean and Shalaka Josie and Scott Hoffman. Applic applicant seeks appro
approval for a first floor addition in violation of the following section 170-98C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 46.3 uh proposed uh 3.7 ft variance requested.
>> Hi there. Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Can you identify who you are? >> I'm Sean Zoshi. >> I'm >> okay. Okay. And you're the owners of the property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And you're going to present the uh your request to the board tonight. Correct. >> That's correct. >> All right. So, let me swear both of you
in. >> Do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> We do. >> Okay. All right. So, uh Mr. Chairman, why don't we let them tell us what they were looking to do? >> Tell us your story. >> I'll give a quick overview. Uh thank you for the opportunity to be here. Um so,
we're looking for approval for three and a half uh feet of variance. >> 3.7. Thank you. And uh the main reason we're doing this is uh we have parents visiting from India and when they come they stay over for a couple of months and so this expansion will make it
easier for us to sort of be together for that period of time. >> Okay. >> Is the front which one is uh >> the front of the house? >> Which one of those images is the front, Mr. Joshua?
>> Um it's the bottom right. >> Sorry. You can you can go up. That mic will that mic will get you. >> This is what will move up basically. >> Okay. So the the variance you're seeking
is relative to that only part of the house. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. It's not the whole frontage across. >> No. No. It's just the living room. >> Living room and the the foil. The >> All right. And the basis for moving that addition out is that you have family members and it would be more
advantageous uh to have more room for you and your family. >> Um >> did you did you take a look I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Did did you take a look at the other homes that are next to you whether or
not they're set back? The homes to the left and right of you are are are they further back from the road from you or closer to the road from you? >> It's currently the similar. >> They're similar. >> They're similar.
>> Okay. So, if you were to do the addition on that piece, would it be would you be in front of them or about the same? >> About the same. So, the one to our left is a little further ahead and the one to our right is a little uh further back. So, I mean Yeah. So you're basically
just moving out the front of the house and you're going a little bit past the front where it is right now. >> 3.7 just a couple bit. So just a little slightly behind right now. Okay. That's all that you're doing. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> You uh while you have a fullsize lot, it looks like the depth of your lot isn't as big as what the zone requires by about 25 ft. So would it be fair to say that that's helping to squeeze you a little bit and
forcing you into the front a little bit more than you would be >> in a way? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> He wasn't trying to >> we need we need to have some rationale. >> I was just like >> we're trying to have we we need rationale for why >> that's right.
>> Yeah. We can approve this. >> Um does anybody else on the board have any questions or >> Yeah. Yes. And and adding to that point, it appears from the plans that you also already went up in the back to the to the setback line. It appears you're already at >> 40, correct? In the back. So, you can't
really go without violating the back. >> That is my understanding. Yes. >> Right. Okay. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Would anybody in the board like to make
a statement? Would anybody in the board like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Okay. Miss Young, >> approve.
>> Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Bear, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Very good. >> Thank you so much. deal. >> Okay. >> And we're not that bad, right? It's easy.
>> Block 5700 lot 16 six cartridge roar application number 2025-64-v 6 cartridge LLC. Applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 170-98C2
frontier setback 50 ft required 44.7 ft proposed 5.3 ft variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor ratio 21% 30.3 proposed 9.3% of variance requested.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board. John Barbaru on behalf of the applicant. Tonight we have uh Aman and Nick. I think you just seen them. They again going to testify as both architect and planner. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that
anything happened to Aman's license in the last 15 seconds. So I would ask that he be qualified as an architect and we would start with him tonight. >> Okay. Metra, why don't we just do this? Uh, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. We already have Mr. Cedra's name
on the record and I would agree with Mr. Barbar that more than likely in the past 10 minutes Mr. Cedra's qualifications are not being called into question at least as an architect. >> Thank you. >> I think we can accept you as a expert architecture. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aman, could you
please go over the uh proposal before the board, what we're asking for tonight, and what you have designed for this application? >> Sure. Uh we're proposing a single family house. Um the first floor consists of the all the living spaces and also we
have a guest uh bedroom and also we have twocar garage. The floor area for the first floor is 1,56 and the garage is 425. Um to the left of that we have the basement. Uh the basement is a a big
space for uh will be used as a wreck room and also we have another bedroom with uh its own egress access. Um on the left side corner also we have a media room and a playroom.
Uh the area for the basement is 1556. The second floor on the left here uh consists of four bedrooms uh with closets and bathrooms.
Also, we have a laundry room. Uh we have uh the pull down stair here. It's in the hallway as you see it. Um to access the attic, the attic is only accessible with the pull down stair. Uh the area for the second floor is 1,664.
that will give us a total of um habitable floor area of uh 3,220. Uh also I would like to mention that we have about uh 90 square ft of uh an open
space at the foyer. Uh it's only used uh at the first floor, but it's open at the second floor, so it's not used at the second floor. Um the the house is a colonial style house with we have James Hardy shingles at the top. We have some
AAC panels. Uh we also have at the first floor the horizontal lap siding with uh stone underneath at the base. Um and um
for regarding the height uh for the attic uh we have uh 7 foot n from the attic floor to the to the unders to the underside of the ridge beam and we have the collar tie being at 5'6.
Uh the hat the attic will not be used uh as a habitable attic. It will be only for storage and only accessible with the pull down steer. That's it. >> No other questions of the architect.
Spit the architect for questions for the board. >> Does anyone in the board have any questions for the architect or for this applicant I should say? >> Yeah. Question. Are you keeping the front wall of the house exactly where it is? >> That's what it looks like at the
>> 44. Yeah. approximately close 44 uh 30. No, actually the existing house at 39.7. We're sitting the front wall back to >> 44.7. >> Okay. So, you're demonishing that just moving back a little bit. >> The current house is much clo is closer.
We're making the condition more compliant. >> Got it. Thank you. >> But it still doesn't meet the 50. That's why we gave you the table showing the the various lots. >> Thank you. Yeah. Did anybody else on the board have any
questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay. >> Ask Nick as a planner. >> Okay. >> Uh his credentials. He's been here a planner before. If you could swear him in and ask that you would accept him for
planning testimony. >> I agree. Uh Mr. Graviano, do you swear a firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Mr. Graviano obviously has been qualified as a planner and his credentials have just likewise were just approved. >> We can accept him as an expert in uh
planning. >> Thank you. Uh Nick, you've heard the testimony of Awan. You've also had an opportunity to study the plans. You also have seen the uh the proposal the documents that we have given in terms of the average of the front yard setback. uh you are familiar with the property
and I would ask that you go through the justification why this is in compliance with the municipal land use act. Certainly the applicants requesting two variances before the board this evening. The first relates to the habitable floor area variance. Uh 21% is permitted,
30.3% is proposed. Additionally, the applicants requesting a C variance for the front yard setback. uh 44.7 feet is being requested whereas 50 feet is required. However, while it relates to the front yard setback request, I would
like to note that the applicant is meeting uh the ordinance front yard setback averaging requirements. Morgan Engineering in May of 2025 conducted surveys on the surrounding properties found the average front yard setback to
be 44.3 feet. The applicant's proposing 44.7 whereas 39.7 exists today. So the applicant's providing an additional 5T in front yard setback than exists today. Uh when it comes to that variance, that variance certainly could be granted
under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning A, G, and I of the municipal land use law without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance because it is within the spirit of the front yard uh setback averaging ordinance. The second and more
uh crucial variance request being tonight is is the F variance. Uh the applicant is on a drastically undersized lot. 10,635 square ft exists on the lot today whereas 15,000 square feet is required
uh by ordinance. Uh so essentially the applicant uh has a lot size which is more akin to the uh R4 district. It's a little over,300 square feet bigger than it would be required in the R4 district. >> Uh so the applicant when preparing these
plans as in the other application I was on took great care in designing this house and the square footage being request is akin to the maximum square footage of the R4 district. So this is certainly a request which is befitting uh of the
site uh and the neighborhood. There are houses of this size in this in the surrounding neighborhood. So, this is not a house that would be out of the ordinary. Uh the lot can certainly accommodate uh the increased F as the applicant is
not requesting any setback or coverage variances. Uh additionally, the building coverage uh 23.8% would be permitted under this lot. The applicants coming in at 198 point 19.8%.
So it's 4% uh less uh than the building coverage could be. So this is certainly a situation when you're looking at the floor area ratio variance that the site can accommodate uh this dwelling withstanding the request for the increased F. Uh that variance certainly
could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. uh the applicant's undersized lot is dictating this F variance and strict uh application of the uh municipality zoning ordinance would create practical difficulties in this
scenario >> and as we indicated the the maximum we're not anywhere near covering the maximum coverage allowed >> we're not come we're not close to the maximum coverage allowed as I said 23.8% is permitted uh we're at 19.8% 8%.
Additionally, um this property um is, you know, meeting off streetet parking setbacks and and all other requirements. So, >> and we aren't asking for any sideyard, rear yard variance, and we are in compliance with the uh average setback
in the front. >> Yes. With that, Mr. Chairman, I submit next uh for any questions from the board in reference to his testimony. Does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? >> I do. Sorry. Um, so the porch is shown
at six feet and then the stairs are shown 2 feet beyond the porch. Um, so you're allowed to violate 6 ft of the front yard setback. Um, so I believe you're at 8 ft.
We can fix that. >> The applicant will revise the plans >> so stipulate to uh correct that issue. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then Mr. Am's very good at quick quick revisions as you know.
Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realize that when I open up Thank you. >> That's all I have. >> Does anybody else >> witnesses I have on this application? Anybody have any other questions? I actually do have a quick one for the
architect and he might have said it and I might have missed it. >> What is the height from the floor of the attic area to the top of the ridge? How high is that?
>> Sure. >> 76. >> I have it to the bottom of the ridge. So maybe we'll add a foot to that. I have I have 7 foot n So it will be 8 foot n. >> So about 8 and 3/4. Okay. >> And then the collar tie at at 5'6.
>> Right. That was lower. I do remember you saying that. I just couldn't remember. >> Okay. Oh, hold on. Bless you. >> Does anybody else have any questions for either witnesses as I jump the gun? Okay. Anybody in the public have any
questions for this witness? Does anybody in the public want to make any statements regarding this application? >> Turn it back to you, counselor. >> Well, be very short. You have a very big calendar. I mean, I I obviously based upon we're going to modify a very good
catch here with the the front porch that'll be taken care of. But uh Nick clearly indicated that uh the municipal land use act has been met that the board has sufficient legal uh uh precedent here with what we have presented to uh
make this a uh a good application. I believe it is a good application and I believe we met all the criteria. I would ask that you approve S. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Does anyone in the board want to make any statements? Does anybody in the board want to make a
motion? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Okay. Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you so much. Uh, again, I hope that you had a wonderful new year. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I almost can dance out now. >> Oh, okay. >> You can dance your ass. We could do a horror. >> Don't don't ch don't challenge Mr. Barbara Ruler.
>> He knows me and I might do that. >> I appreciate all the consideration. >> Thank you. >> Lock 2907, lot 16 for Dorin Road. Application number 2025-75-V
Roadak Homes. Uh applicant seeks approval to construct a single family house in violation of the following section 170-98C2 front yard setback uh 50 ft required 45.72
ft proposed 4.28 28 ft variance requested 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 27% proposed 6% variance requested >> good evening my name is Matthew Patada
I'm still with the firm sells and gross I hope uh I represent the applicant of Broadac homes in connection with this application as previously mentioned it is for both a ratio as well as a front yard setback uh relief The application itself is proposing to demolish the existing improvements and develop a new
single family home which would include a new driveway porch as well as a patio. The subject lot itself is significantly undersized. In addition, the under uh the lot depths are also undersized and that's what's triggering the front yard setback relief and also the ratio
variance relief. Tonight, as always, I'll have two professionals testifying. I will have an architect, Aan Sedra, as well as Nick Graviano as my planner. I believe they've already been sworn in as witnesses today, but I guess we'll just reiterate it one more time, >> right? Um, you know, we're going to do
it. We're going to do >> Go ahead. I was just He was trying to get his attention. >> There was there was pointing going on. >> Uh, all right. So, Mr. Cedra and, uh, Mr. Graviano, why don't we why don't we do this Clifton style? Do you both swear and firm tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. And both Mr. Cedra, who's
qualified as an architect, and Mr. Graviano qualified as a planner. Um and we can accept um we can accept you both on your co-qualifications for this uh application. I just want to make one quick note. I see some people have come
up front. Um you'll be an opportunity as we explained earlier to ask a question of each of the witnesses and at the end if you want to make a statement that's when that comes at the end. Okay. So I just want to make sure it's clear because it gets confusing to some people.
>> I just want to look at the >> That's fine. I know. I just want to make sure if you want to chime in that you chime in at the right time. I'll I'll prompt you. >> Back to you, sir. >> Absolutely. All right. So, my first witness, uh, Mr. Sedra, why don't you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight?
>> Sure. Um, we are proposing a single family house for this lot. Um, the first floor consists of, uh, all the living spaces and also we have a guest bedroom. Um we have twocar garage on the right
side. Uh the second floor consists of the sleeping area where we have four bedrooms and uh every bedroom has a closet and a bathroom. Um also we have the laundry room. Um the
attic will be accessible with a pull down stair that you see here in the hallway. The area for the first floor um we have 1,749 square ft. The garage is 436.
The second floor being 1,767. Um the habitable floor area is 3516 with the floor area ratio being 27%. We also have uh 99 square ft of open space on the second floor that relates
to the two-story foyer. Um counted two times but used only at the first floor. Uh the house is a colonial style house with the Stuckco facade. We have two uh bay towers
uh at the front uh with AAC panels. We have stone at the garage wall and also at the base of the building. Um and um the building height uh the building height was in the required
height. It's actually 31 ft 11 almost 32 feet. Um the the attic uh is only accessible with the pull down stair. The height of the attic from the attic floor to the underside of the ridge beam is 7'4
boring the collar tie at approximately 5 ft. Uh that's pretty much everything I have. >> Uh just to reiterate, other than the variance relief being requested here tonight, all the bulk standards are compliant. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the height of the house itself is
approximately a little over 3 ft under what is permitted within the zone. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Does anybody in public have any questions for this witness? >> Please stand up. Do you want to
>> Yeah. Why don't we swear you uh do you swear and tell the truth before this board? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> David Levit, Lee VI tt, sixtory in road, Livingston, New Jersey. >> Okay, put your hand down. All right. You have a question for the architect? I'm
concerned the property we're on a hill and I'm concerned on >> Well, this is this is time for a question to the architect. If you have concerns, the board is more than willing to hear them, but the time to do that is
after we hear from the witnesses. So, if you have a question with regard to the architectural plans themselves, that's the time. This is the time to do that. >> Yes. How how what's the distance between the end of the property on the left hand side to where
>> the house >> the houses? >> Sure. >> And give you that in a sec. Can you zoom on this? >> Sure. Oh, I have to put you back in. And I'm also concerned that
>> give him give him give him a second to to answer that and then we'll go on next question. >> Can I copy this? >> Just open it. >> I'll open it from yours then. >> Okay. It's approximately 15.58.
>> That's not it. >> Is that correct? >> So, uh >> I have a team actually. >> So, Mr. Pada, you're representing that the distance between the homes is between the home and the lot line. >> Yes. Would be approximately 15.58
at the closest corner. >> All right. So, you understand that, sir. What they're saying is from the >> end of the building to the to the lot line is the 158 >> 58 distance and then obviously whatever distance from the lot line to your to
your home. >> I did have concerns. I don't know there's trees and I think they were marked with trees the demolition. How do I address that? Is this something I address now? >> Well, why don't we see if Mr.
can through his address. Uh, >> okay. So, you're talking about the the line from the house to the property line on the left, right? >> Correct. >> I have uh 15 foot uh.58. That's from the house. >> What are you going to do about the trees
when you do the demolition? >> Is the trees yours or >> Well, they're right on the line. >> Well, I I see the trees. They still exist. >> Is that the Why don't we why don't why don't why don't we the the tree removal
is not part of the the board's >> decision-m I know it's a very um valuable point for you to make as the homeowner I would just say that uh maybe after we're done here if it gets
approved uh maybe Miss Pada would be so kind as to the applicant's attorney to talk to you about that >> and see if there can be uh some understanding >> as to what's being done. >> We'll definitely clarify for the record
for them as to what we intend on doing with those trees during construction and also on the public notice itself does have the contact information to reach out to me. >> Right. And there are another concern that underneath that property there's some water table that we always get
leaks on our street that goes down and the the town's water company knows about it and it seems that it's underneath and it's a constant thing. can't be I don't know if it's going to be fixed once you dig everything up and I know this is >> too although this board doesn't have
jurisdiction related to the storm water I can attest to the fact that if this board were to find favorably the next step in this process would be to submit for a lot surface drainage permit to the municipality at which time the township's engineer would have an opportunity to recommend any type of
storm water improvements that he deems satisfactory to accommodate any potential issues and that's non-negotiable >> and That's on that property, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I do have some other Thank you. I appreciate it. >> No worries. >> Just a concern.
>> That's It's very very valid. >> I'm sorry. I gave you the wrong number actually. Can I go back to the distance from the building to the property line? >> I gave you actually the existing building, the one that's there now. That's the number for the existing building. But I believe you're asking
about the proposed building >> which is 18 ft 18.25. So you will have even more sit back on the on the proposed building. >> Almost 3 ft difference between the existing and the proposed. >> That's why you never trust the lawyer
numbers. >> Right. >> So the other side is going to be longer on the right side. >> Correct. >> The garage is >> that's where the garage is. Okay. All right. Miss Patada. >> All right. I have no further questions for this witness >> and I believe you opened it to the board
and the public. >> I think I did, right? Right. Okay. >> I would like to bring up my last witness, Mr. Nick Raviano, my professional planner. >> Right. Mr. Raviano's already been sworn in and qualified. >> Oh, that's right. >> Yep. >> You messed me up with the change in order. I'm very particular.
>> All right. So, uh, the applicant is requesting, uh, like the other application, the F variance, the habitable floor area variance as well as the front yard setback variance. Um, in terms of the front yard setback variance, the applicant is meeting the spirit of the ordinance with the
averaging. Uh, as part of the application package, the applicant averaged lot 15, 17, 18, and 19. Um, that average uh was within the allowance of what the applicant is proposing this evening. I would also like to note that
the existing front yard setback is 46 ft. The applicants coming here at 45.72 ft. So it's only 28 ft difference than what exists today. And as I said, it it meets the average of the of the neighborhood lots. Um so certainly uh
that relief could be granted uh under the C2 criteria advancing purposes AG and I. the municipal land use law without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Uh looking at the habitable F request, 21%
is permitted whereas 27 uh% is proposed the 6% variance. Uh we touched on some of the aspects of this application previously, but I would just like to take note of them because as we examined the F request, we examined whether or not the site can accommodate the
proposed use uh withstanding the request for the F variance. When you look at the height of the structure, uh this structure is 3 ft shorter than what's permitted by ordinance. Additionally, we discussed the minimum sideyard setback to the neighbor's property who's here
this evening. The applicant is proposing a sideyard setback of 18.25 feet whereas only 10 feet is proposed. Uh, additionally, the applicant's aggregate sideyard setback is plus 9 ft. Uh, and as I stated, the front yard setback's
only 28 uh feet, which is 3 in smaller uh, than what exists today. Uh the applicant is under the habitable floor area requirement of the ordinance uh at 3516 and as you heard Mr. Sedure indicate
before there are those areas of the foyer that are double counted in the calculations. So the true square footage is actually less than what's uh indicated on the plans. Uh certainly this site can accommodate the request in F. Additionally, there are homes in the
neighborhood which exceed the square footage. So, it's certainly not out of character uh with the neighborhood. And then lastly, I would like to note that this application also reduces a reduction in lot coverage, total lot coverage. Uh whereas 37.2%
exists today and 32.9% is proposed with the application. Uh the applicant is removing a pool and a considerable amount of pool patio concrete with this application. So certainly the uh habitable flu area
ratio variance the D4 variants and the C variance the C2 variance could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. >> And just for clarification the required sideard setback is 10 ft whereby we are proposing 18.25. >> That is correct.
>> Great. I have no further questions. >> Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I I do have one question. this um application is on a hill. Um how does is there any effect on the neighbors
downhill I guess sidelines or anything else? Any comments on that? >> None whatsoever. >> Okay. Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Come on back. Stand up. So, are you concerned because there is a
hill and we've always had especially the water and everything else that's coming down and I know this is a demolition question, but what happens with the demolition? It's right on my line. >> So, let me let me let me No,
Val question. You know, look, we we um so let me say this and Miss Patada kind of dealt with this before. So, anytime an a a builder is going to do something like this builder is doing, which is basically building a new home, there's a
whole series of responsibilities they have under building code. And the township engineering department is and code enforcement departments are required by law to ensure that they comply. They're required by law, but
then the township checks and among the things they have to do is to make sure that what they're doing there does not impact other properties. So they have a whole series of things they have to do with regard to soil erosion control.
They have to put up screens and nets and fencing and all that. So what that does and the town enforces that. If they don't do it, then the town comes out and enforces it. So the the applicant should they be approved has a long way forward
in terms of building this and among those things is to ensure that their work on that site does not impact anyone's site whether it's yours or anybody else's. So that's that's that's how that operates. >> I appreciate that. I just have one last question if I can. What if this is
approved when is the start of the construction or is that something I speak with? Well, there yeah I mean >> so normally uh let me just say this uh you know obviously these plans if they get approved there these are not what we
call final plans there have to be there's a lot more information has to be provided so there is a significant um amount of work that has to be done before the next steps are taken um so it's not like you know somebody's going to come out tomorrow but Mr. Pazada you
want to just say quick >> I can just tell you right now that Best case scenario for the developer, I would say three months from today, realistically spring. >> I appreciate Thank you for my concerns and my wife's concerns. >> We appreciate you coming out. We always
want to hear from the public. It helps it helps us make decision. >> It's a special little block we have in Livingston. And >> it's called home. >> Yeah, it is. 43 years. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? Uh, does anybody else have any questions for this witness? Does
anybody want to make a statement regarding this application? Okay. Does anyone in the Oh, sorry. Back to you. >> Nope. >> Okay. And >> just want to make a quick statement. So, thank you, Mr. Wel for making that comment about the responsibilities of the town, but I know that we can't make
this a condition of approval, but I know that you and like we'll go back and say that it's very important that they have the netting, the silk fence and that it stays up throughout the entire length of the of the construction and the demolition and that they are they keep um the site clean and you know don't
spill over into the neighbors. It's not a It's not our purview, but it's just something that we would appreciate you just going back and reiterating the importance of keeping the site clean. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> And does anybody else want to make a statement on the board? >> Would anybody like to make a Oh, sorry.
Someone say yes. >> I have a question. >> Oh, yeah. >> Mr. Pad is definitely going to be interested in talking to you. Don't worry about you don't have to worry about motivating me now. Uh, would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Okay. Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Okay, let's go. Let's go. Please call the next application. DJ block 2004 lot 4712 Tilden Court application number 2025-76-V Roadak home applicant seeks approval to
construct a new single family house in violation of the following section 170-87 CC3 habitable floor area ratio 21% allowed 25.7% proposed 4.7% variance requested Good evening again and again. My name is
I think it's Matt or Matthew. Yeah, of Columbus Gross and I represent again Roach Homes. Uh related to this subject property. Uh the applicant is here tonight requesting relief for ratio uh variance. Uh specifically although the rat ratio exceeds what is permitted, the
actual habitable floor area itself is undersized. The lot itself also is undersized. And the other issue with this subject site is the topography. Uh we'll get into further details about that in a moment. But first, let me uh introduce my architect who >> why don't we get everybody we'll get
everybody sworn. >> Yeah. >> Do it. Do it again. They love raising their hands. Do you swear from tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> I do. >> All right. Miss Sed both Miss Sedra and Mr. Raviano have been previously qualified uh in the uh respective fields
of architecture and and planning uh and they're going to testify as to this application. >> Perfect. Go ahead, Mr. Pada. >> All right, Mr. S, why don't you walk us through what we're looking to do? >> Sure. >> Thank you.
Um so the design for this house um the first floor has all the living spaces and also a guest bedroom. The first floor consists of uh 1,73 square ft and the garage is 450.
Uh to the left of that we have the basement. It's an open wreck room in the basement. Uh we also have a bedroom with its own egress access and a small media room. Um the second floor consists of the
sleeping area where we have four bedrooms, closets and bathrooms and also we have a laundry room. Uh we have also the pull down stair here in the hallway. The design of the exterior um it's a
colonial style home. We have board and batten on the second floor and we have horizontal lap siding at the first floor with a stone base at the bottom. Uh caseman window modern accent. Um we have
also here AAC panels on this small tower here. Um the second floor area also I forgot to say that um the livable area for the second floor is uh 1,817
with the floor area uh ratio being 25.74% and the habitable floor area being 3520 and uh we have an open uh 95 square ft of open space on the second floor.
um used only at the first floor. Um lastly, the attic uh is as I mentioned accessible with the pull down stair. We have a ceiling height in the attic uh of being 6'6 and the collar tie being at 4T. We meet also the the height
requirement for this zone where the ordinance uh requires 35 ft. We are at 32 6 and 1/2 ft. That's it. >> Great. I have no further questions for this witness.
Does anyone in the on the board have any questions for this witness? >> Anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Please step forward, sir. >> Thank you. All right, sir. Do you have this
warrant? Do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please uh state and spell your name for the record? >> Robert Laser. L A Z E R. Tin Tilden Court of Next. >> You beat me to it. Okay, go ahead. Sir.
>> Uh, couple questions. Uh, I hope this is the right form to do that. As the second floor seems to be much larger in size and perhaps height than the existing home. Was a analysis of the reduction in
sunlight and sunshine on my property considered. >> Which property is you? The one on the left. >> As you're looking at the house, I'm on the right on the corner house. >> Part of the reason I'm asking is I had a
significant investment in completely redoing my yard a couple years ago. >> Yeah. >> And I'd hate to see that um impacted. Actually, the right side is way far from the property line giving that
we are we actually set the house almost to the left side with the sideyard being 10 foot on the left side. The the sideyard is 32.17 on the right side which is which is the
side adjacent to you. So you you will have a similar condition as the existing house. The existing house was a two-story house as well. >> Okay. So you're saying there should be no reduction in the amount of sunshine or sunlight. My yard was
>> we haven't done a study for a reduction to see if there's a reduction or anything. But uh we meet the the requirements of the ordinance in relationship to the setbacks and the building height. We don't have any violation of the code for that.
>> Okay. Uh the second question is there are three trees by the driveway. They belong to 12 Tilden but at least one of them has a significant encroachment at the base onto my property
and I'd like to know is that taken into consideration and how will that be remediated? Well, >> if in fact the trees are taken down as part of the >> There is >> there's one trees taken down which is this one. Is this the one you mentioned?
This one? >> It's the third tree closest to the driveway. >> Closest to the driveway. >> There's three large trees on the sidewalk. >> Those ones they're staying. The one in in your actually kind of like in your across from your lot that's staying
that's doesn't relate to this property, but there is one on the property. It's a 15 15 inch tree on the right side. This is will get removed. >> I I didn't I missed that. I'm sorry. >> Um if you Oh, over here.
>> There's three trees on the driveway. >> So, this is >> you put this one will get removed. >> These two big trees will >> There's three trees there. >> And there is one here actually. So this is the existing um existing
survey for the house for the existing house that's there now. So as you see one two and then I I I suppose you mentioned that one the 15inch one correct >> is that where's the driveway? >> The driveway is here. >> Okay. So, it's on the right side of the
driveway. >> You're missing I believe you're missing a tree. >> There is a small one in tree. Is that the one you mentioned? >> That's That's not what I'm talking about. >> You have two large trees there by the driveway. You're missing a third tree.
>> The one that's closest to the driveway encroaches probably five or six feet into my property at the base. >> Isn't that the 18 inch? >> So, sir, >> that could be the 18 inch, but that's not in your property. that's on the right of way. >> If I may intervene, uh, in the event
that there is any type of tree removal, we'll be subject to submitting for a permit, which will be the jurisdiction of the township's engineering department, not of this board's. Uh, side note though, if you want to discuss in further detail what our construction plans are, my contact information is on the public notice. You're more
>> That's fine. No, I'm not concerned about the construction and I know Roadak takes down trees all the time. I do a lot of walking in town. I see his construction in a lot of places where I walk. Um, so I know the tree cutting is fine. My
concern is around not my concern. My question is once they do that, will my yard be remediated where that tree is currently encroaching on the yard? >> So let me let me let me say this. If you they the builder has not jurisdiction of
the board, but just FYI, the the builder has or anybody who owns property next to somebody else, they can't do something on their property that damages your property. So, if there's damage to your property, there is an obligation by
that property owner to remediate it. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm and I'm sure that Mr. as I said before to the prior person that Mr. Pada would love to talk to you and make sure that that's going to be taken care of. >> Well, it sounds like I have a couple months. >> Yes, I certainly do. But feel free. You
can call me tonight if you want. >> That's fine. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> No, thank you for your uh questions. >> Does anybody else in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Just to redirect real quickly, Mr. Sedra, >> please.
>> Mr. said it's approximately today a setback of about 35 ft from this gentleman's parcel. Is that correct? >> Yes. 30 uh 32.17. >> And now what we're proposing is approximately 32.17. Right. >> Correct. >> And in your expert opinion, would you
say that's sufficient light air in space? >> Correct. >> Thank you. Have no further questions. >> Okay. >> Does um you I guess does anybody else on the board have any questions? keep on losing track of moving around so much. >> Okay, back to you. >> All right, terrific. Let me call up my
last witness, Mr. Nick Raviano, will walk us through the justification. >> Certainly. Uh, this this is solely a habitable flu area varants request. Uh, 25.7% is being requested where 21% is permitted in the R3 district. Uh, this
relates to a specific piece of property known as block 2004, lot 47. This is a 13,677 ft parcel whereas 15,000 square feet is required. So the property uh is undersized. Uh the applicant is
proposing a home that uh meets the habitable floor area uh requirement of 3520 ft. So it is not requesting that variance as well. Um, as we heard, you know, previous testimony, the sideyard
setback to the neighbor's property is in excess of 22 feet than what's the minimum required of the ordinance. Additionally, the house is 32.55 ft whereas 35 ft is required. Um, so it's a 2.45 ft lower than what it could be by
ordinance. Certainly with respect to the neighbor, there's no uh impairment of light, air, and open space with this proposal. Uh the applicant is meeting the required off- streetet parking. Also, I'd like to note that great care and consideration went into the design
of this home given a topography of the parcel. Uh you will notice topography in the rear. Um so the applicant took numerous site visits to design a home that certainly befitting of this site and the surrounding neighborhood. uh the D4 variance request uh the property uh
certainly can accommodate the proposed use without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. >> I have no further questions. Does anyone in the uh board have any questions for this witness?
Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Anybody in the public like to make a statement regarding this application? Back to you, sir. >> Back to you. >> Okay. Would anybody on the board like to make a statement?
>> I just want to make the same statement that I made on the last application about going back and making sure that there's a silk fence that stays up through the entire um time that the construction's going on and that the lot is clean and or the refuge is removed and taken care of. That's >> absolutely okay.
>> I will relay that. >> Would anybody on the board anybody else want to make a statement? Sorry. Would anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Mr. Horn, >> yes.
>> Mr. Kenya, yes. Uh, Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Weisman, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> M Mr. Ger, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. Block 3001, lot 10, Ford Dur
Terrace. Application number 2025-78-V Road Homes. Again, applicant seeks approval to construct a retaining wall in violation of the following section 170-91B 2B. Front yard fence retaining wall 4T
allowed 12.99 ft proposed, 8.99 ft. Variance requested 170 91B 16 tiered retaining wall aggregated height 10 ft allowed 12.99 proposed
9 ft variance requested. Good evening yet again. And yet again, my name is Matthew Bam from the firm Sils Cummus and Gross related to this application. My client is Rodac Homes and they were successful in the heavy lift of developing a single family home
that did not need ratio or floor area var 26,000 foot lot. But given the topography, they do need significant variances related to retaining walls. So they are not for aesthetic purposes but truly for uh storm water and sight
safety. Uh tonight I will just have one witness Mr. Nick Graviano to walk us through the subject site and why we are requesting this relief. >> Okay. U Mr. Graviano swear front tell truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> All right. Mr. Graviano before has been
uh qualified in the field of planning and would be testifying in the field of planning with regard to this application. That correct Mr. Graviano? >> Yes. Okay. >> No. So, uh this application before the board this evening is solely for C
variances related to the uh front yard fence variance and the tiered retaining wall aggregate height. Uh the applicant is requesting a uh 12.99 uh foot retaining wall in the front yard
requesting the variance as well as the tiered retaining wall height. Uh you will see numerous lines of contours on this proposed plan. Uh the applicant's uh request for the retaining wall uh relates to the driveway area um in the
front of the dwelling. Uh that's that's what triggers the variance as well as retaining walls on the side uh sides and rear of the property. Uh there is extreme topography on this property. As Mr. Pada indicated, these retaining
walls are not being done uh for aesthetic purposes. Uh this is what the engineer felt was best to accommodate the proposed structures and accessory structures on site. So when it comes to this variance request, uh relief certainly could be granted uh under the
C1 criteria. Uh whereas extreme top topographical conditions affect affect this property and strict application of the municipality zoning ordinance would create exceptional difficulties and practical difficulties to the applicant
of developing this property. Uh certainly these variances could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance as they relate to an extreme topographical condition on the site. >> Uh Mr. Graviano, considering the steep slopes, can you please provide to us
what that uh distance is between the minimum and the maximum that we are contemplating here on the site? Uh in in terms of elevation of elevation, yes, it it is a um
>> we have a low point of 85 ft. Uh whereas the top of the property comes in at 112 ft. So it drops from 112 ft in the back of the property to 85 ft in the front of the property. >> So we got approximately a 27 foot drop.
>> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you. I I I did it a couple times in my head just to give myself the confidence. >> Can you Can you show us exactly where the fence is cuz
I wasn't sure. >> There there's there's fencing for the pool along the back and sides the property. You'll see proposed aluminum rail fence. >> And how high is that fence?
that fence that com that combined height is um within ordinance allowance because that it relates to the front yard. >> It's 4T in height. >> So just for clarification that variance relief being requested is related to the front yard setback.
>> Correct. >> Thank you. >> And where's that fence? >> By the driveway. Is that correct? by the driveway and along the the side retaining walls there's fencing >> and that's 10 ft high or what? Yeah. No,
>> I think it's the walls are the walls. >> The wall height >> walls >> there's a portion of the wall. >> But is there is on this plan the only thing that shows us fencing on this plan is really from the side of the house all the way around the back of the house. There's nothing on the front of the
plans that show anything about fencing. Just the proposed Keystone wall. >> That's that's considered fencing. That's what >> Well, my only question with that is according to the ordinance um for any for any more any wall that's over 5T 5T
or more, 60 inches or higher, you have to put a 4ft high fence on that. And there is no fence shown on this wall. So that's why I'm trying to understand why there's no fence. We'll we'll amend the plans to show the fence on the wall. >> What kind of fence would that be? Chain
link. You can't >> You'd have to come up front. Yeah. We'll get to you in a second. >> Yeah. >> Once we figure out Mr. >> It's a decorative rail fence. It looks like a row iron fence, but it's aluminum. >> So, that row iron fence that we have
that's part of the also the rear yard and the sideyard. Is it your testimony that we would extend that down to the property line? >> We would meet all applicable ordinance requirements to extend the fence if required by code. >> Thank you. And the 12.99 for the retaining wall
happens on both sides of the driveway. One side of the driveway because there's tiered walls on both sides. Yes, there are tiered walls on both sides. I do believe that calculation it did include the fence because I'm not seeing a top of wall or bottom wall that
that is 12.99 ft. >> That's where I was getting really lost. >> Yeah, I think only spot that I saw where there's even 12 feet, it was like on the was it like on the left side right where about where that curve is on the on the top. That's between those two walls.
It's about 12 feet. Yeah, I reviewed the top and bottom of wall calculations. Um maybe I wasn't clear with my testimony before, but I that number probably did include the fence because I'm not seeing a number that meets that that 12.99. So, is it your testimony here tonight
that the subject application will be completely compliant with this municipality's ordinance and the retaining walls being proposed here tonight are not for purposes of aesthetics, but rather precise safety and storm water management? >> Well, the applicants requesting the the the height variances of the walls and
fencing. Uh but yes in all other aspects these applicants compliant with the code and these these variances are be being requested due to the extreme topographical conditions on this site. >> So is the recommendation of the civil engineer that we need these retaining walls in order to accommodate the
proposed improvement. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And just for further clarification, if I look on the north side, the left side of the driveway, there's a wall and 8t later is another
wall. The fence will be on top of the second wall, which is the higher wall. If I had that correct, >> it could be on either. It says on the ordinance, it could be the con the construction official could choose which wall it would be on. It probably would be the top wall, but it could be on
>> It's a discretion of Mr. Shers. It'll be on one of the walls. >> Yes. >> Unless you guys put a condition. >> I'm not going to try to up >> upstage the uh
>> the applicant will satisfy the construction official and and township engineer. So, at some point they'll basically be a fence going around the entire property except for some small areas by steps and stuff. It looks that way. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yes,
>> there's there's there's a pool, so a fence is definitely going to be part of the >> backyard is fenced, but then coming all the way to the front is fenced, too. >> But now we're going to pull up to the front as well. Yes. Correct. >> Sorry. Is the driveway being widened? So, this driveway staying the same width. >> Well, it's going straight now.
>> What? >> It was going out to the right. Now it's going straight. >> But is it Oh, okay. >> Yeah, they're modified. >> So, it's not >> It's a modified driveway. Additionally, the applicant is accommodating storm water management on site, which does not exist today.
And that's that's another reason for the proposed retaining wall is to provide that area in the front yard to accommodate the storm water management. >> Understood. Yeah. >> And just for clarification, Mr. Gravana, the proposed improvements will include not only the single family home, but also the retaining walls, the fence, the
pool, the patio, porch, as well as the modification of the driveway. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> And you'll be maintaining all the offsets shown from the property line? >> Yes. >> Does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness?
>> Does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness? Please come on up. >> You're the next contestant. Let's make a deal. >> Hi, how are you, >> sir? Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
>> David Core, K O R R >> and address >> 84 North Rocklage. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, we kind of like cat a corner to the property. So, I'm familiar with the topograph topography back there. It's it
is a steep hill and you've got the uh Nike missile base right behind there. There's been a significant water issue coming out of that park which was in the last 10 years remediated by the county by uh putting
in drains up at the park, but it's still my neighbor Ellen has a a problem with water coming off this slope on the park. What kind of retaining wall are you putting in the back of the property
against this Riker Hill Park? The retaining wall doesn't abut the park. The retaining wall is is recessed into the property. >> How how far in? >> The closest portion would be 16.64 ft.
>> And what's that made of? this retaining wall >> keystone block >> and it will be visible above ground obviously. >> No, it's designed to conform with the grade.
>> So there is going to be drainage behind this wall. >> The drainage will be reviewed by the township professionals. >> You're going to need some kind of drainage behind this wall. Well, sir, first you you you've you've maneuvered
your way away from the mic, but you have to say by >> trying to see the graph of >> Yeah, I I I understand this. No problem. We just want to make sure we get you on the record. Okay. >> But let me let me say this and I think maybe you were here before when I was talking to the other gentleman about generally with things with regard to um
>> uh drainage. Uh obviously they have an obligation to ensure that the site uh is built correctly, that there's code, building code they have to meet. Even with regard to the retaining wall, when they put up the retaining wall, they're going to have to get permits. Uh even
their plans show how that um drainage is going to be. Obviously, the plans have to become more um specific, but the township uh code enforcement and construction officer is the one that would review that the retaining wall is
placed correctly and that it has the proper um drainage and uh security so that it doesn't fail. >> I would just like to piggyback on what Mr. Wel said. This is one of those situations where you have two layers of
oversight at the municipal level. Not only will the engineer be looking at this, but this also goes through the construction department. So, the applicant will be having to satisfy numerous professionals on the township end with the ultimate design of of the retaining wall system.
>> Now, I also understand that the uh garage is going to be under the house. >> Yes, it will be Yes. >> How much into the ground you have to blast to get to this underground garage?
>> That's that's also >> that's not part of my testimony, but you know, we do have a professional here that could speak to the design of the >> but that's also outside the scope of tonight's variance relief being requested. >> Well, my issue is there this is going to be a tremendous amount of blasting.
Obviously, you're going to use pneumatics versus dynamite. So, so sir, all of those questions are all 100% handled through the engineering department and the building department. That's not before this board. Um, valid
concerns. I'm not saying they're not valid concerns, but there are requirements for construction that, and I think maybe you heard me before about putting up uh soil erosion controls. Certainly, this site is going to have to deal with that. Uh in terms of anything
in terms of construction, timing, noise, um what's being done, vibration, that's all covered by the township engineering department. >> My neighbor was here talking to the engineer the other day and he didn't understand the plans either.
>> Well, that's Well, I don't Well, I don't know what was said. That's all third party. But I would just say eventually what will happen is the engineer will get a final uh more complete set of plans. It'll go through the engineering department, go
through the building department, and that's the uh next steps. >> Well, don't you think you should hold off for that before you vote on it? >> No, that's not out that's completely outside the jurisdiction of the board. The board only is here for the variance.
In terms of how the how the building is built and whether it's code, that's completely outside the board's authority. It's within the township's role and control through their building and code enforcement department. >> Also, another issue is there used to be
an air force base up there. any kind of blasting or moving of significant amount of soil is going to unleash whatever those guys buried up there. >> Well, I I I I don't know what they what those guys buried up there. >> There's all kinds of things up there.
>> Yes. Well, once again, those are all things that I am probably 100% sure that the township is aware of. >> The engineer had no idea how to read those plans. Well, uh, then that's it'll have to be when when the engineer gets
it, he'll have to review it. >> Okay. I have lots of questions, but you guys can't answer. >> Unfort Unfortunately, as it was noted, our jurisdiction is limited to bulk variances and other variances that they come before us asking for relief and
then it goes on because they have to establish the size of what they're building and then they they'll go and do the final design. Maybe there's only an inch of rock that has to come out. Maybe there's 10 feet of rock. They'll have to make a decision on how they do that and they'll have to present that. There's
the, you know, besides Livingston, there are jersey codes and there's international building codes and they all have requirements that have to be met for vibration, disturbance, etc. So, they might have to put in a monitoring
plan. Maybe they don't. We don't know. But that's that's way down the line. >> Okay. I'm just >> I'm just trying to explain just saying good questions. >> It might be an EPA issue. That's what I'm saying. >> It could it could be and you know you're free to discuss with anybody of official
business official nature in any department anywhere as a citizen. You can bring it to anybody's attention. >> Well, who do you bring it to in this town that can explain what they want to do? >> Okay. you you like I said the engineering department, the building department, but of course they got to
get approval first. They don't have approval at this point. That's what they're asking for tonight. So they have to go through many steps and the first step is here and then eventually to the engineering and building and code enforcement departments. >> I just want to say one last thing before
we wrap up because I think we're going to wrap up in a minute. It really wouldn't even be appropriate for us to comment on this because that's not anything that we have. That's not our purview. That's not what we oversee. So, people who come in front of the zoning board, we're looking at a specific thing. We're looking for um passing um
variances. So, it's not something that we could even address because it's not even in our, you know, what we're supposed to be doing. So, the best thing really is to do is to just be persistent with the engineer and keep calling and if they don't, then speak to somebody else. But clearly this this this project
will not go forward unless it has the appropriate um people looking at it, making sure that everything is in line. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> We appreciate your time and sorry we couldn't answer more of your questions. >> Where was I?
>> I think I think we're done. >> Yes, >> we we did questions. Any other questions? >> She wants to make a statement. >> Um okay. I think we're done with questions. Would anybody likes to make a statement? Come on forward. Oh, >> I have a question for the board. I don't know if you want to go first. You got a question?
>> Yeah. >> Two questions just so I understand it better because I I can't read the not my field of expertise, the plans. So, and I think this is what you're testifying to. There's no portion of a retaining wall where if you went over the wall, you'd
be going down more than four feet except portions that would have a 4ft fence on the top. I just I just don't want to unwittingly that be approving something that's I I assume there's safety rags but I just want to make sure what we're approving here because I can't >> No, there there are portions of the wall are six to 8 ft. Just when you add the
fence on top, it brings it to >> 60, right? So that there is these plans are showing at least a four I think it's four feet uh a safe fence above that 16 foot. >> No, >> no,
>> no, they're not. So you could fall over this. >> The plans The plans show in the back area where you see the fence, it shows a five foot fence. If any of those areas are over 50, there's there's really no area in the back
that's that's more than five five feet in height on that on any one of those walls. The only area that would be a question would be in the front because that is where between the two walls it does go over 12 feet >> where there is no fence. But that would
be that there would have to be a condition that we're not we're not waving that requirement. You know we they're they're saying that they would abide by that if if it needs a fence. It's just not listed here. So that would just have to be notated if it was going to go for approval. We're not waving the
need for offense if >> Okay. And there's we have a code hopefully that a significant drop like that requires a >> Yeah. What Mr. Sherman indicated previously is we the engineer showed the fence for the pool in the rear yard did not extend that fence into the front
yard which is required by ordinance. The applicant >> Okay. >> committed to meet the ordinance requirement to put the fence on top of the wall. >> Right. And because I see I was focused on the front because that's and I I can't tell what I'm reading, but wherever there is required f there's going to be a fence, it might not be on
the plans. And my second just so I understand because it's my first time dealing with uh retaining wall variation. So when they say them the our ordinance provides for a 10-ft maximum. So you could do two or maybe even three
different stepped retaining walls, but the ordinance says that they want you to do a from beginning to top, they want you to do a max of 10 ft. So this is a really steep property. See, it seems like you have to go over, but when I say have to when we have an ordinance like
this is the expecta is the expectations. I wanted you to educate me at least on as a planner is the town saying without a variance we'd want you to slope it with grass and we're looking for slope and that's what we're looking for the variance that you want to say no there's
a good reason why we shouldn't slope it we should retaining walls is that do am I understanding that correctly >> so I'm not an engineer and I didn't design these plans but I know enough to be dangerous >> it would require extensive grading to
meet the ordinance requirements. So this wall is accommodating the existing grade as much as possible. So this site has extreme topographical conditions that necessitate a wall that's greater than the ordinance
requirements. certainly justifying relief under the C1 criteria due to the extreme topographical conditions affecting this piece of property and strip strict application of the municipality zoning ordinance requirement would require the applicant
to do a drastic grading step to this site. >> Got it. Meaning a lot of infill or something like that or >> a lot of more clearing, more soil and rock removal. Um the walls at this height help
eliminate requiring that in a lot of places. >> Okay, >> thank you everyone on the board. Good >> on that. Okay, statement time. We got you. >> Okay, >> Ellen Okamoto. Oh, sorry. I'm just making Oh, did I for tell truth for the
zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> It's Ellen. E L Len. Last name is Okamoto. O K A M O T O. and address uh 86 North Rocklage Drive. I'm actually to the right I'm on the neighbor to the
right of the property. >> And I'm kind of I think I had the same confusion that sometimes it sounds like you guys all had was that I received this notice of hearing that said fences allowed four feet. They're proposing to
make it 13 feet. And so I'm like I don't want a 13T fence right next to my property. But as I it's my understanding that the 14 or the 13 ft is going to be a combination of the retaining wall and
the fence which makes no sense because the retaining wall is can be 10 ft. But I just want to the statement I wanted to make is I understand there will be no 13t fence on my side of the property. It's only going to be whatever four four feet I guess or five or whatever. It's
not going to go beyond that. And also, I was concerned with the retaining wall because of the drainage issue, but I know that's not yours, but I was also told that they're going to be addressing that as well, and that by leveling it, they should not have any problems with it. So, that was my two points. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Could I just say one thing on that? Um, just Yeah, you're you're on the you're on the higher side. >> Well, I'm actually my house is lower. >> You're low. Okay. >> That's why it comes down and you know it's a horrible hill for everybody who
lives there. >> Yeah. I mean to you either way whether you're on the high side or the low side you're only going to see the you would see the fence and then everything's going to step back towards their house down. So you're not going to it's nothing's going to be higher if you know. I just don't want a 13 ft fence
next to my property. >> I right now there's a a a wooden fence that's like four or five feet. I don't know what it is. And that's fine. >> But when I read this notice, it seemed to indicate there would be a and no one could read the plans. I went to the planning department. They brought in the
engineer. No one could figure out where this fence was. So that's another reason why I ended up showing up. And it sounds like you guys were having the same problem looking at the propert because it wasn't drawn in. So now it's drawn in the fence. Well, we understand. Yes, >> the fence is actually on her side of the
property. It is shown. Um that is a part of the property where the retaining walls are a lot lower to that other than that other side of the property. On her side of the property, the largest retaining wall is roughly four feet. >> But that does that include the fence, too? So now do I have an eight foot?
But Nick, isn't the the retaining wall because you're lowering the grade really of the property in the backyard? The retaining wall isn't higher than the ground level. The retaining wall is further in holding back the ground level. So, you're not going to see the retaining wall. You would just see the
fence that would be above the wall. Correct. The way it looks on the plans is like you're dropping the whole grade in the entire backyard in order to accommodate the pool and almost flattening the grade in the backyard is what it kind of appears
on the plans. You would mostly seat the fence. >> Okay. >> And the fence would not be a 13ft fence. >> No. >> And it' be a combination of the retaining wall and the fence that's being proposed. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. By in no way would anything near her
property line approach 13 feet. >> Well, I kind of don't want it to be 10 feet either. >> Nor nor would it be 10 feet? You know, it'll be >> I want it to be a normal fence. >> Well, I can I ask like what would the fence type be? Because usually one's portion of the retaining wall is at
grade. So that the portion that's at grade the fence above that we're not granting a variance on that the height of that fence above grade are we? >> No. The engineering plans have top of wall and bottom of wall to to show the
ordinance requirements. So in a situation like right here where you have top of wall 103.5 bottom of wall 101.0 zero. That's 2 and 1/2 ft plus the 4ft fence. >> So, she would only see six feet of this.
>> We can't have can have comment. Okay. Let's remember there's there's no variance other than the front yard. Okay. The only variance there's two variances. Front yard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Miss Pada. >> You bet. front yard fence and then the tiered retaining wall >> piece. >> Correct. >> Correct, Mr. Pada. That deals that deals with the area in the front. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, everything that Mr. Graviano
is showing on that side, you're saying that that is all in compliance with the ordinance. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to address the neighbors concerns, but that that side is compliance. I think we have another
>> comment. >> It's a kind of a statement question. >> Damon. >> Yeah, it's Dave Coran. >> Um, on her side of the property, it slopes way down and their backyard also slopes that down towards her property. Will they be grading it? So, they're
going to level it out and raise the height of this new property on that abuts her. Will there be a bigger retaining wall there that she can see with the fence on top of it? >> I explained this already.
>> Yeah. And it's Yeah, this this is this area is this area we're talking about a is in compliance. They're not asking for any there's no grading variance. there's no soil uh removal variance like there
is in some towns. Uh that area that we're looking at, I understand the level of of concern, but the there is nothing before the board with regard to that site. >> Well, I'm just asking, are you going to
level out that backyard so it's level and that's going to raise the height of what she's facing? >> The applicant will be Mr. Gravian, please. >> We're only going to entertain questions that relate to the jurisdiction of this board. Anything outside the scope, you
can bring that before the appropriate venue. >> Oh, can we talk to him after the meeting? >> Yeah, he's Yeah, you can you can you can certainly seek out Mr. Pada. >> Okay. >> He's very easy to find. >> Any other statements? >> Yes. >> Back to you.
>> Thank you. I just have two quick statements. Number one, I would like to reiterate that the purpose of the retaining walls and the fences are not necessarily for aesthetic purposes, but merely because of civil engineering. And then number two, whatever the code requirements are as they relate to
retaining walls and fencing, we will comply. Thank you. Does anyone in the board want to make any statements? Does anyone in the board want to make any motion? Make a motion. I would make a motion to approve just with as long as we have the condition
that they will meet all requirements for the >> and specifically with regard to the placement of the fence >> in the front door >> that the the code that that would go be subject to code enforcement. >> Absolutely.
>> Do I have a second? >> I will second. Miss Young second. >> Okay. Mr. Sherman, >> yes. >> Miss Young, >> yes. >> Mr. Kenya, yes. Mr. Horn, >> yes. >> Mr. Wiseman,
>> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Miss Beer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Block 77101 lot 722 Nachill Drive application number 2025-62
Lavina Chri applica applicant seeks approval for the rear yard race patio and fence in violation of the following section uh raise polling says raise patio okay it's 17096 C4 where we are set back 75
ft required 47 ft proposed 28 ft speed variance requested. Uh, and that was now for the fence. 170- 91B2 front yard fence 4T and 50% open
allowed 6 ft and privacy fence proposed. 2 feet and privacy fence variance requested. 170-91B3 sideyard fence 5T allowed six feet proposed. One ft variance requested.
>> Okay. And ma'am, uh, are you, uh, Lvina Chowry? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're the owner of the property? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that very nice gentleman that's sitting behind you in his motion to himself, uh, who is that? >> He's my husband. >> Okay. All right. So, are you going to be
uh testifying tonight to this board with regard to what you're asking them for? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's get you sworn in. >> Do you swear for and tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I >> Oh, wait, wait. What's your name?
>> Lavina. Lavina Chri. >> Okay. I had it right. >> I was paying attention. The chairman sometimes questions me just to make sure I'm listening. Okay, Miss Chowry. >> What? Why don't you >> quick question? Can I join? I just
>> Sorry about that. >> Come on in. >> Can I just make sure they don't cry about >> It's okay. They're children. >> We all kids. We don't cry. It's only the attorneys that cry. >> Thank you. >> So, uh, go ahead, Mr. Chowry. You want
to explain to the board what you're asking them for? >> Yeah. Uh, what we are asking for is to build a patio in the backyard. Uh, so as to make a usable space. Right now we do not have it and the space is uneven. Uh
and the house the way if you would see it uh it's a tilted it's built tilted. So uh if you try to build a patio around it uh it falls into the variance category and uh we obviously did not
know about that uh initially uh but then now we got to know about it and that's where we trying to uh request to get the variance for a patio in the backyard. So if I look at can I ask question >> please? So if I look at the pictures
that you submitted, so thank you for that. Right, it looks like you began in construction because we did not totally get and now have stumbled into this issue, right? Because that's what this is showing. I assume here is kind of an outline. >> Yes. And that is the exact uh one that
we want to like build. We're not going for the any of that. >> Okay. And then it's hard to tell from some of these pictures, but I think if I put these two together and then somewhere along this driveway is where you're proposing to put the fence. >> Uh yeah. Can Can I walk?
>> Go right ahead. >> Yeah. So basically I have >> You got to be by uh you got to be go back by the microphone. You can point it out. >> Oh, okay. So just just for the record, you're looking at the pictures you presented to the board and one of the pictures
depicts the backyard. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And Mr. Horn uh has asked you about some with regard to the location. So why don't you describe what what in order to answer his question?
>> Yeah. So uh the the three panel like the fence those would be the three panels. Uh we want it on the sideyard because uh to to to have privacy in the backyard because right now there is no privacy
and we have seen people taking pictures of our backyard and I literally have a photo wherein >> It's okay. You don't have to talk about that photos and everything. >> Don't worry about don't don't worry about you're doing great. You're doing just fine. >> Yeah. So I've seen like
>> I'm sorry. I've seen like people like this taking pictures. >> I you don't do these pictures. >> I'm sorry. It's okay. It's okay. It's all good. >> So, Miss Chowry, it what you're saying is that one of the reasons why you're asking the board for relief is because
you want privacy for yourself and your young family. Correct. >> For the fence. Only for the fence. >> Oh, yeah. Right. For the fence. Understood. >> Could I ask a question on that? the fence just because I drove past there. I took pictures today. Um, not the one in
that car. So, so I see that um you already since since taking the pictures that you sent us um along the driveway, there's now a whole row of evergreens that have been planted >> and you also have an aluminum open fence
that you installed down the driveway. Correct. >> Yes. So, are you looking to install this privacy fence at the bottom part of the driveway? >> Only the last section uh like three panels in the end. >> Right. Right. Right down at the bottom
like where the steps kind of are to go onto the porch like that part of the >> so that the patio feels a little >> like not very open when kids play there. >> I I understand. Okay. >> And if you might have noticed, Mr. shot like you see the depth. It's like round. >> Wait, wait. You got to get close to the
mic and just just swear you in. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Do you swear for tell the truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I swear to tell the truth to the zoning board tonight. >> Very good. And can we just have your name for the record, sir? >> My name is Vishal Jen. >> Okay. Why don't you guys close to the mic and then you can answer.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. Like I was just saying, you might have noticed the >> I'm sorry, sir. One second. One second. Let's >> Yeah, just pull the mic close. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. So sir, wait before you go. >> Uh why don't you spell your name for the
record, sir? >> Uh V I S H A L J A I N. >> Perfect. Go ahead, sir. >> So I was just adding one line that you might have noticed the depth it is in. If you see it's like I guess it's 10 15
ft down. So it's very very visible like everything is very visible. So we just want privacy on that section. That's what I was adding. I was gonna say and the my last my last question I guess um the poor the patio itself that you're building this is just
an open patio correct >> yeah what you see is what >> yeah it will be >> it it would be >> except we'll put retaining walls we won't put these uh walls we'll have to put retaining walls I guess. >> Okay, I understand. >> Interlocking blocks. I mean,
>> okay. >> So, I guess my question would be get what you're trying to do, get the privacy. Um, the question is you're asking for multiple different pieces here. So, try to kind of help you along here. is there's you're asking for a height
variance from 4T to 6 feet of the fence as well as the fence uh according to code is kind of 50/50 between open and closed and you're asking for a kind of full privacy fence. I guess my question would be is as many houses we see in
town where the fence might have that 50/50 opening but there are trees kind of around the fence right to add that privacy without having to have that second kind of uh variance to it. So would you be amenable to the fence not
necessarily a solid fence because I assume are these tree these evergreen trees I refer to are they behind the fence or in front of the fence? So um they are basically the evergreen trees that we have put. They are on the sidey
yard and then there is a driveway that goes down and then we are planning we we want to or we are asking to put three panels at least so that patio gets covered. Uh so because of the distance
uh uh between the evergreen trees uh that's why like otherwise we would have put the 50/50 panels uh all along but because it is more closer to the patio and very much like that section if you
would see from the road it's all of the backyard from that section uh that is very open and visible and that's why we are requesting ing just like that special like that that section closer to the house
>> uh uh for the fence. >> I guess I guess just to confirm, are you saying that you're looking to put the those sixoot panels like on the out just just on the outside of the cinder block wall just like there? >> Yeah, just inside
>> not along the driveway but along the cinder block wall just in front of the patio itself blocking between like where the grass is >> and the house Yeah. Where the grass or you want actually could you guess show us where the three panels go? That would that would really help.
>> Yeah, sure. So what we thinking what from here to here like so one panel, two panel and then three panel. So this would be like this can act as a door for mowing and here panel so that this
section gets covered and people from like here sorry people from like the road do not see this section and the section that is here. >> I I understand. Okay. So, basically,
you're going between the evergreen trees that are there and the patio along the driveway just in that little section. Yeah. >> And like the little corner part in there like making that little spot so you can't see from the from the >> Yeah, just section. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> I have I go ahead. No, go. >> I I I mean I I have to ask an obvious question here. Um this from what you testified was triggered because someone was taking a picture. This seems like a police issue, not a
fence issue. I mean, if you put up a fence that's 50%, you're kind of blocked. I can understand from your topography some more height um as helping to but if it's half open,
you you're kind of really blocking the view. And if there's a problem with people taking pictures, we should be going to the police, not coming to a variance because if the person who took a picture who maybe didn't like you or something or whatever they did for whatever reason, they go away. I still
have a fence there that has no reason to be there in its configuration. So, while I know everyone's trying to help and I'm not maybe not helping, I have a problem with the reason for this that it has to
be totally closed in because we can put bushes there. We can do a lot of other things. I don't have as much of a problem with the height because of your extreme slope and I can legally say, well, gee, a 4ft fence is not giving you really what you would get from if you
were flat land. the six-foot kind of helped you out a little bit and but um >> defer back to because I just threw a monkey wrench in. >> I agree with what you're saying. I mean also a sixoot fence because you're at the bottom of that hill is becomes like a nothing fence because you can't see it
from the road. So it's the I because of the unusual topography like you know having the tall fence it's not like you're on a flat land and you have a sixoot fence now to the street. You can't even really see that fence from the street anyway even if it was probably eight feet tall. So, it's uh
the thing where what Ed saying I just also don't understand why even if you did the aluminum fence that was the same fence you had and still planted the evergreens all the way down why you couldn't do that because that would give you the same blockage and would actually
grow at 10 feet and you would never see the patio anyway. >> So, there are areas from where you can see the like you have to be there. I can't explain it for sure, but if you stand on the road, it's a very very wide lot. So, >> I'm just I'm just going to cut in. Um I think what you're hearing from the board, and I'll just chime in as well.
Um the town has a fence has fence ordinances, right? They have height ordinances and then any fence facing the street has to be 50/50 because it has to be aesthetically pleasing to people driving by. the same reason why when you put your fence up, the unfinished side faces in because you don't want the
unfinished side facing out because it's better for, you know, the the aesthetic um nature of of, you know, people driving by and walking by. So, it's sort of the same thing. Um so, I think to me what I'm hearing from the my fellow board members is the issue that many of us are having is the fact that it's not
50/50. And I can tell you from experience because I've had this issue in my own home. Um, a fence is only four or six feet high, but trees can go to 10, 11, 12, 13 feet high. I think you should go back and look at the plan and revise it um to do a 50/50. Um,
>> what? >> Well, after you're done, let me just add a little piece. >> No. And and and I think you should just look at it because um it the ordinance in town says that when you have a fence facing the street, it needs to be, you know, half and half. >> Do the Sorry, go ahead, please. So in in
essence the the there is uh the ordinance the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid having these um you know barricade looking fences. Now I know that's not what you're doing and it's very limited
space and you're trying to ensure your family's enjoyment. Let's not use the word privacy. Let's just say your family's enjoyment of that backyard and particularly because you're on a corner lot. >> Yeah. >> Which makes it somewhat different for
your experience, for your family's use of that area than it would be for somebody who was not on a corner lot because people can drive on both sides. So normally the the 5050 idea is to
prevent that kind of barricade look. Um what sometimes is done is a combination of the fence with some
um shrubbery or landscaping so that you achieve both. you get the hard because look the difference between a fence and a tree is that the fence once you put the fence up the fence is up and then it's it's up it's providing the privacy as soon as you put the fence up. The
problem with with trees or shrubbery is that you have to wait for them to grow. There's a you know there there's a cost there's maintenance. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so, but in this set of circumstances,
you know, where you could get the rear yard set back, where you could get the height of the fence, the only thing being the uh 5050 uh exposure that you can still achieve
the same privacy by filling in those sight lines with some shrubbery. And that's kind of where the board is. >> Okay. >> Suggesting you consider
>> can you I don't know if Okay, go ahead. >> No. Yeah. >> So, I don't completely agree with the board's assessment. I'm sorry. I really apologize here. But if you stand there like there's this s I'm not I'm I'm not point of it is not to I'm I'm I'm sharing with you
>> because if you see the road I can't put on the on the driveway, sir. Sir, let me let me let's say this. I'm I'm I'm sharing with you uh an idea. >> Okay. Sure. >> For you to consider in terms of achieving
your goal. >> Yeah. And you know, if you were to tell the board, if you were to tell the board that you would not do the 5050 and but ask for everything else and not do the
50/50 and you're free at your leisure to fill it in with whatever landscaping you like, um, you don't have to uh I know uh member Khan had indicated that you would come back, but there's really no need
for you to come back if you uh agree to that. >> I see. >> Rather than have to come back. I mean, I'm I know you enjoy coming here, but uh if we can uh avoid you coming back, that's one way it can be potentially resolved. >> Yeah. No, friendly advice.
>> Yeah. No, and thank you so much for that and I uh really appreciate it. Uh given that is the scenario, yeah, we would consider 50/50. And as you might have seen, we on the on the road where it is
there where we thought probably 50/50 fence and trees would suffice, we actually did that and we tried that to even extend it. But then in that specific where we thought three panels would help uh that's where we were
requesting to you know that's where we did not ex extended the trees and the 50/50 panel and we was waiting that if we might go in front of the board maybe we can you know resolve this. But given that scenario, if that is not something
that board agrees to, then uh probably we would go ahead and uh uh not go with the panel and at least patio gets approved and we we at least because with that space, right, >> you don't have to you don't have to you have to explain yourself. So would it be
fair to say >> that among the variances you're requesting >> Mhm. >> that you're asking for all of them still with the exception that you are removing the request for a solid fence and
instead you're going to do the 50/50 fence in that area. >> So we would >> 50 56 feet. >> Yes. >> 50 everything else you're asking for the height. We haven't talked about the radio setback yet. >> No, what I'm saying all I'm saying is right now >> Uhhuh.
>> Uh you're agreeing to you're you're suggesting that you are you would be amendable to doing the 50/50 and removing that part of your request for tonight. >> Yeah. Given board, >> right? >> But you're still asking for everything else >> uh >> for the height and the rear yard
setback. >> Okay. Like I'm sorry. My ignorance or like my knowledge is definitely not up to the >> You're doing fine, Miss Chowry. >> You're doing fine. All right, let's let's just stay there. Okay.
>> So, we have to talk about the rear yard setback and how we got there and what happened with that. So, if you want to try to fill us in on the rear yard setback. >> Uh rear yard setback. Yes. Um
so so with the rear yard set back again because uh I mean there was already a a patio there uh but it was not usable. It was like pebbles uh where kids were easing >> just so that we don't get inculcated. It's not a patio. It's like all the
pebbles just >> Yeah. It was it was pebbles there. >> Wait a second patio. We don't like have good knowledge about these things sir. >> Okay. You're you're okay. Just >> you're explaining the current conditions. It's okay. Go ahead. Continue. >> A bit unfair here. I don't know like Sorry. Go ahead, please.
>> Yeah, I'll go there. All right. >> So, um, so yeah, I would prefer doing all the talking today. Uh so if you would notice the house is little tilted uh and if you want to build a patio which follows like the height the the
house like a rectangular kind of thing uh it automatically falls because of the corner lot it automatically falls in the variance uh thing. >> If you would not want to fall in the variance that patio would be a triangle like it would cut right there and where
you see the stairs it would cut till there. So that is and obviously we also did not know that being not a from the builder uh uh knowledge we obviously did not know also uh that just with this section uh we
would fall into the variance uh category. Um so yeah that is the reason and that section is also uneven which is very like from some of the pictures you would see it's it's very uneven. So it becomes really important to level it out
for the kids. So hence uh we are here for the patio variance. So, so to summarize in that due to the position of the house on the land and the current setbacks and where
the house is, you are further violating the rear yard, but that's the only way you could do the work you requested, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And part of it, I think, is due to >> and the topographical >> as you state, right, the pre-existing condition of the house being angled like
this as opposed to >> Yeah. So if it would have been like this trait >> uh u uh we wouldn't even >> understood >> need variance but we did not know >> we're good there we're good >> okay
>> let's so if I understand it's it's and that's why you you started building it because because it was the height of the patio like if you had built it lower down you wouldn't need the variance. Is that correct? >> No, no, no, no, no. So,
>> you would need it either way if it was just on level. It's because of the height, right? >> So, it's not on grade, but you you're you're you're granted I don't know if you'll know the answer to the question, but I think it's sort of relevant at least to me is you're allowed I believe
like if you build decking uh a certain amount of height. So, I'm curious >> if they know that height and how much over that height this structure is >> they don't need they don't need the variance for the for the height. >> No, not the height, but I believe it's
the height that's triggering. >> Yeah, that's why they're here. Correct. >> Right. But I'm wondering how high up they went above what caused the variance to be triggered. >> It's not just the height, it's also the depth because now you went out more than the whatever you're allowed the 10 ft
that would be allowed at that height. Right. So once once you know you're going >> once you go above the grade it triggers the it triggers the varian even an inch above the grade. >> Yeah. I think I think they give like a I think they give like a foot or something. >> That's what I was. >> Okay.
>> All right. I think we beat that to a poll. Yep. >> So we're on the same page that the rear you explain the rear yard setback. The fence will be 50% open but six foot
high. >> Okay. >> And the retaining over >> and the sideyard fence is that's a six. So it's still okay. >> Yeah. One. All right. >> Okay. Does anyone in the public have any
questions for this witness? >> Okay. Um does anybody in the board want to make a statement? Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion, >> please. >> Motion to approve. So, we're going to
take this in pieces. So, approved for the rear yard setback 28T variance as requested for the patio. Approved for the 6oot height fence subject to that fence being an open fence and not a privacy fence.
and motion to approve on the Joe help me on the retaining wall. It's a >> it's written differently here. That's why I >> Okay. So, it it it would be for the front yard fence where it six foot
>> open, >> right? It would be there's no variance for the for it being closed. >> Correct. It's it's >> so the variance would be a six foot open fence, >> right? >> And do that one too. >> There's a there's a front yard fence
variance and a sideyard fence variance where 5 foot is allowed and 6t is propo proposed for a one foot >> varian. So the variance would be all fences are 6 ft. >> Yeah. And 50/50 and patio >> 50/50 and the patio as defined here >> as in the pictures it will stay as is.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So the only change to what you've requested is that the fence is open as opposed to a closed fence >> as per a ordinance. >> That per audience. That's my motion to approve. >> Great. >> I think Mr. Chen has a question. >> Uh can I ask understanding question? Not changing anything.
>> No, you can't. Sorry. So I I Nope. No. There's there's a motion. >> No, it's totally up to them. >> It's totally up to them. Um, >> if you want to make plantings, that's your decision. I'm not making that a requirement of the motion. >> Study,
>> if you want to put up bushes or whatever around it, that's your decision. That's not We're not making that a requirement of the motion. >> Okay. >> What >> to plantings in that in that section. >> It's not It's not required if it's open, >> right?
>> Wait, wait, wait. Okay. So here's let's let's amend the motion because I think that that we that the board was showing in favor of the idea that landscaping would be used in lie of a closed fence. >> So let's let's see if it is a if it is a
v if it is a variance then we should find out. Let's just confirm to make sure >> because then we should make that >> this way you can do everything correctly >> and do it once and then you can make it part of >> Yeah, I mean given I knew it would have gone this far. >> Yeah. One second.
>> I wouldn't have started. >> One second. No worries. >> Wait up. >> I just have a question. Uh while they're looking that up. >> Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no, no questions. No questions. We got to we got to got to
>> We got to We got to We got to wait here. The motion may be out of order. >> You're out of order. The system's out of order. Thank you, Jack. >> 1696.
>> I declare my look. 91% they want 6T privacy. So the is foot privacy. So 91% There's two varants on the front.
Oh, here you go. 1791 B6. >> B6. Yeah. be screened from public view by evergreen plantings that shall have a height of planting equal to not less than 50% of the height of the fence.
Evergreen plantings are required in front of the fence. >> Okay. >> Hi. So, >> wait. >> Can't all talk at one time. >> All right. So, the motion will have to be subject to Mr. Horner Green uh the to
amend the motion to state that landscaping uh can be placed along that fence and uh in relief under
170 170- 91 B Six A. >> Okay, >> that's going to mean something to us. >> Let's just put it in layman's turn
first. Let's I'm going to withdraw the motion to reput it back in so it's cleaner. Is that okay? >> You can do that. >> But withdraw the motion. New motion to approve. Motion to approve the rear yard setback of a proposal of 47. So, it's a 28T
variance approved for the rear yard setback on the front yard fence approved variance to allow the 6T open uh fence. So, a two-ft variance. So, you can do the sixoot fence on the front side. On the side, you're asking for one
variance because you're allowed a 5ft fence and you're asking for a sixft fence. So, we're granting both height variances both for your front and sideyard fence. open fence 5050 open with the required per code landscaping
that is required per the code >> that okay Jackie >> but then there is no space >> ma'am there's no there's no there's no discussion >> okay >> there's no discussion >> per the rules that's what we are proposing >> right
>> this is not this is not a dis this is let me be clear this is not a discussion you've put an application in before the The board has the option to do one of three things. And I know, you know, I wouldn't have to tell this to Mr. Pada.
He is here all the time. But for for let me put it this way. The board has basically three options. They can approve your application in total. They can also deny your application in total.
Or they can do a modification of the application. We're going down lane number three with a modification where some with Mr. Horn's motion is is that 80% of what you're asking for is being
offered to be granted with the one piece uh being added in there with regard to the 50%. So that's what's going on before the board. So there's no further discussion, but I'm just letting you know that's what's being put on before the board.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion and >> I just want to clarify the motion. Todd's motion on on the last >> my motion. >> Yeah. Doesn't matter. Everybody Everybody knows who you are. >> They get confused all the time. >> All right. Um the but the the one that's over five
feet, the motion is that that is also going to be 50/50. Correct. >> Yeah. There's no nobody there is no there is no variance for a solid >> private all fans are 5050 >> it's only height variance is on the fence not only height >> right just want to make that clear right >> yep
>> yep >> I'll second that >> but wait no I want to be clear though I don't think they need a variance that's confused because they don't need a variance for the five foot >> they want they're asking for six feet >> but they're asking for six so do we have to say we're going to give you the six
petition that it be 50/50 is that what you said >> that's what I said Yes. >> Can I ask >> Wait, do we have a second? If >> I'll second it. >> No. No. No. No. No. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Horn? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kenya? Yes. M Mr. Sharman? >> Yes. >> Miss Yung? >> Yes. >> Miss Wisman? >> Yes. >> Miss Khan? >> Yes. But I do want to say one thing before I make my This is now going to be in writing, right? you can get you
you'll find out exactly what you need to do and you'll follow the letter and you'll do the right thing and then after this is all done somebody will come by and make sure that the fence is put up with all the plantings and whatnot so you know you just so you know someone will come by and from the town okay all
right I vote yes >> Mr. Beer yes motion carries >> okay thank you I have two questions if I may ask >> why why don't we call the next one I'll I'll I'll try Go.
>> Okay. Block 401 lot 15.012 Harvest Lane application number 2025-63-3 Tarun Sony application. Applicant seeks approval to finish frame space to habitable living space in violation of
the following section. 170-87B4 habitable floor area 30-20 ft allowed. 3835 ft proposed 6 615 ft variance requested 17087 CC4 habitable floor area
ratio 30% allowed 36.19 person proposed 6.19 person variance requested >> come on in >> good evening it's almost good morning but good evening All right.
25 harvest, right? >> We knew where we're going on this one. >> Good evening, members of the board. My name is Yale Clatt, law office of Yale Clatt, 354 Eisenhower Parkway here in Livingston. I represent the applicant Tyrun and Adidas Sony. This is 25
Harvest Lane. It's a carbon copy of an earlier um variance application that we heard, I think, at the last hearing. Um it seeks to finish already framed habitable floor area
um in excess of uh the allowed uh area and area ratio. So we're looking at two D4 variances. Uh I have with me to provide testimony uh Mr. Sedra for architecture and Mr. McClean for planning.
Um Mr. Sedra was testifying earlier. Um >> all right. All right. Why don't we get M get Miss Cedra sworn in? Miss Cedra, do you swear for tell truth for the zoning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Miss Cedra's been previously qualified as an architect and uh would continue to testify as an architect.
>> Correct. >> And we can accept him as an expert. >> Great. >> On this application. >> On this application. Thank you. >> All right. And I'll I'll swear in and and qualify Mr. McClean when when he's uh ready for questions. Right. >> All right. Mr. Cedra, would you mind walking us through the architectural
qualities of this application? Uh sure. Uh so we are proposing to finish this uh space at the back of the building. It's located at the second floor. It's unfinished space and it's not accessible. Um it has uh electrical
wires hanging and it has some duct work. It's unfinished as I said. Um it was built with the original structure. So we are proposing to finish this space and add it to the house. uh by
uh relocating the master bedroom to this space and reconfiguring the the old master bedroom to host uh the home office and the enlarged walk-in closet. Also, uh the area where we entering this
space uh used to be the old bathroom, the whole bathroom. So, we're going to relocate the old bathroom uh to the left of this uh new hallway to access uh this space. And on the right
uh we will have an extra bedroom with its own bathroom and closet. So, we we are proposing to finish the space. We're not proposing any structural modification to this uh um u existing
space. Uh we only proposing uh new windows uh for the master bedroom and also the the small bedroom um just for uh for more light and more egress access.
And uh also we're proposing windows on the side of the building as well. So the our proposal does not involve any structural changes. We just going to have to, you know, add windows and um and that's pretty much it in and also
we'll finish the spaces as well. >> Will the exter exterior aesthetics um style and materials be consistent? >> Correct. Yeah, like nothing is going to happen to the exterior except uh adding the windows.
>> Um I have no further questions for the witness. >> Is Oh, excuse me. Does anyone on the board have any questions for this witness? Does anyone in the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay, back to you.
>> Okay. Uh, Mr. McClean, would you please state your name, credentials? >> We'll get we'll get them sworn in. >> Okay. >> Uh, swear for untitled truth for the zoning board tonight. >> I do. >> Okay. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Yes. Alexander McClean. Uh, last name M
C L E A N. Okay. And uh why don't we get Mr. McClean's qualifications on briefly? >> Okay. Uh sure. Yeah. I hold a masters in city and regional planning from Rogers University. I've been a practicing
planner for over 10 years. Um I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Uh licensed by the state board of professional planners and I've testified before boards throughout the state. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions or concerns regarding this uh witness?
There being no objections, we can certify you as an expert in professional planning. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Mine, go ahead and describe the planning qualities of the application. >> Sure. Um, first I want to just I guess for
context, I just I prepared some exhibits just so that the board has an idea of um, yeah, the space That's going to be A1. >> We'll call We'll call this A1. Now,
>> give me one second, M. McClean. >> This is why you never let attorneys do this. >> You guys can't certainly don't want to let architects do it either, but no. Okay. So, A1 is uh
we'll we'll say uh Mr. Clean, you are going to agree with me. It's eight pages. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh this we'll just call this all uh exhibit A1. >> Okay. All right. So, I'll just quickly provide
the context here. We'll just fly through this. Um I just thought it was really important um to just make sure that we're all clear about what you know the need for this um relief. All right. So, we are talking about uh lot 15.01. It's the highlighted area in the aerial map.
an aerial image provided. As you can see, it's surrounded by um well, it's it's next to the the the property that was heard last month. Uh this is 23 Harvest Lane uh on lot. So, we're this the applicant's property is on lot 15.01 and
the and the uh that's next to the the ne the prior applicant's property on lot 15.02. Uh it's surround so it's the applicant's property surrounded by single family homes. Um property measures uh 243 acres um
which is roughly approximately 10,597 square ft. Um and this is this home was constructed uh last year. Um and this follows a uh subdivision uh that was approved by the planning board on on March 2023.
Um, as the architect indicated, they were looking to just expand the livable area on the within the home. Uh, so there's no structural changes to the exterior of the of the home. Uh yes, we are looking we are property
is located in the R4 district and we are looking for relief uh under section uh 170-87B4 for uh floor area where 3,220 square ft is um is the maximum and we
are proposing 8 3,835 square ft. So, it's a difference of um 615 feet above what is required and that's within what was stipulated in the planning board's resolution uh for what would be uh an acceptable uh
variance uh deviation. Uh we also are looking for relief under section 170-87 point U CC4 for limited F as the attorney had mentioned. So it's a uh there's a deviation of just u
um 69% uh above what's u permitted which is the uh 3%.3 f um with respect to the positive criteria uh D4 variances uh required the
demonstration of special reasons and special cases. Um, so just to be to be frank, I mean, I think this is pretty clear. Um, so if you're looking at through the uh exhibits here, so I just provide so I should probably
walk this earlier. Uh, so you have the I showed you the exterior of the home on page exhibit two and and exhibit three. So the focus here is the uh is the rear of the home. So you can see on exhibit 3
is that that one window in the back and then there's no window on the other side of the of the on the on the north side of the home in the rear of the home. Um exhibit four. Uh this just shows you these are the truncated
uh livable space. So that's the one of the bedrooms here and uh the laundry room. Uh exhibit 5. Uh you can see the the bathroom uh the the rear of the bathroom, the shower is
uh where uh is another another truncated room as you can see in the on the in the image to the right on the right side of exhibit 5. That's the only that's the access to the rear of the of the home. Um so you can see one of the bedrooms to the right. I think it's one of their
children's bedrooms on the right and the bathroom is right behind the uh the stairs. So that's the end of the of their home. That's that's their virtually the back of their current home. Right. So um and
then you for exhibit six um I had went into the uh applicant's home. We went to through the crawl space because at the crawl space is the only means of getting to the rear of the home. And you can see all the HVAC work that's gets in the way of that. Um,
exhibit seven is the uh some of this is the means of us getting to the to the rear of the home. So this that that where the ladder is located. Uh that is the back of the uh bathroom and then to the right is uh is the back
of their one of the the bedrooms of the the children. Uh you can see all the uh the lack of insulation in the bag. >> It's obviously it's as the architect mentioned, it's not finished. So, and then you have uh
some additional photos here of the the rear of the home. So, that's all the uh the dead space here. So, you know, this is obviously um very um you know, it's very strange situation and um so that I think that's
obviously a special reason. And this is a very particular case that we're dealing with here. This is a home that the the applicant purchased um uh virtually unaware of the condition of of of this this space. Um
and it's um it's clear that uh yeah this this satisfies the the special reasons. Um with respect to the uh negative criteria, um I believe that the applicant's proposal to um finish the
rest of the space, all the internal work, um it advances multiple purposes of the municipal land use law. Purpose A for improving the quality of the township's housing stock within this particular home. Obviously, obviously, I don't think the town would want a home in their community that that had that is
in this condition. Uh purpose B for uh safety. you want to finish. Um you see a lot of uh unfinished walls, lack of insulation, that's obviously an issue. Um purpose C for providing adequate light. Uh we are
looking to uh provide additional windows and livable space there. Um purpose G, we're providing sufficient space in appropriate locations. So we are talking about we're not we're not adding any more units. Everything's saying the same with respect with
respect to that and purpose I for promotion of a desirable visual environment since we are proposed the proposed project would u take place um internally um there's no external um and this is in the rear of the home so
there's no impact to the streetscape and so so for these reason I believe that um this uh would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good or uh an impairment to the zoning plan zoning ordinance and meets the uh crit
criteria for relief under the municipalities law for deeper relief. I I think I heard you say this in other words, but with respect to the positive criteria, you you made examples of how this uh illustrates
um efficient use of unfinished space. >> Uh it advances the purpose of zoning for adequate light, air, and appropriate population density and safety. >> Correct. Um, okay. I I think that was pretty thorough. I I don't have any further questions.
>> Does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness? >> I I got a question. So, were you How are you going to not How are you going to go behind the bathroom on this? Are you >> I mean, say again, >> sorry, maybe did did you answer that
before? Uh >> are you um Oh, yeah. >> Is that question for Mr. Cedra? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So the area is behind the bathroom, right? And the bedroom. So how are you? What which are you going to be knocking some walls down? >> Are we going to remove actually the existing bathroom?
>> Are you going to remove that? >> The existing bathroom is going to get demolished because that's going to become the hallway too. >> The bathroom on the picture, the page five. >> Uh >> yeah, it's the same. So the bathroom on the right, the picture of the on the right on the left is the same one in the middle of the of the one on the right.
That's that's the bathroom behind the the ladder to the >> behind the attic access. Behind the attic access. >> This bathroom is located between the master on the left and there is a bedroom on the right. >> The whole thing is gutted out and the uh you make a Okay.
>> Yeah. This this bathroom where you have the double vanity. That's the one that's going to become the hallway. And you testified to the fact that this was kind of an unknown condition to the buyer or the applicant at this time.
>> He didn't know this was there and you've he found out later on, >> right? Yeah. >> So, basically the builder lied and cheated. >> That's that's Yeah, that's my understanding. >> Yeah. Wouldn't say I wouldn't say that, but >> Okay. But
>> some there was there was there was some extra lumber at the end of the day. >> Yeah. Well, yes. >> Um that's relevant with respect to this slippery slope concern. Um you're not, I don't believe, going to breed a population of homeowners to try and take
advantage of additional floor area. Um this this application addressed two specific instances. >> Anybody else? >> I have a comment. I don't really even know what to say. Um, so this is the second time that we're seeing this exact application. And while
I really appreciate you going through the negative criteria and the positive criteria, like to me, I don't think there's anything positive or anything. I think that we have to look at this in a total vacuum. I think the neighbors don't really care that the inside of the house is finished or not because it's not really changing the aesthetic of the
house. Um, so I think basically what we're doing is we're fixing a mess, right? And that's all that we're doing. And I hope that we never ever see an application like this ever again in front of the zoning board because this is embarrassing. Um, so I think it's it
it it warrants a different type of um we have to look at it differently. I don't think that we can really look at it the same as we would look at a normal, you know, devariance. So um, with that being said, I think we have to just think about this a little bit and
we're sort of over a barrel, aren't we? Yeah. if if it allays concerns about addressing the wrong I'm dealing with a very motivated applicant >> that's going to be addressing these things outside this forum. I made sure
it was outside this forum um to um address the injustices. >> Does anybody else have any comments or questions? >> I assume we're good with the public. I should I should reiterate uh like my
comments from 23. I this this section of town, it does seem very unique, not typical with the rest of R4 because the road curves around and it's overlooking CVS. So, uh it it does seem a very these
both these lots, but we're just dealing with this lot, but the curve is where it hits this lot. These do seem very unique to me uh versus any other houses in town because you see them from from this CV,
you know, the CVS bottle king location. So, and I I go there every day and I think the the houses are uh you know, aesthetically pleasing and and do not look and you get the benefit of hindsight here don't look inappropriate.
Even though I agree generally this does seem like these these properties do seem in a very unique location the way it it's a dead end at the end of the road almost bringing it into sort of a it is in commercial sightelines in a commercial area. So I just want to
reiterate what I said with respect to the prior application. >> Thank you for that because it it all needs to be readressed even though we want to go home. Um, and I think the words you >> I know the words you used before I think was like it was it own mini zone. Um, it
behaves like its own zone that section of street. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other comments? Anyone want to make a motion? >> I will make a motion to Yeah. All the comments are made of the board I fully agree with. Um, it is what it is. I will
make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. Mr. Horn. >> Yes. >> Mr. Horn. Sorry. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sharon. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Kenya. Yes. Miss Young. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wiseman. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Miss Khan. >> Mr. Beard. >> Yes. >> Motion carried. >> Okay. Thank you all. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Approved. >> Second, third, fourth, and fifth. I gave I gave you guys a a time limit
and all of a sudden you followed it.