As >> long as we have everybody here for testimony. Chairman, we're on the air. >> Welcome everyone. And I'd like to call the meeting of the Longhill Township Planning Board uh for November 25th, 2025. Thank you again for your patience
as we assemble on a on a wet uh dark evening. Uh we're going to get right underway here uh after we get through uh some of our announcements. So, Madam Secretary, if you would do the honor. >> Happy to, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you. >> Number one, call to order and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board and website by sending a copy to the Echo Sentinel newspaper and by filing a cop with the
copy with the municipal clerk. Number two, standard board procedures. [snorts] Any meeting or hearing conducted by the board as a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum
appropriate to a judicial meeting or hearing must be maintained at all times. Number three, meeting cutoff. Announcement is made that as a matter of procedure, it is the intention of the planning board not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or special meeting or hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members
then present to extend the meeting or hearing to a later specified cutoff time. Number four, electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceedings. Number five, pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] >> And roll call.
>> Excuse me. Miss Dill is absent this evening. Mr. Hanss >> here. >> Committeeman Lavender >> present. >> Mr. Lavareroio >> here. >> Miss Ojins >> here. >> Mr. Alala >> here. >> Vice Chairman Jones >> present. >> Chairman Richardson >> here. >> We have a quorum.
>> Thank you very much. >> Again, good evening everyone. So we have a singular agenda item and that is an application. I'll just read it briefly. It's a minor subdivision with variances. This is a a
carry and we'll describe some of the carrying that that occurred with this application. This is for block 10202 lot 12 in the R2 zone at 53 Indian Run
and Heritage Road. This is application number 25-19P. And with that, I think we'll turn it over to the applicant. Mr. Zelli, welcome. >> Thank you. Sure. Mr. Chairman, before we throw it over the applicant, the board attorney may make a few statements just
to get us started here. So, I just want to point out for the record that the applicant did notice did provide adequate notice of this hearing. They initially noticed for the board's September 9th, 2025 meeting. Um, everything was properly served. Everything was served timely. All the content was good. So, the board did the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case
at that point in time. Um, however, we weren't able to proceed that evening. So, we carried it to the uh the board's October 14th, 2025 meeting by voice announcement. no further notice being required and then we didn't finish up on October 14th. So then we carried it again to this evening. So the long and short of it is the board still has the jurisdiction here and decide the case in
my humble legal opinion. Um with that I'll let Mr. Zelli uh do his introduction and then we got to swear in our fill-in uh board engineer at some point. >> Yes. >> And uh yeah. So Mr. Zel, if you want to take it away and we'll uh we'll get started. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, board members, board professionals,
members of the public. Thank you for joining us this evening. Frederick Zali Postpollock. On behalf of the applicant, uh I do want to let you know I have uh eight sets of revised plans uh and revised color images. Uh what I was thinking since they're large in
particular, maybe if I handed six up there and put two out with the public to have something to look at, would that be acceptable? >> Thank you. And I do want to mention since we do have uh quite a few people in the audience, please please feel free to
come up to look at some of the exhibits. In fact, it might make sense to put that easel on that side just so it's a little easier for you to come up and and look at the exhibits as they speak to them. But do feel free to come come up, get
out of your seat, stretch your legs. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Just you may have to move it back. >> Yeah, just so people >> Yeah, if you Yep, that's fine. >> And the ones that they're getting are
the same ones as those. So, >> I'm going to double >> I'm going to res get started. >> No worries. [clears throat] Don't think we need so many. [laughter] >> Mr. This is the same set of plans that
you submitted uh earlier today by email to Miss Kun and myself, >> I believe yesterday, but yes, the recent. >> My apologies. Yeah. So, we'll mark that the entire plan said as exhibit A7, I believe. Oh, no. I think we're up to six. >> Six, I believe. >> Yeah. Just double check my notes. >> So, 10 sheets.
>> Yeah, six. Okay. All right. So, exhibit A6 will be the revised plan set. And that's 10 sheets. And the revised date on that is October 5th of 2025. >> How long? >> So Deb, does that mic work there that
you put on the table? Okay. Division 10. Uh actually 117 just below the 105. What does he say? >> I apologize. What are we marking in the numbers of these? >> A6. >> No, but he said it's a Do you see
November date on that? >> Let me take a look at the Lord. >> Yeah, we don't have a November. >> Yeah, the one you sent me doesn't have November either. >> It's all 105. >> The revision's in the box above the revision. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, it's not in the revision chart. >> It says 11:07.
>> My apologies. >> There it is. Well, that was >> Oh, here it is. Okay. It's just below the applicants. >> So, the plans are marked E6, >> correct? >> Revision date of 117 2025. >> Yeah. And uh Mr. Zill, I believe you
guys also sent us a couple uh revised renderings as well. Do you want to mark those? >> The board and the public have those as well. There's two pages. Mark that as A7. >> Okay. A7 for a compendium of of both of the uh revised renderings. And we can we give that today's date,
November 25th. >> Yes, that's fine. >> And we'll bring this out in testimony, but just for as a reference at this point, the first photo is the corner lot. The second photo is the interior lot.
Understood. Okay. And uh so I think you have your architect up, correct? >> Correct. Did you want me to do any kind of a summary of >> Yeah, I think she was sworn at the last one, but let's swear in again. And then >> I don't think you were. >> I don't think so either. >> You weren't. Okay. So, let's Good thing
this what we double check. >> So, if you could raise your right hand as well as uh Sir, what's your name? >> Robert. >> Robert Behringer. Okay. Okay, let me write your name down too. Okay. Do both of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide the truth, the whole truth, only with the truth of God. >> I do.
>> Great. Thank you so much. And uh your name? >> Jennifer Polalmo. >> Okay. And Mr. Zeli will go through your credentials so the court can uh determine whether or not to accept you. >> Sure. >> Mr. Chair, did you want to go right into testimony? Did you want me to get any kind of summary? Entirely up to the
board. Did you want to go through uh your architect's credentials so that we can >> certainly do that. Of course. No, of course. I just meant in general before we start her at all. >> That that's fine. Whatever you however you want to however you want to do it. >> Okay.
>> So, just as a general refresher, we are seeking to subdivide uh one large slot into two. Uh this is a unique application because we are in um what used to be or was originally a cluster application back in the 70s. So
we have a unique situation where neither our lot and certainly none of the other lots in the neighborhood comply with current zoning. The lots that we're proposing are all uh virtually all significantly larger uh than the existing neighborhood lots. Nonetheless,
we need variances because again, none of the neighborhood comes close to complying with the current zoning. Uh if we were not in that situation, most likely we could have an as of right subdivision in this case because we're dealing with um smaller lots or larger
lots, I should say. Uh, and just to go over the variances really quickly before we get into testimony, uh, we're dealing with lot area for both lots for the reason I just described, lot width for lot 1202, front yard setback for both
lots, uh, and actually two because of the one lot being a corner lot, building height for only one of the lot, but a C variance, not a D variance. It's within 10%. Uh and then distance from the building to the critical area which is steep slopes on the corner lot. That's
an improved condition however because currently the building is actually in the steep slopes. We are at least not touching them but we do not have the distance required. We have 8.6 ft where 25 ft would be required but again we're going from 0 to 8.6. So we're still improving the situation in that regard.
Uh Mr. Hollows testified extensively and completely at the last hearing. Uh many members of the public did comment and ask questions uh regarding uh drainage. I should say ask questions. We didn't get to comments yet. Uh Mr. Hollows made it clear that for drainage purposes
because of the storm water mitigation that's planned and designed for these properties, uh the drainage overall and any ramifications thereof is going to be diminished as opposed to made worse uh by this application. So, having said that, uh, Miss Polo,
we're going to let you start here. Would you please give the benefit of your professional and educational background? >> Certainly. I have a master's degree in architecture from New Jersey Institute of Technology. Um, I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey since uh, 2002.
Can't believe it's been that long. Um, and I, uh, have appeared before many, many, many boards. This is actually my second time. Oh, no. I was at the planning board last time. would have adjustment last time >> for another That's right. for another application. Um,
>> and the plans for the present application were prepared uh by or at your direction. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And you're prepared to take us through all of these plans, both of these plans this evening? >> Yes. >> Okay. Why don't we why don't we begin briefly? Um,
>> are you familiar with the current building on the property? >> Mr. Hollow's touched on it briefly. So >> just >> just for the record, I'd like to just make sure the board is acknowledges and approves >> your expert in this matter. Any any questions or comments from the board? >> Okay.
>> No. Only comment has your license still in good standing? >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Proceed. >> As I said, Mr. Hollis did touch on it. If you're not familiar with the current property building, then we'll just go on to the new ones. >> We'll just go on to the new ones.
>> Okay. Then let's start with uh first of all just for the record uh what's been marked as exhibit A6 is the last revised uh set of plans uh dated revision date of November 7. Those are the ones you'll be working off this evening. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Uh and for the board's edification, the primary reason, if not the sole reason for revisions was to change the exterior front facades in order to avoid needing a variance for having two identical buildings. Is that accurate? Okay. So, in terms of floor
plans and so forth, they're basically the same plans. >> Okay. Let's start with the corner lot, please, which is the first uh five sheets of the A6. [clears throat] >> Is that mic working?
>> It was. All right. Maybe new batteries already. We know >> wasn't sure if it was because I took it out. >> This is >> Hello. Hello. Oh, that's good. >> Okay, here. Let me let me just move the
plane a little closer. Okay. So, uh our A100 sheet is showing our uh proposed basement. Um it will be unfinished. Uh it will also house in case. >> Hello. Okay. Oh,
>> okay. So, uh basically an unfinished basement. We and we have a mechanical room. So on our uh ground floor uh we have uh typical uh open living. We have a kitchen, living room, family room,
dining room, and a guest office room and and a twocar garage. the second floor. Uh we have four bedrooms. We have a master and uh three other bedrooms. Um not everyone has
their own on suite, but um two bedrooms share a bathroom. >> Laundry on that floor as well. Uh yes, we have laundry right here on the second floor and we have the double height space for
the entryway, >> the twotory foyer. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So on our first elevation, which is our uh corner lot, um we have a uh pitched roof from front to back, gables on end
on the ends, and we have a gable over the front entry door. um twotory. Our floor to floor or our floor ceiling heights are are 10 feet for each floor. And on uh the corner lot, our proposed
uh height is uh 35 foot 10. >> So we are calling for a variance for that because it's higher than 35. >> Correct. >> What was that? What was that number again? >> 35 foot 10. >> Thank you. >> Where 35 is required.
Um, we have our side elevations. We're showing Hardy Plank with uh cultured stone at the base and around the surround of the front. You can see in our colored renderings uh the first one is the rendering of the corner lot
property. >> All right. So, that's the first rendering on exhibit A7. >> Correct. >> All right. Now, let me take you back to the front elevations uh in the plans. just so that everybody doesn't think their eyes are playing tricks on them that we have somewhat different
materials if you look at the color eyes versus the plans themselves. Is that correct? >> Uh yes. >> Would you just identify those differences please? >> So uh the rendering shows uh trim around
the windows at the uh front entryway and uh it shows stone around these uh bay windows. Um I believe that the uh rendering is going to be what the elevation is uh proposed.
>> So when there's a conflict, we should rely on the color rendering. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just for the record, none of those material differences have any impact as far as variances or anything like that. Correct. >> No, sir. focusing on the first sheet if you would going back to the basement sheet
shows window well. Can you comment on that a bit? It seems a bit larger than what we might might be used to for window wells. Uh so uh I guess the the purpose is so that in the future should they choose to uh finish the the basement um they will have enough light
coming in uh to the basement so it doesn't feel like a basement. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is it really designed for light or designed for egress? >> Designed for light. This one here uh could be egress if necessary, but we
have a stair uh goes that goes directly into the basement from the outside. >> Thank you. >> Board, have any other questions for this particular house before we move to the second one? >> Can you tell me the height of the ceiling in the basement?
>> Uh sure. Uh we have a seven foot high basement. >> And just a statement for consideration. >> What can you do to get below the 35 ft? Something to think about. We can either answer it now or you can table it. >> Uh we
>> you're seeking a variance. >> Yes. >> Of 10 in. >> Correct. >> Right. Yeah, we'll just go through this in more detail. >> Bear, just let me comment briefly though, just reminder of Mr. Holla's testimony. Bear in mind that this is the corner lot. This is the one that has the slope.
>> Go through it. >> Primary cause of that, right? >> We explain in detail why 35 10t 35 10 in. So you can see here on uh our sheet A103 that uh the site slopes off towards uh
the other street and we have we're taking our height from uh this point over here all the way on the right hand side. >> That's the lowest exposed. >> Correct. >> Thank you. What's the total square foot of living
space? >> Uh the total square foot is uh uh 4200 square feet. I guess the uh another question I have is did you look at any of the other uh structures in the area and how does
how do the other structures compare? in regards to square footage. >> Um, >> height. >> So, I didn't measure the heights um at all, but there one of our our
original designs had um uh a lot of uh hips and valleys on our roof. And uh we took a good look at the neighborhood and and really the context of that neighborhood has pretty much um gable
ends and a a roof that goes from front to back and it's fairly low sloped. So uh we revisited that and um made it much more simple. Most of them also have a one-story attached garage next to it.
So, uh, we're trying to use the same, uh, topology as, uh, what is there ours, >> sorry, detached or attached? >> Attached. Did I say detached? I meant attached. >> No, no, no. I I may have misheard you. So, >> yes, they're they're all one-story
attached garages. [snorts] And so we um we made sure to keep that and uh change our roof lines with just simple uh dormers or uh intersections at those roofs. >> And Meliss Plemo, the very original
uh house plans that were submitted were considerably larger than what we're proposing. >> That is correct. >> Uh as I recall, more than substantially more than 5,000 square feet, were they not? >> Yes, they were. >> Thank you. Sorry. Can we just go back on the height for a second? Right. I'm just reading
from your original Liz from your original document. >> So you talked about two both houses at the time were higher I think 38 and 38 5.8 now just the first one is 3510. >> Yes.
>> Second one is >> it's compliant. >> It's compliant. Right. The second one we actually show it also as 35 foot 10. >> So both a potent shoot. >> No, you shouldn't from lowest point.
>> I know. Hold on one second. And just for the record, as Mr. Hollow testified last time, even if we for some reason with the slope were above 35, the slope will be changed in order to make it 35. We will not be seeking variance
for the interior lot for height. >> Okay. So that's the that's a discrepancy on the interior on the one in Indian one. >> So the corner lot is one in question for the height. That's correct. 10. So could you explain in detail why you need to go
to 3510? >> Uh we can lose 10 in between the grading. We will modify the grading so that um we don't have that extra 10 in
for both lots. Now >> can we do that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's make sure on the corner. First of all, Mr. Mr. Hollers, you're still under oath and your license is still in good standing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, >> thank you. >> Can we adjust topography on the corner
lot to avoid the variance or not? >> You would be >> not unless I built a wall. >> Okay. >> But the interior lot, we can I can adjust the grades to to do that. And I believe I testified to that. >> You did. And I just wanted to >> Yeah. Our plans are showing that it's
3510 on both lots. >> Do you believe that to be the case currently or is that that's That may be the architectural's plans, but I but I can adjust the grade. In fact, I I did it redlinined it on my drawings just
things that we talked about last meeting. I put it on my my drawings for hopefully future revisions if the board were to approve this. >> But again, that's for the interior lot only. >> That's the interior lot. And I'll remind the board also, the original plans, we were, as a matter of fact, M. Lehaney pointed out that we might be in front of
the uh wrong board because we were actually more than 10% over on the original plan. So, we've brought that down drastically to the point that we're only 10 inches over at this point and only for the one lot. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I'm sorry. He he did mention that he had
would have to build a wall. >> No, sir. >> You want to explain that a little further >> or is that only the corner lot? >> That's right. >> The interior lot. No. >> So the corner lot, you would have to build a wall. Can you explain that a little bit to me? >> Well, just to raise the grade up a
little bit because it it slopes off, right? It's pretty good slope at that point. >> 10 in. So that would pick up the 10 inches and the wall would be like a retaining wall to hold the hold the material back. >> Yes. >> How far off the house would you build that wall? >> I I'm sorry. I had I hadn't gone and
designed that. >> 8 ft. 10 feet gueststimate. I'm not going to hold you to it. >> Probably between eight and 10 feet. Okay. >> So that's So at the end of the day, that's a tradeoff. >> I'm sorry. >> Is that a tradeoff for the corner lots? >> Height 35 or
>> I'd just like to I guess go back in some of my testimony. It's only one corner. It's just the one corner. The other three corners would be >> 35 or less. >> One [clears throat] second. >> I'm sorry guys. Uh I'm sorry. I add in the public, we we're picking you up on
the mics, so please if you have to have a conversation, you can step out in the hallway. That would be helpful to us. Thank you. >> Yeah. Hold on. >> So, you're not able to hear the mic? >> Just a few minutes ago.
I couldn't hear where that was or anything. She didn't show us where it's coming from. What the figure >> sir? Why don't Sir, why don't you come Why don't you come over closer so you can see her pointing out. >> You can stand right there along that
wall to hear better. >> You can both stand there. >> You can all sit. >> You can all stand there if you look forward. Why don't you also move the easel back and that back to turn it slightly >> on the microphone just fine. >> And then and then tilt it. I suggest you
have this mic. >> Turn it this way a bit. Turn it this way a bit too. So they can see from over here >> to see. >> That's better. I think >> right here if you need to be that close. Yes. >> As long as that microphone's still green, we're good. >> Yep.
>> We can I think we can all hear up here just fine. These people can't see what >> they can come up if they need to. >> They've been invited to >> the plans. Are the plans not on the desk over there? >> Everybody, >> right? There's a set in the audience.
There's a set over here. People are welcome to come up here and there will be questions >> and there's out in the audience >> when the when the architect is done testimony. >> Done with her testimony. >> Great. And for the record, we do have two sets of plans among the audience members as well as two sets of uh
exhibit A7. >> Thank you. If >> I could get us back on track here. So, I just want to be totally clear on what's being requested here. You guys are do you still want to seek the variance for 12.01 on the height of the of the house? >> At this point, we are still seeking a variance for 10 in over on the corner
lot only. >> Right. Okay. >> Mr. Hollows is now addressing what it would take to >> not need that variance. And the trade-off would be we'd have to do a retaining wall, which is something else that we typically try to avoid. So, it's it's a trade-off as Mr. Han suggested. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And not to play devil's advocate, but any reason why you can't bring the height down to 35? >> Uh, we could take some height off of the second floor. Our uh our our ceiling height up there
is 10 feet. >> That sounds pretty high. Seven foot ceiling. >> Can I make that suggestion? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> So you would take it down to 10 uh to nine. >> Go nine. >> 9 for four. >> I mean 9 foot two. >> 9 foot for two. Make it exactly >> but yes.
>> Safer to make it to nine. [laughter] >> Okay. >> Okay. Say lot one second floor from 10 feet to 9 ft. Thank you. Are there any other questions just from the board real quick on the corner lot so we can move to the interior lot?
>> Right. Is that where you're going next? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks. Please proceed. >> I'm not going anywhere. >> Um, so basically I I don't know that I
need to go through the plans because they're the same. Um, so I'll go straight to the elevations. And so, uh, the second house here in the interior, uh, we have the same pitched
roof from the front to back. Um, we have and we've just added two more, uh, peaks, um, to break up the roof line and, um, changed our materials to, um, to stone on the on the the double height
entry. Um and then we have uh stucco I believe. >> So if we are saying that the color images are going to be the accurate ones, we need you to look at the second page of A7 and describe materials based upon that.
>> Correct. Did they actually match our elevations? >> Okay. >> The interior lot. >> That's the rear. >> If I'm not seeing stone around Yes, I am. >> I'm sorry. You look at the rear frame. >> It's brick. Yeah, it was. >> And it's it's hatched as stone. And that
was just a a mistake. >> Okay. >> And we also, and you've already addressed this, we also have peaks showing as >> I'm sorry, >> we're we're showing peaks above the window. You addressed that already. >> Correct. >> The elevation the color image does not
show that. Correct. >> Yes, they do. >> No, they don't. Those are not the ones that we >> That's not the one we were given. >> Oh god. >> That's not good. >> Here.
>> What's happening? >> All right. Exhibit A8. >> Which is which? >> This one. Correct. >> Yes. This. Sorry. See, >> just just for the record on this house, I am not a fan of that front entrance way.
>> Okay. That's just my own two cents. >> This is actually two peaks. >> So, this is the one. This is what we show in our drawing >> and with the two peaks. >> I agree with >> All right. And uh yes, A8 and
>> for the record then, Miss Polmo, just so we're clear, the second page of A7 is not what we're proposing. what is now going to be A8 >> um is what we're proposing. >> Correct. And we we're happy to revisit
the entry. >> So this is not >> Yeah, that's that one in your right hand is wrong. >> Can the public get the one? >> Well, we haven't seen it either. [laughter] >> I think we'll be pass the board and then we'll pass it around. difference.
>> Uh yeah, just for the record, the difference Miss Plerno, why don't you take them through what the difference is? >> Sure. The difference is if you if you look at the drawings, >> it shows two peaks over the two bay windows on either side of the entryway.
>> Um where here they were not um shown on our rendering, but they are now shown on the rendering that you have. >> And by here, you mean page two of exhibit A7? Page >> A8 >> the new one. >> No, page two of A7. Yes, I'm sorry. Sorry. >> A nine of A6.
>> The first one that we got was inaccurate. What she's what is now exhibit A is the accurate depiction of what that house should look like. >> Correct. And it matches the drawing. >> Can we see that down here? >> Just pass it down. >> I don't think anybody has. >> I'm sorry. >> Do we say we have an A9 already? What's A9?
>> Oh, there's no A9 yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> that's my bad. >> What Mr. Zelli is about to pass out exhibit A8. >> So this is A8. And for the record, this is going to replace the second page of A7. >> That's a colorized rendering of the
proposed dwelling on proposed lot 12.02 dated November 25th, 2025. Mr. Kelly, >> that's correct. >> Thank you. >> So am I to assume the plans are accurate? >> Correct. The rendering with the photo that's not
>> correct. Okay. with this particular house. The other house is the other way around. >> The other house was different as to materials but not design. >> No. >> Right. >> I'll go there. >> See, it's got I just He's got the peaks, not the peaks. Okay.
>> So, which of the two front entryways are more like in line with the rest of the neighborhood? >> So, um most of the neighborhood has uh are are typical colonials. Um, and I they don't actually really have a front porch. Um,
but in uh in this day and age, but it doesn't go that high. >> We felt that uh keeping the mass of the building similar with the neighborhood, we could um be more in line with what customers
want. >> Thank you. M Polmo, let's focus on A8, which is the uh interior lot. The board has expressed some concerns with the front entryway, and I'm guessing that's largely because
it's protruding out so far. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I'm wondering >> I don't know if this work >> I I'm wondering if you could reduce I when you look um >> at some of the other homes in the
neighborhood they do have front porticos but they're just one story >> and so that may be more appropriate. >> Well, mine has two stories. >> What? >> My my house has two. >> Do you live within 200 feet? [laughter] >> No, I do not. >> No, I do not.
>> If not, you need to recuse yourself. >> That's right. [laughter] Yeah. >> Yes, we can absolutely revisit that. >> Um, >> that'd be good. >> In fact, I think you you hit the nail on the head when you look at the uh the corner lot. We've got the the lower roof
that sort of helps um >> take that height down. >> Yep. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> So, we can design the redesign the entryway to the corner lot without ending up being identical to the lot. >> Correct. >> The interior. So it doesn't end up being identical to the corner.
>> Correct. I would still put the peaks over the uh over the bay windows. Um but but make the the entry portigo look more like the corner lot. >> Okay. >> Better. >> Then Mr. Chair, we would uh stipulate to having to redesign the front entryway
uh to the satisfaction of whomever your designate might be. Perhaps Miss Laney. >> Okay. Liz, >> you want to take that responsibility? >> Sure. >> Yeah. You can't pull it off with him tonight, huh? >> All right, >> perfect. >> I'm happy to sign off on it. >> I think Rob's up to the task. You can
throw it on. No, he's all right. >> Can I actually ask a question? >> Sure, please. I'm sorry to take a few steps back, but I'm having a hard time understanding the height because when I look at the original architecturals, they also say 3510,
but um the engineering plans or site plans said 38. And that makes sense to me because it's from the lowest, you know, portion of the ground to the highest roof. So, I'm having a hard time understanding how it went from 38 to
3510 to now comply conforming. Do do you know? >> So, the the the plans you have on your screen there are are the old plans. >> Yes. >> Right. So, if you look at the the pitch of the roof there, um it's much steeper,
>> but these say 3510. >> Oh, >> right. Mr. Hollow, since you're approaching the mic, I'm guessing you might have the answer. >> I hope so. >> Well, I'll try. >> The interior lot. I think I I know I
testified to the fact that I could adjust the grades, the site grading to accommodate the um the height of the building and bring it in conformance. The corner lot, I didn't testify to that. I did testify that it was 38 ft
from highest to lowest at the southeasterly corner of that building, which is the lowest ground there. Um, I just did doing some quick uh grading while I was sitting there
listening to this. I can probably do I don't know if I can get it into conformance, but I can probably get it to 3510. to get in conformance. Again, I would most likely have to build a a little bit of a retaining wall. You know, it could be a landscape feature.
It's not going to be really tall. Um, not more than two feet. >> All right. I guess I'm confused because I heard a concession on ceiling height on the second floor. So, that's totally independent. >> Totally independent. >> Totally independent to what I just Okay.
So, if they can bring that down and I can do a little grading, I think we can get it to 35. >> So, the current prior to that concession, we were showing the corner lot at 3510. That's what Miss Blero just testified to. >> No, 38. >> Well, from a site plan perspect, sorry,
I'm sorry. Yeah, from a from a site plan perspective, it was meaning how he did it according to our ordinance. How sorry, Mr. Hollows did it, measured it according to our ordinance was 38. Um, but if you looked at the elevation, it was, I guess, measured as 3510. So on
both plans, the old ones and the new ones, it says 3510 architectural plans, but the site plan that was done at the time of these architectural plans, the old architectural plan said 38. So that's where I I I'm assuming that 38 was correct because that was based on
the grading, >> right? But the roof lines were taken down since then. >> Well, they both plans say 3510, both the old and new. >> Okay. So, Miss Plenimo, were the roof lines taken down as you just testified to? I thought they were. >> I thought they were, too. >> Is it possible that that's just a typo
on the number? >> Could be. >> All right. >> All right. Regardless, you're going to have to build it to 35 ft. >> Correct. So, now you're >> So, we are not seeking a variance for height for either building. And >> however we achieve that, it'll be achieved.
>> I wanted to make sure that Mr. Hollows could confirm that it could be done, >> right? 35. Okay. that it's feasible. >> Yeah. I think if if you look right here at this elevation, you can see that the the the pitch has been lowered. >> So,
>> okay. Any other questions from the professionals at this point? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Please, Mr. Zelli. >> No, I just wanted to clarify, just for the record, primarily for the public's benefit, the two interior layouts are virtually identical. >> Yes. What we are seeking to do by the
ordinance of the town is to have different street appearances and we've accomplished that. Uh the interior home uh just to refresh will be redesigned as far as the entrance way uh to not be as protruding uh and to be more in line
with what's designed for the corner lot, although not identical to that. >> Correct. >> All right. Nothing further from Miss Polarmo at this time. >> Just to make 150% sure before the public gets up and asks questions. Mr. You are no longer seeking the height variance for either either house. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, both houses will be of a compliant height. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank just trying to make it clear for everybody. >> Two. So, but to do that, we'll require the retaining wall on the corner lot. >> No, no, >> no retaining wall can be.
>> There's an adjustment to a ceiling height on the second floor. Correct. is what has been at least proposed to conform to create a conforming structure. >> Yeah, I got that for the 35.1 to lower the ceiling to get it down to 9.2 on the
second floor. >> And that'll get us to 35 ft. >> Correct. >> Bring it from 10 feet to 9 foot2. Correct. That's correct. >> I believe Mr. Hollow also said there might be some minor grading associated with that, but no retaining.
>> No retaining. Okay, thank you. >> Good. All right. Um, I think we're Do we have any other questions from the board? Because I would like to uh Do you have any more testimony on the architectural? >> I have no more testimony before the
public begins to ask questions of the architect. >> Okay. >> Mr. Hollows addressed drainage uh extremely in detail comprehensively. Miss Polarmo is not qualified to address those questions. If we could try to get
in front of that, I would appreciate that. >> Yes. >> Do you have any more witnesses, Mr. Z? >> I do not. >> Okay. Just trying to get a lay of the land for going forward. Okay. >> So, open the public, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Uh, I first would like to I think we should acknowledge and if you could just ask if anybody is represented by
legal counsel. >> Is anybody here represented by an attorney? Are there any attorneys in the audience? I probably should ask that when we started. >> No. Seeing none. Okay. Very good. >> Great. >> All right. So, folks, same as last time when the engineer testified, please come up and ask your questions of the
architect based on the testimony she provided. Uh, the engineer, you know, did testify already, so please don't ask any repeat questions. You already asked him. This is not her area of expertise with as far as drainage good and other engineering things go. So if you have a question, please come up. We need your
name and address. Just approach the podium and ask questions of the witness. >> Questions, please. And and I will also point out there's going to be an opportunity to make comments, statements. So everything that exits your mouth should have a question mark at the end of it. >> Understood. Okay. >> And we would appreciate since we do have
quite a few people, I don't know how many people want to ask questions that we limit it to three to five minutes max uh in regards to questioning. Thank you. >> Uh Brian Dagley, 6 675 679 Heritage Road across the street. Um I have three questions. First is so in the variance,
I know we're not going for a variance anymore, but in the beginning, what's a standard residential ceiling height is around eight or nine feet, right? >> Uh nowadays, it's uh nine or 10. >> Okay. But in in keeping with the neighborhood, it would be more like eight or nine feet. So to to ask for the
variance when you're already kind of 2 feet over, is there a reason for the the need for the higher height of the ceilings or is that just an aesthetic? >> It's it's a personal preference. >> Okay. Number two is I guess the number of bathrooms in the house. Uh so there's
three full bathrooms and two halfbs in the house. >> Correct. Uh, >> according to the plans. >> Yes. >> There's not one in the basement. One half. And that's a half.
>> So that's another. And then there's three upstairs. >> So it's >> So it's four full one half, >> right? >> Right. And then three. >> This is This is a full bath. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> That's full baths. >> So I guess in a single family home, why would you need typically four full baths and an exit from the basement to the exterior? >> Uh so the
the homeowner uh has children and uh wants their children to come into the house through the basement. Okay. >> Um, as far as bathrooms are concerned, uh, that's not unusual for, uh, a four-bedroom house nowadays.
>> I can Every fourbedroom house in the neighborhood that I've ever been in has two full baths and maybe one or two half >> beds. Sir, questions. >> Questions, please. Those are comments. >> Sure. Understood. >> You can make comments later. >> Y, I got you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, and then my last question is, so you said the houses are 4,200 square feet, >> correct? >> Do you what is the Do you know the average uh square footage of the other houses in the neighborhood? >> I do not. >> Okay. Is that something that we would have access to? >> 2400.
>> So, 24 So, I know you said something about the mass of the house. Would that be like So, keeping the house the same mass as the others in the neighborhood, would that be is when you say mass, does that mean something different than the square footage? >> No. what I was uh mostly referring to
the roof line and and sort of the the massing of the so >> the overall shape of the building while it may be larger than its neighbors it's still uh relates to the neighbors
>> so the footprint of the >> Please hold the mic I'm sorry we lost the last Could you just repeat >> I'm Italian I use my hands it's problem >> I talk with my [laughter] hands could you yeah could you just repeat that Last response from the question. >> Certainly. So, um, in in terms of the
mass is the shape of the building is is similar to the ones in the neighborhood. While it might be larger, it's still um in terms of the topology of the shape of the building and the roof line. >> Got it. So, like so a square is a
square. This one's just a much bigger square. Is that kind of the idea? Okay. >> All right. That's it. Thank you. >> Sorry. I just want to uh this might help. Um the ordinance, our ordinance regulates floor area ratio, which is how much square footage based on the lot
size. And so for the proposed interior lot, they could go um in excess of 5,400 square feet. >> My question wasn't about what they could, it's just in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood. So >> Okay. All right. >> Anyone else questions? Other questions?
Please come up. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> I'm Bill Murphy from 687 Heritage Row and I want to get back to the same question about square [clears throat] footage. So
the square footage is 4,200 square feet and 80% of the houses in the development are 2400 square feet. serve that >> with a few being up to like 32 I think but that's about the range 24 being the
most comments you had asked >> the question my question is one that you raised and that wasn't answered which is and I know that there were great pains I could see in other areas where you said
you want to keep all the houses to be you know cons you know considerate of the rest of the neighborhood 50t off the front and various things to just make these things blend in. But I didn't hear any answer to the question of did you at
all consider the size of these two houses relative to the entire neighborhood? Was that any was there any consideration given to that? That's the question. I mean in terms of uh overall size and
what we were allowed to do, we made it less than what we could have done. >> Okay. >> So that's to the extent that we >> So the So in other words, there wasn't any attempt to make them blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. It was just go to the maximum allowed.
>> Well, we didn't go to the maximum allowed. >> Okay. you went a long way from all the rest of the neighborhood to make this a bigger house, including the 10 foot. >> So, you know, there's costs there's costs that that come into uh play with
this, right? So, we're building a new house. Cost of construction has gone up. What is the demand? Who is going to buy it? And so, you know, things have changed over the years. And um I >> I'll tell you who would buy it. Houses in our neighborhood stick around for
about two weeks and they're sold. Sir, >> that's not an issue. >> You can come back with some comments. I appreciate. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just just out of curious, do we know what the square footage is of the existing building? >> It's estimated it's like 1,700 square
feet. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm Joe Selenino, 661 Heritage Road, Millington. Um, I'm a little concerned. I don't quite understand yet what this two houses are going to look like
compared to what our houses are look like, everybody else's home. And especially if that was changed a little bit, a little bit larger, that's not a big deal. But when we start talking about putting a fence up or uh something else up so that uh uh it segregates from
the house from the street or and or the steps, then that kind of makes everything look kind of cheap again. And for me looking at that after 40 years, 40 plus years of looking at nice trees, um, a yard and so forth.
>> Yeah, we're sir. >> Um, you're going to have every opportunity if you want to come back up and make your your case about what you think about the application. You're more than welcome to. This is not the time for that. Please ask the architect questions and limit it to questions to the architect, not just your observations. Well, it's it's it's it is
an architect, but it's also for for what we feel is the idea. Is that what you're saying? All of that goes to the >> every opportunity to say how you feel about it in a little bit. Right now, we have we have a process here. We have >> So, you you could ask questions for clarification.
>> Yes. >> If you're confused about something, please feel free to ask questions of the architect to get more clarity on what they've testified to. And one other thing, sir, would there were the applicant provided renderings of the houses how they're going to look? I
don't know if you got a chance to look at those, but those are >> Yeah. >> Okay. You did you had an opportunity to look at those? >> Yeah. Take a look at >> what I then the question would be uh what I'm hearing so far today is that
there's a possibility that we're going to put a fence up. We don't know how big the fence is right now. >> There's no f there's no fence. No, there there was a there there's a possib Let me let me answer that for you. There was a slight mention of possibly a short retaining wall, right? >> That has been we've decided we're not
going to do that. But nothing about a fence. >> Well, that's what I meant by a retain. >> That would have if it had happened, but we've ruled it out, but if it were to happen, it would have been a retaining wall of maybe a foot high just to change the elevation. >> Okay. So, from where we're sitting across to the house, there's nothing.
There's no fence or whatever you want to call. not going to see any vertical facade except for the house itself. That's correct. >> Um all right. I'm not sure if I should ask that now or later. The trees that are there right now that a lot of them for the size of this house is going to have
to be taken down. >> Is that correct, Miss Palmo? You're taking >> Mr. Holl's already testified to tree removal. That's outside of Miss Palmo's. Okay. >> Thank you. >> It's outside. It's outside your perimeter. >> She's the architect. She's not the engineer. That's not her purview. So, I won't know that until it's built. Is
that what >> Mr. Hollows addressed that extensively at the last meeting and you asked questions at the last meeting? >> Well, I I did ask questions at the last meeting. I'm asking it again because I'm hearing >> the applicant to to please just if we could just real cover that real briefly on the the to refresh everybody's memory
on the tree removal. >> Mr. Holl, can you give us a quick refresher on tree removal, please? I [clears throat] believe my testimony was that we would be removing trees. Obviously, we've got a pretty good size house. Um, we're trying to stay out of
steep slopes. We pushed the house as far forward as we could to maintain that existing 50-foot setback line. Um, and I my testimony was that we would add some trees, especially along Heritage Road because there aren't very many in that
area. Um, you know, street trees along there. And then we would also put foundation plantings. And typically on a corner lot, you just don't found put foundation plantings on the front of the house. You also put them on the side that faces the other street. So those
are the things that we would do. Um, does that help you? >> Uh, with that in mind, uh, the the hill that you're talking about, that's >> Could you get a little bit closer to >> go closer to the mic, please? Thank you. >> The hill the hill that you're talking
about here on to Heritage Road where it's connect. You're saying that it's it's not the hill is going to be approximately the same thing. >> The same hill. >> Yeah, it's going to be graded a little bit differently, but just still have the hill there. It will be and it's not going to be smashed down halfway or No,
>> we don't know yet. It's going to still be there at the same height >> approximately. >> Yeah, we're um >> the house will be a little bit higher, >> right? >> Okay. The the ground line will be a little bit higher. >> Yeah. At the house. >> At the house.
>> Yeah. But then the the slope down to the street >> will be about >> will be approximately the same. So >> approximately the same. Yes. And then as I stated, we put some shade trees along here in the road. >> Okay, that's that's good. >> Thank you. Okay, >> thank you.
>> Don't go away. [laughter] Fred Hunt. >> Yeah. Do you have questions for the architect? >> I have a question for Mr. Hollows on trees since he's up with it. >> Uh would that be okay? >> No, no objection since it's on trees. >> Thank you. I know it's been a little bit
of time since our last testimony. I watched it on TV this morning since I wasn't here the last time. >> Thank you. Please. >> Yes, sir. Your name and address, too, please. >> Okay. 646 Heritage Road, lot 11. >> Fred Hunt. >> And what was your name again, sir? I'm sorry. >> Fred Hunt. >> I'm the next door neighbor.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. That's me. Yeah, that's me right there. >> Okay. Uh, when I watched the TV this morning, watched you and you talked about trees. Um, I guess one question I
have is there going to be a landscaping plan that shows the trees and everything you're going to put in? >> Typically, an application like this, you would show the the street trees, not necessarily the foundation plantings. >> Okay. Um, I think you mentioned or
somebody mentioned that you might be throwing some trees in here too in this area. Paul, I think I had testified that >> buffer >> that >> No, seriously. >> No, I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. >> Um, that is an open area on this property. It's there's a lawn area till
you get kind of up the hill. >> Um, I don't see why we couldn't put a few trees or evergreens even. >> Yeah. >> In along that back property line. >> Bill, could you just make sure it's clear? Are you pointing on the uh heritage side? >> It's on. I just want to make sure it's
clear on the recording what what you're pointing to. I'm sorry. >> Well, I'm I'm pointing to the easterly property line of the corner lot um kind of opposite the existing house on the adjoining lot. >> Gotcha. >> So, there are a couple of sh trees there
now, but there is an open space [clears throat and cough] opposite this driveway. >> Got it. Does that answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you. Charles Arenowitz, 605 Heritage Road, Millington.
My first question is, are you the person to answer questions on negative criteria? >> No. >> Nope. Will we have someone going to testify about the negative criteria? >> You're not going to have somebody
testifying to it. No, they will be close. >> When can I question someone on it? >> I don't believe they have a planner who's going to be providing that testimony, Mr. Renowitz. So, I don't believe there's anybody want to speak for the applicant, Mr. Zeli. Tell me if I'm wrong. >> Uh, no, that's correct. Uh, Mr. Ronov
which you'll certainly have every opportunity to make your comments at the end and I'll respond to them in my summation. >> These are not comments. These are questions about what you submitted about negative criteria in your application.
So if I have questions that they are can't be asked in comments, I want to ask them when I can question the witnesses. Well, if there's no witness who's provided planning testimony, there there's nobody to ask questions about that testimony that
doesn't exist, Mr. >> So, there's no expert coming forth that can talk to me about negative criteria. That's what you're telling me. >> That's correct. >> Answer that question. >> That's the applicants answered that question.
>> Okay. Let me ask this question of the architect. Have you driven? Well, first of all, are you aware that there's two sections to this development? >> Uh, no.
>> Well, there this board, it's prior board approved that in 1978. Have you at least driven the two sections of the Colony Woods, meaning Indian Run, Heritage Road, and Deer Run?
>> I've done gone down Indian Run and uh what's the corner street? heritage. >> You have not driven deer run. >> No. >> So, do you know from your research and trying to match this house to the other
houses how many homes were approved for this development, both sections? >> So, I'm just going to object that it's it's presuming uh testimony that wasn't there. Uh Miss Plo has not testified that she designed these homes to match the homes in the neighborhood. She has
described massing. She has described what has been done to uh in her opinion, her professional opinion, to keep the homes uh from being uh out of place in the neighborhood. But she has not described each and every home that's already in it. And she has not testified
that she did any kind of a study of those homes. >> I believe there were testimony tonight that they are trying to match the homes in the neighborhood, but you haven't traveled the neighborhood. So, how do you match them if you haven't looked at them?
>> And that's my point is that was not the testimony. >> What was the testimony about the changes being made to the structure to match the homes in the neighborhood? >> Because if you recall the original homes that were designed, they were, I believe, 5600 square foot homes uh with
very uh large entryways uh very very different uh presentations than we have now. And the point was the plans in response partially to some of the uh informal feedback we received from some of your neighbors uh we toned down the houses significantly and we reduced the
sizes of them significantly. Let me go back to the architect. Since you traveled Indian Run and Heritage Road, how would you describe the structure of the homes you saw?
>> Uh, I would describe them as mostly two-story uh colonials with uh one-story attached garages. Are you are your proposed two homes twostorial colonials center hall
colonials? >> They are. >> They are. >> Yes. >> Let me ask you this. These two houses on block 10202 lot 12. How far away
are these two homes in the Pacific River? >> Objection. Way out of her scope. >> Can I ask that question again or are you guys going to >> I as board attorney I would advise that that objection should be sustained. It's outside of her scope of what she testified to. >> Mr. Flooding is is not part of it. I
guess >> um >> I'll just remind you to Mr. Awareness, we've we've tried to set a five minute. We're approaching that and there is another person behind you that would like to ask a question. If we have time,
we can have you back up to ask another >> My time expired. Is that what you're telling me? >> It's we're getting close. Are are we close to wrapping up? >> No, we're nowhere's near it. >> Okay. Well, try to try to summarize. >> Well, so you want me to come back? I'll come back.
>> Okay. Thank you. Please. >> Evening. >> Good evening. >> Tom Hackett, 690 Heritage Road. >> 690, sir. I'm sorry. 690. >> 690. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> A question for the architect. Um, in
designing these houses, did you uh is it your testimony that they are within the scale of the neighborhood? uh without really understanding the actual heights of the buildings in the
neighborhood. I not sure that I can answer that. Um it was the intent to make them as close as possible. Are you aware that the neighboring house to the um house on uh Indian Run is actually a
ranch house and probably a third of the square footage of the houses that you're proposing here? I know that most of the houses on Indian Run are probably about half the square footage. >> Uh it's possible
the but with a ranch it's going to be half the size because it's only one story. But it's not your testimony that you have no idea about the scale of the neighborhood. >> No. >> Thank you. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Did you understand that question? >> That's not your testimony. Or no, you
have no idea of the scale of the of the neighborhood. >> No, I I have an idea of the scale of the neighborhood. >> And you think these houses fit within the scale of the neighborhood even though they are significantly greater? >> Uh, I do. >> That's your testimony.
>> Thank you. Okay. >> What else? Questions. We got We got to take her. >> Thank you. >> Evening. Joe Terrella, 693 Heritage Road. Um, so I have two questions for the architect and just a a meta question. Uh, if I had questions for the
town engineer, is is this the right time or is that more a commentary section sort of? >> Uh, well, the town engineer, uh, we have a board engineer >> or board engineer, sorry. Yeah. >> Um, yeah, it it depends what your question is. We don't typically >> So, why don't I I'll start with the
questions for the architect and then you guys can can steer me on the other two. >> Uh, >> I swear that's not me. I don't I don't know. I'm not sure where that's coming from. And I'm sorry I wrote down my questions here and then they vanished on me.
>> Thank you so much. Okay, so the first one was and apolog I don't know if we covered it and I missed it but uh so how far are these homes from the roads both Indian Run and Heritage? I don't know if I could tell from the diagrams. >> So uh I believe there we maintained the
setback of the adjacent buildings along Indian Run. So they're about approximately 50 ft, maybe a little bit more. >> Okay. So it's in line with the other homes along each of the streets. >> Correct. >> Okay. Including on Heritage Run. >> Uh that I'm not so sure about. Yes, they are.
>> Okay. Um and then are there, you know, Sorry, I'm trying to avoid making a comment instead of a question. Are there any It's like being on Jeopardy. I know I'm going to lose points if [laughter] I >> Please ask that as a question. >> So much harder than Jeopardy. >> It's harder than it looks. Yeah. [laughter]
Are there any renderings of how these homes might look in context of the neighborhood to to put to rest the obvious concerns of the neighbors? >> We do not have those renderings. >> Okay. >> Um and then in terms of questions for this group the board engineer. So
I think the most important was regarding the changes to I think it was the A8 lot which includes the facade as well as the height of the building to be within so it doesn't require a variance. What are the the next steps from here to ensure
that those changes are adhered to? Um because just as a process question we're not clear like do you guys approve it and we move on and we trust they're doing it or is there some followup to confirm? >> You okay with answering that answer? >> I can take it if you're not. Um no thank you. So the process for this if it is if
it comes that the board should vote on this application and vote favorably but on this application the board will then memorialize this meeting and the uh vote as a resolution and in that resolution there will be compliance items and one of those
compliance items will be at completion of construction the house may be no greater than 35 ft. >> Okay. Right. Um, if during inspection, because there will be inspections from the town of this house, that is non-compliance, then that's going to be
a significant problem that the applicant and their contractor is going to have to rectify. >> Got it. So, that that makes sense to me for something simple like, you know, I can get up on a ladder and measure if something's 35 ft. I'm not going to, but I could do it. Um, but what about the facade? Um, do you guys have to look at
plans one last time and say, "Yep, we agree that makes sense." before you get approval or >> Yes. Yes. So, part of part of their submission to the building department will be samples as well as rendering a final rendering of what the project is
supposed to look like. And that is in theory going to be inspected against what is seen here in the board. And if there is discrepancy, >> they may even have to come back to the board because of that discrepancy if it gets if it gets constructed. >> Got it. So, but does that go in front of
does that become a town hall item again or no? Like who actually gets to say whether the facade >> is pretty enough this time around? >> So, for example, we've seen here around the foundation a what seems to be a stone veneer. If [clears throat]
at some point at the end of construction they say or when they submit building materials we never see a stone veneer and they decide to do something that is antithesis to that stone veneer that might be a
forgive me I do not know the exact turn of phrase but that might be a violation of the approved site plan >> and depending on the severity of that violation they may need to come back before this for a var a revised or it's an amended
site plan application. >> Okay. >> Sorry, I'm just going to interject here. >> I've already voiced I don't like that front entrance on building number >> and you got two big thumbs up for most of the >> So my expectation is that's going to be memorialized in the resolution that that
needs to be addressed and needs to be changed and needs more be more conforming to the house on the corner. I like that front entrance much better than the phone booth. Um but that's my two cents. >> We we do too. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. >> Our board planner was going to take a
look at that to ensure that Yeah. And she's Liz is a very qualified planner. She knows her stuff. Great. >> One of the best in the business. So >> So no, I think maybe in this particular instance where there is so much um public concern that there may potentially, as we've done with some
previous applications, have perhaps a subcommittee of the board. uh who I would be happy to work with and you know as a review of of the of the facade >> and the happy to take question to that. >> Thank you Mr. Zeli. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. Um and then
the last one I I understand we're only supposed to ask questions about the testimony today. So anything to do with rainwater runoff which we covered last time out of scope. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had. Thank you very much. >> Comment on it later. >> Sure. I'll I'll come I'll come back and
leave a >> We kind of went beyond that. Did you Did you watch the testimony that was >> I was here last time. >> Hollow. Oh, >> yes. I was here last time. Looks familiar. >> All right. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you, sir. I appreciate the uh >> respect for the process. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Good evening. >> Hi. >> Hi, Allison Freriedeland, 671 Heritage Road. Hi. Um, just as a concerned mom, um, wondering if you feel these houses would be built, you know, one after the other or at the
same time >> with all those vehicles and things in the street. >> Question. Um, because there's two rather than what we thought would be one. >> Most likely they'll be done at the same time. >> Same time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I I would point out also the I know the township has certain things that people need to follow when they're constructing their safety measures that are >> there'll be fencing, >> right? >> There'll be uh certainly safety measures to keep >> just letting you know. You don't have to just just giving you the heads up. So
>> yeah, do the trucks come in on certain streets and park in certain areas. >> I couldn't tell you. All I know is that there's safety measures in place. I'm I'm the attorney. I'm not the building guy. Any other questions, >> please? We're still open for questions. If you'd like to return, you certainly
can come back up, Mr. Waritz. >> Okay. Okay. Last chance, Chuck. >> All right. >> All right. >> All right. So, we are presenting no further witnesses. Uh I'll reserve my summation for later so I can incorporate
anything that might come up in commentary. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. Throw it up to the public >> for comments. Okay. >> Okay. So now we can move uh directly. Yeah. Directly into comments. I will be uh keeping comments to no more than
three minutes. Uh so please come up if you have comments with regards to this application. And here's your time to come up and and voice those comments. >> And I will have to swear you in. So it's given the way to testimony and we'll need your name and address again, too.
>> All right, Miss >> Thanks. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> Carol Selino. 661 Heritage Road. Our house is directly across the street from where these houses are being built. >> I haven't spoken in front of people in
like 30 years. So, >> we're going to swear you in. Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Please raise your right hand for me. >> Got to do it official. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Please proceed. >> Okay. So, please bear with me. It's brief.
>> You're doing a wonderful job. >> Um, my husband is Joe. >> Joe and I Joe and I have lived in our home on Heritage Road for over 40 years. We were one of the original buyers and we specifically bought our lot because
it looked out on the beautiful quaint farmhouse owned by the Freriedman's. Every morning we open our blinds and enjoy the view. When the snow falls in the winter, it's like we're looking at a courier and I
knives postcard. So now that's going to be knocked down. and two very large houses are going to be built. They are much larger than our existing homes and are of a very different style.
We were told that the space between the homes is almost the same as the spacing between our homes. But shouldn't larger homes have larger spaces? We are told that they are going to
preserve as many trees as possible. They may even plant a few more trees. Have you ever watched bulldozers clear a site? Do you think they are going to zigg and zag between the trees so it will look
nicer for all of us? And my last question is why was the placement of the corner house changed? Every other corner house faces Heritage Road and in driving through town. That's how
most corner houses face onto the main street. What was the reason? So what does the side of the house look like? Because that's what I'm going [clears throat] to be looking at every day.
I know these days everyone wants to make the most money they can. Thus, the bigger houses that don't fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. I'm asking that you consider the size and placements, the spacing, and the
trees. This is our neighborhood. It means everything to us. How many of you have taken a ride down here to see what we're talking about? Maybe you should take a look. It would
mean an awful lot to us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Anybody else comments? >> Has your chance Sir Brian Brian Dagley 679 her do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to provide with the truth whole truth nothing but the truth we got >> yes please proceed >> so I don't have the tenure in the neighborhood like the Selenos or the Murphy's or the Arenowitzes or or of the like we're in the neighborhood about seven years we came to the neighborhood with our two small children uh to build
a life like everybody else in Long Hill Township does um the neighborhood has a character the neighborood It has a feeling. You know it when you walk around the street. You see everybody outside playing. There's kids playing in the street. It's just it's it's that classic neighborhood feel.
>> Our houses are sized for a single family. These houses are sized for what appears to be double what our houses are. 4200 square ft, four bathrooms, four full bathrooms. doesn't sound like the kind of house that houses just, you
know, the the families that we have in the neighborhood right now. Um, to Carol's point, I understand profit is king, but this is also Long Hill Township. You guys all live here. This is not something where we're forced to do it because of low-income housing.
We're forced to do it because of planning. This is squeezing two houses into the last little bit of open space we have in the neighborhood. squeezing two houses in the spot that one house sits now and squeezing two houses that combined are four times the h the size
of the house that's on the lot now. So respectfully what we would ask is as Carol indicated and pretty much every voice behind me will indicate look at the character of the neighborhood before you make this decision. Look at what's there now. Look at what we're trying to continue on and really ask this the
question why do we need to approve this? There's no definite reason this house needs to exist. It's not filling a purpose other than profit or whatever the case is, but what's the reason we would be approving? That would be uh the ask from from us to the town uh to the board is is to really
ask that question really hard before you say yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else want to make comments? Charles, they're running at uh 605 Heritage Road. >> Let me swear you in. >> You swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to provide the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So be God. >> I do. >> Please proceed. >> Let me uh last time I was here, I entered a photograph into the testimony. I'd like to do that again tonight. This is a photo of where all the water is going to come from these two homes
into the trough that was built supposedly as a retention basin. But this photo can show you how much water is there and it goes back to the Payic River. That's why I asked earlier how far is this home from the Payic River? But it got objected to because it wasn't
necessary. So, these photos were taken by me on this photo on January 13, 2024 of the trough that's about 200 ft down from these two homes. >> Mr. Council, do you have any objection
to Mr. Evidence? Would you like to review? >> I haven't seen it yet. Yeah, most likely not. >> It's not 200t. >> Wait, but don't give us anything and let him >> No, let the applicant just determine if they're object or not. >> I'll reserve, but most likely there will not be an objection. Okay, thank you very much. >> Only reserving because I haven't heard
what the testimony is yet. >> Okay, you're good. You're good for now. You're good. Might be an objection later, but you're good. So, we'll mark this as exhibit O2 at least for identification at this point. >> I'm sorry. What was 01? >> Oh, 01. He entered >> for the previous [clears throat] week. >> The last time.
>> What's the date? >> What's the date of the pictures? >> Um, it's on the back of that. Um, >> the one I don't recall. It's >> January 13th. January 13, 2024. This is where the water from these two
homes will go into that trough and uh increase the flooding. >> Okay. You as [clears throat] a planning board have some difficult decisions to make as well as the zoning board mitigating flooding and doing a better job with
storm water management in this floodprone township. One of the tasks in front of you is to mitigate flooding as part of your 2023 master plan. With this application,
there's no landscape plan. Okay. There has been no percolation testing of this property in a highly flooded area. So, we don't know if these dry wells are going to work or not in force of rain.
Just so you know, last June in our area we had 4.75 inches in three hours. In this case, these dry wells would have failed. We had it in June. This is when Somerset flooded in Watch.
So, if you approve this applicant subdivision in heavy rains beyond 4 in, the 11 homes, which they haven't driven down, didn't know how many homes are in the development. There's 11 houses on Heritage Road that face the river.
These 11 homes get flooded in their backyards because they face the river. And we'll have more flooding in our backyards. You've seen the photos tonight and at the last meeting confirmed the additional storm water with a proposed
second home on 53 Indian Run with more impervious coverage that will do to these 11 homes on Heritage Road. [snorts] I can't talk about negative criteria, but in my opinion, this has not been
met. I won't get into the details on that, but my neighbors and I have installed a second sump pump in our homes. Some of these sump pumps have alarms on them so our house doesn't flood to help alleviate flooding our
basements. Please, no more storm water in our backyards. A third sump pump will not do it in our homes, but you can do it as a board planning board member for the public good.
Vote no to this application for a subdivision for two proposed homes with more impervious coverage and now heights are supposedly going to be consistent with the other 38 homes in the development.
Plus is this consistent structural design to the 37 twotory center hall colonials in two phase of our development that Colonial Woods at Millington marketed this to us 44 years ago
for the public good. >> One minute please. >> One new home on this lot is fine for all the residents of Colonial Woods at Millington. The original planned trough on Heritage Road where the storm water from these two proposed homes will flow will
contribute water to the retention basin as our engineer described it. But through the years, this retention be based into the Payic River. So you can walk on water from these 11 homes back to the rivers flowing. You're in the river.
We didn't want riverfront property when we bought these homes. These two homes are going to contribute more to riverfront property. We don't want it. We also assume that this property at 53 Indian Run will be one new home that
will be properly maintained. This hasn't happened since this property was purchased on July 27th uh 2024. During this time, this property has been an eyesore to our development. Sir, if you would please.
>> Yeah, >> I'm going to object to this. Has nothing to do with the application. There's not even any indication that my clients owned the property at that time, but even if they did, it's beyond the perview of this proceeding. >> I would agree with that and I believe that objection should be >> they purchased the property on July 27th, 2024. >> It's irrelevant to the application.
>> Well, it's a property is an eyesore and I'm just asking making a comment that we don't want any more eyes in our development. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Runitz, would you come back for a moment, please? You're subject to cross- examination as you know. >> That is true.
>> Go ahead. >> What is your profession please sir? >> I'm a professional consultant. >> For what? What uh type of matter? >> What field?
>> What field? Um I work for one of the um professional services firm in this country. >> Okay. Are you an engineer? >> No. >> Are you a licensed engineer? No, I'm not. >> Are you a landscape architect? >> No, I'm not.
>> All right. So, do you have any training, formal training that gives you the ability to testify to the drainage comments that you've just made? >> Yeah, cuz my sump pumps are running. I put one sump pump in. Yes. And I put a second one in. Yes, I do.
>> Okay. So, you're telling us, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe that a property that has no storm water management now [clears throat] with the construction of two homes with plenty of storm water management that's going to
accommodate all of the square footage that Mr. Holl has testified to and bring the amount of impervious runoff to less than it is now is somehow going to cause the river to rise higher than it does now. Is that your testimony? >> No. What I'm saying is the water runoff
that's going to come off these driveways and come off the roofs when we had rain over 4 in. I said over 4 in. It's going to come into the trough. That's correct. But you understand that that's only if it goes all after it goes into the two
systems and only if it's such a storm that the two systems are overcome. Only at that point will any water go into that system at all. You understand that correct? >> I don't understand. I understand that they testified at 4 in it'll handle it.
Beyond 4 in it will not handle it. >> And right now nothing's handling it. Correct. All of the water is coming out into that system. Isn't that right? I wouldn't say all of it because some of it's going into the ground into the two homes there with the two sump pumps running as our mine. >> Right. And Mr. Hollows who is a
professional engineer explained that the amount of impervious surface that's being covered is going to bring the net amount down to lower than it is now. So now you have more runoff from imperous surfaces than you're going to have if these homes are built. Did you understand that?
>> No, I do not. >> Okay. Thank you. Nothing for it. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you. You're free to go. [clears throat] >> Okay. Who's next? >> Back to follow. [applause] >> Hi again. Joe Terrella, 693 Heritage
Road. >> One second. Sorry. No, you're good. You're good. >> Take detailed notes. >> All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, all be God? >> I do. All right. Thank you. Um, so Chuck
is not an engineer. I'm not an engineer. I don't know if we have an engineer in the lot. If we do, apologies to those of you, you know, who we traded notes about our professions and I missed it. But um when this conversation came up in the last session,
I won't pretend I understood all of it, but I remember at some point, and he's not here, unfortunately, to to comment on it, but the board engineer at the time made the comment, you know, yeah, okay, there could be issues with water. I acknowledge there
could be issues at certain rainfalls or whatever. I don't want to put words in his mouth. This is what I I recall. But um hey, look guys, if we were building today, we wouldn't have built Colonial Woods. The whole town or the whole the whole segment just uh it wouldn't meet
modern standards given the the rainwater and the proximity to the river. That this is what I recall. And he said, "Yeah, we wouldn't even build this part of the town today, the way it's put together." This is my recollection. And I found that odd. I didn't know what to say in response to it. and I thought
about it in the weeks after. If that's really what he said, if there's any legitimacy to that at all, and there's any risk that this could exacerbate the problem with flooding at a certain rainfall or under certain conditions, why would we take a
development that you wouldn't even build today and then risk making it worse? Really hard for me to square. [clears throat] And I'll I'll pause it there. That that's what I recall. seems like a big concern to me. Um, that's it
for me. >> Thank you. >> No problems. Thank you. [applause] >> Anyone else from the public comments? You got to take her. >> Good evening again. >> Hold on. This I got to >> Allison Freeland again. 671
>> Heritage Road. >> Heritage Road. >> You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the shoes will be God. >> Yes. And I talk to kids all day. So if my voice is rumbling, that's why you all make me ner nervous. >> Okay. We don't bite.
>> I know. I hope. [laughter] Um this is on behalf of a few of my neighbors and I. Um so I'm going to be using we. Um good evening. My name is Allison Freedelland. I live at 671 Heritage Road. We're here to focus on
the environmental impact and how this proposal conflicts with the vision of the long-hill master plan. I want to highlight how the long-hill master plan prioritizes the protection of natural resources. We want to encourage greater tree preservation and planting efforts.
Reduce flood damage. Reduce sedimentation and storm water runoff. Promote groundwater recharge using the best management practices for storm water management and flood control. The township's planning documents and ordinances make it clear that the
protection of natural resources is an important community priority priority emphasizes the value of preserving the trees, the soil quality, and the wooded character of our neighborhoods. Given that this proposal calls for the removal of 46 mature trees, the impact
will be severe. These trees support groundwater recharge, reduce storm water runoff, stabilize soil, and contribute to our neighborhood's amazing character. I can't stress it enough. >> And like we've all said, unless you've driven in our neighborhood around 3:30,
4:00 on an afternoon, you won't understand that character that I'm speaking of. Um, I'm going to skip a little bit. We strongly urge you to require a detailed tree preservation and
replacement plan as a condition of any approval. This should include which existing trees will remain, where the replacement trees will be planted, and what species will be used to ensure we're not just losing tree cover, but genuinely restoring the ecological
function and community character. Second, just to talk about the scale and the character. The proposed homes, as we all know, are around 4200 square foot each and significantly larger than our homes, which we have covered many times.
Um, we're not against improvement or growth, but we strongly feel that the new development should respect the environment that is there already. We are a very special, unique neighborhood where children play in the streets. We look out for each other. We
want the best for everyone. Friendships have been built and a feeling exists that cannot be replicated easily or described. We understand that this existing house will be knocked down. But to build two enormous houses and conduct this kind of construction will change
the entire aura of our neighborhood. Forgive us for lacking the confidence in this project, but this building has been left alone for nearly two years. And months go by without grass being cut,
the flags on the on the balcony, the broken windows. So, [snorts] we're just feeling a little nervous, as I'm sure is coming across in these meetings. We would love to see a plan that respects our town's master plan, the environment, and the families that
already live here. and love it here. So, thank you so much for all your time. [applause] >> Anybody else? Members of the public comments on the application. Going once, going twice, going three times. >> We're at it.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> Close to the public, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Let's please close. public commentary. >> Okay. >> And now we'll turn it over. >> Would you like me to make a summary first? Do you want Mr. Zilla to >> Do you have any closing
>> statements? >> Yeah, I I'll I'll go through the planning >> points. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. >> This is a a planning argument, Mr. Zelli, not testimony. >> First, I just want to go over again what
variances we're talking about here. So one of which we can take off which is the building height. Again we are looking for two variances for lot area. Again substantially both of these lots are substantially larger than virtually
any of the lots in the neighborhood. We are looking for lot width uh for the interior lot uh of 143 where 150 is required. again substantially more in compliance than the current lots. Uh
most of them as I recall off hand or or at 100 if not lower. Uh and we did that instead of going for the 150 and being completely compliant. We did that in order to have better setbacks um and in order to be able to move the
corner house in a more appropriate location and not have the high height extreme height that we were talking about originally. uh front yard setback for both lots uh and actually three because we have the corner lot. Uh again
we are at 52 uh on two of them and then 59.5 where 75 is required. Uh and again 50 is the prevalent uh the prevailing setback for the neighborhood. So that this all goes back to the same argument I made at the beginning that since we had a cluster
subdivision in the beginning, all virtually all of your bulk requirements were significantly lower at the time and those are the requirement or the uh bulks that you're seeing now throughout the neighborhood. And the prevailing situation on these two lots is that we
are well in excess of the bulks for as compared to the rest of the neighborhood. neighbors are rightly bringing up the fact that uh we're looking at the rest of the neighborhood. Well, we are in this situation. Uh and if we were really trying to squeeze, which is one of the terms that I heard,
uh we could probably have come up with a design that we could have had three houses on this lot. Uh possibly even four because just going by the bulks, but we're not looking to do that. >> Mr. Can I pause you real quick? I'm sorry. >> Um you said 59.5 for 12.01.
>> I I think it was noted as 57.6. I just want to make sure we have the accurate number. >> That's what was in uh Miss Henny's memo. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Holl, would you just double check that, please? That's on >> 12.01.
>> 1201 at Heritage, the Heritage Front yard set back. >> Yeah, >> it says >> it's possible. I didn't update a number. It's >> You're good. I just want to make sure we got the accurate number. I know it's might be splitting hairs a little bit, but >> that's what I have as well.
>> You're seeing 56 point something. >> 57.6 was on Liz's window. >> Oh, >> all right. Just want to be sure because if you guys, you know, don't want you building a house and two feet off and then you got to come back here.
All right. So, 59.5, that's your test. That's the representation of what you guys are seeking. >> You comfortable with that bill. Okay. >> Okay. >> 59.5. >> Just want to be sure. Thank you. >> Again, so we we are not looking to squeeze anything. Uh we are using space
that could have been allocated to squeeze literally to squeeze three or four homes and instead we're building two. They are larger. They are there's no question that they're larger. Uh but they are well in compliance uh with your zoning. They're well in
compliance with the R2, the size of the homes, the square, the floor area, none of that uh is being diminished uh because of the cluster situation. The variances that we're seeking uh are but
again only measured against the current zoning. What we don't have the ability to do uh just because of the way clusters are designed, a cluster subdivision comes in all at once. Obviously, all the numbers are changed and the open space is dedicated to the town. We don't have the ability to come
in here and say, "Well, you should apply uh the cluster requirements and numbers to us. Although logically that might make a lot more sense, that's not how it works." But we need you to please realize, and I I know I'm repeating it myself, but it's critical in this particular application, that while we
are not in compliance with the zone, we are well in excess of compliance with virtually all of the rest of the lots and well in excess, not just by a little bit. So, we understand uh the neighbors feelings.
We did look at the original plans uh quite honestly internally and I think I said this in the first meeting even uh we looked at those plans and realized that they were way out of character with the neighborhood. And if you compare the original plans and elevations to what you're seeing now uh they're much uh
much more subtle, much uh modified uh to better accommodate the neighbors concerns. uh we don't have institutional looking buildings, huge buildings like we had before with as I said well in excess of 5,000 ft. Uh so we did take this into
account. Uh the ordinance does not require us in any way, shape or form to come in and build 2400t homes because that's what the rest of the neighborhood has. There's nothing in your master plan saying that that should be done. There's nothing in your ordinance saying that that should be done. Uh again, we are
well in compliance uh with the size of the homes. So now we're back and the reason I don't have a planner is because we're back to the real basics when it comes to bulk variances. And I'll try to go through those a little quickly because it gets boring. I realize that. [clears throat] So
arguably given the cluster situation, we probably could make a good argument for a C1 hardship variance because uh we're dealing with uh trying to comply with zoning that doesn't apply to the rest of the neighborhood. But we're going to set that aside. Under your C2, uh we need to
show that the benefits uh to the town as a whole outweigh any detriments. So let's look at some of the purposes uh of the municipal land use law that applies here. Purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a matter which will promote the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare by replacing existing outdated deteriorated dwelling and accessory units uh structures. Sorry, I'm getting used to saying units with two new modern homes that would complement the existing neighborhood. Purpose E to promote the establishment
of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions and preservation of the environment. In this case, by replacing an extremely oversized lot per the zoning requirement and certainly relative to the surrounding lots with two more
consistently side lots, thereby providing houses for two families rather than only one. Purpose G, to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their
respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. In this case, by constructing two new homes in a manner that is fully consistent with the neighborhood scheme created in 1977. I would argue more consistent uh because we have this huge lot now as compared to
the smaller lots that surround it. And then purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. In this case by enhancing the neighborhood with two attractive new homes that will complement other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, in
addition to uh the addition of the two modern residences to the neighborhood, replacing the existing outdated residence and outuildings uh will assist in conserving your property values in the neighborhood as a whole, which remains a purpose of land use regulation even though the goal is not expressly
stated uh in the MLUL and that's under home builders versus township of Berlin. So those are your positive criteria. As far as negative, Mr. WMZ wants me to talk about negative. So we're going to talk about negative. Uh negative criterion have to satisfy
that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. As noted above, the proposed lots are fully consistent, in fact more than consistent with the existing neighborhood scheme. They thus clearly have no detrimental
effect based upon that. We also need to discuss at this point the drainage issue. I think I've made the point. I think Mr. Hollow's made the point multiple times at your first meeting. Right now, every bit of water that doesn't get absorbed into the grass, every bit of water that comes onto
perfect surface otherwise is getting down to the system, the very system that Mr. Ranowitz has pointed out. With these homes constructed, you're going to have storm water management on both lots that will only get the water to those systems in extreme weather conditions as opposed
to in every single weather condition. Uh Mr. Hollows testified that the net amount of impervious coverage that's uncontrolled is less than what is there now. In other words, less impervious coverage is being controlled by the
proposed storm waterment storm management system than what is being there now based upon the existing impervious given the fact that there's no storm water management whatsoever. I would also point out that in the rest of the neighborhood, as you know, having been built in the 70s, there's no storm
water management on these properties. >> So, our lots are going to be drastically better uh and less of a contributor to any drainage issues than all of the existing lots. What we're hearing about is the sump pumps in the basement. And I
have absolutely no doubt that that's true. The reason that's true is because these types of storm water plans were not in place then. We're required to do it and that's why uh and overall this is going to have less of an impact uh on the drainage situation than what is
there now. So we've satisfied both the positive and negative criterion under your C2 analysis. We thank you for your time. We do thank the public for coming out. We do appreciate your comments. Uh and but we do ask for a positive vote. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
Thank you. So, >> I'm going to try to summarize the relief, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize the relief and the conditions that were stipulated to and that otherwise would be applicable here. So, the first is minor subdivision approval.
>> I'll do my best. >> Thank you. >> All right. The first is minor subdivision approval, obviously, for the entirety of the project. Uh bulk variances for proposed lot 12.01. I believe that's the lot on the corner. uh proposing a lot area 40,761 square feet where 45,000 is the minimum
required. Next is for the westerly front yard setback. That's the setback of the house to Indian Run proposing 52 feet where 75 ft is required. Next is the southerntherly front yard setback. That's the setback of the dwelling to Heritage Road. 59.5 ft proposed where 75
ft is required. >> Right. >> Next is for the setback of improvements to critical areas. Uh they're proposing a setback of 8.6 six feet to those critical areas where they're required to have a 50- foot setback in the front yards and 25 ft from critical areas in side and rear yards. And that's it for
proposed lot 12.01. Proposed lot 12.02, the interior lot as it's been referred to. Uh they're proposing a lot area of 35,631 ft where 45,000 is the minimum required. Next is for lot width 143 feet proposed or 150 ft is the minimum required. Next
is the front yard setback of the dwelling to Indian run. 52 feet proposed or 75 ft is the required minimum front yard setback. And that is it for uh bulk variances. I believe there's no design waiverss. And as far as conditions go,
believe the applicant stipulated to complying with everything in board planner Henny's memo dated October 10th, 2025. Everything in board engineer uh Joe Vich's memo dated October 14th, 2025. And then there were a number of conditions stipulated to you during the course of the hearings and I will try to
run through those real quick. Okay. First is that the applicant would provide landscaping subject to the review and approval of the township engineer in accordance with the applicable township ordinance requirements. Uh that would include street trees, foundation plantings and screening along the eastern property
line. And they'll also revise the plans accordingly to depict that landscaping. Next would be that the applicant would provide landscape screening of any air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment on both proposed lots. The applicant next condition applicant will install a walkout area between the garages and basement
on uh both proposed lots and revise the plans accordingly to depict the same applicant will remove the tree at the southwest corner of the property to improve the sight triangle. I know we touched on that. Okay. Applicant would applicant would
redesign the front entry area of the proposed uh lot 12.02 dwelling uh such that it wouldn't present as much mass and would not and not be substantially similar in appearance to the front entry of the dwelling on proposed law 12.01 1
uh subject to the review and approval of the board planner as well as the a subcommittee to be established by board members. And I think that that is it. But if I'm leaving something out, somebody please feel free to let me know. >> I have a couple of notes.
>> I think that's 1202, isn't it? Interior lot >> for the for the redesign. >> Not getting my Yeah, it's the interior lot that's being redesigned. I might have put the wrong number down. I >> was that in relationship to the second
floor redesigned front entryway. >> Yeah, that is why. >> Yeah, I thought it was 12.02. That's the interior lot, right? >> The interior 1. That's why >> it so it won't be substantially similar to the one on 12. >> Similar to 1201, right? Then I missed you. I'm sorry. Okay. >> Yeah. >> If I if I mess up, >> that is correct. Yes.
>> Right. If the interior lot, that's the one that needs to get changed. So 1202 will be redesigned to better com conform to uh 120% but not so much that it creates the need for variance by being similar. >> Okay. >> Mr. H. >> Mr. H. Yeah. You got a couple.
>> Did you say the height? Did you talk about the height of the room? >> Well, they're not seek >> they're not seeking the height variance. So that >> No, but we did agree to reduce the >> I want a condition. >> We did agree to bring it to >> condition. Thank you. condition by not seek right by not seeking a variance we're effectively that is
>> but if he wants not to I don't see any objection here reduce the uh height of the second floor >> to 9 foot >> 9 floor on uh the 12.02 2 dwelling, right? >> Or no, was that 12.01 >> interior 32, right? You didn't say
exactly. >> No, I'm sorry. That is one that >> that's where they're going to get the the height. Um, >> we said 9.2 9. We said 9. So, whichever height >> compliance if they're not coming forward, >> not 35. >> So, reduce the height of the second floor of the 12.02 102 dwelling at 9 ft
from 10 ft >> to a height that accommodates 35 ft. >> You want to order it like that? >> I think that's best. >> Yeah. One more time. >> Both properties should have a second floor height reduction of I guess it'd
be down to nine feet. So, a reduction of one foot to comply with the 35 foot uh requirement of the zoning. >> Well, no, we only agreed to do that to the uh corner lot to 1201. >> But there was some discrepancy on the
plan showing both being in over 35 ft >> in the actual. So >> I'm I'm going to backpedal. I think I think it's better just to not mention it all because we're not seeking a variance. So we have to comply. >> Uh >> however you do it to >> however we do it is, you know, construction department is going to make
sure we do it. >> Yep. Right. >> Okay. So we'll scratch that one. >> But no retention. >> That's why I didn't. Okay. Do you have another one, Mr.? I had the um when we talked about landscaping last time with Joe, he said he was going to do a walk of B eyes on the ground for the
landscaping plan because there wasn't one, I believe. >> Yeah. No, I mentioned that at the beginning that was >> Yeah, the landscaping would be subject to the review and approval of the township engineer and uh be provided in accordance with the applicable township ordinance requirements that would include street trees, foundation
plantings, and uh screening along the eastern property lines. and the applicant would revise the plans accordingly. Is that covered? Okay. >> Audience has to be quiet, please. >> I'm speaking into the mic. Sorry, I'm soft.
>> I have a question also. >> Shoot. >> This is um regarding the memorandum from the board engineer dated October 14th on page three under his technical review
comments and it's 4.6. And it reads, "The applicant shall submit soil log or logs and/or um percolation test results certified by a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey to
demonstrate adequate soil permeability and document the depth to seasonal high water high groundwater table in a minimum two foot below the bottom of each infiltration trench system. Should
unfavorable conditions be encountered, an alternative storm water management design will be required. Attached to this memorandum is the form from the township. Information regarding soil erosion and
sediment control certification. The property is listed and there are two options. One is it does not involve work and says it does require a soil erosion and sediment control plan certification.
Uh it's not indicated which is needed. So um >> if you want to >> So we we've agreed to comply with all of Mr. Vuch's letter including that provision. Uh the original design will
be the design shown on the plans. If the perk tests show that for some reason that design will not work, uh we'll have to come up with a different design and Mr. Vu with his uh township engineers hat on would have to approve that. So one way or the other we need to comply with that. If we can't somehow then we'd
have to seek different approval. >> So just as a point of clarity, if the storm water design doesn't work, would you not have to come back before this board with regards to now the alternative? If we could come up with an alternative design that Mr. Vuch again
with his other hat on approves and finds that it will handle the same amount of water, then as far as I know, we would not have any reason to have to come back to the board. Um, if for some reason we couldn't, that'd be a different story. >> Only if there was, and I I don't foresee this really ever happening, but if if there was some kind of site improvement
that needed to be constructed to do that potentially or some form of variance that they would need in relation to that, then they'd have to come back. But I think that's what you would constitute, I guess, a field change, right? That's the term of art. >> Yeah. >> Can't hear you.
>> It's going >> to the comment about a field change being necessary for this plan. It would depend on the severity of the redesign. Um, I won't say anything specific, but there are certain, I guess I would call them storm water best management practices that could trigger that uh,
redesign or the um, amended site plan like we've talked about prior to this. However, that's subject again to the township engineers review and if he feels that that's the case, you would notify the board. >> Yeah. >> So, can I just summarize then that the
um, as noted in this 4.6 that the licensed engineer will be Mr. Mhm. >> And that he will submit the soil log. >> No. No. The the applicant has the responsibility of submitting that. It's they have to have an engineer certified to it and then he Mr. V reviews it.
>> So that's still to be done. >> Yes. >> That's part of compliance. Yes. >> Part of compliance by the applicant. >> It's a fairly standard compliance thing that gets imposed on a lot of applicants. >> And that gets recorded with the state? No, it's just part of the challenge of
engineers review process. >> I'm sure you >> So our engineer, whether it's Mr. Hollows or a different engineer for some reason, would certify to it. Mr. Vuch would review it to make sure that he concurs. Assuming that he does, then that would be satisfied.
>> I think that's a great question, Miss Ojan, just to kind of give us the framework for what is the process, who are the players, how does it get reviewed, who sees it, who signs off on it, and what needs to get done. So well done. >> Well, I think that added a little bit
more about our storm water management. More will be done. >> That's correct. >> Anyone else have questions about or any other additional conditions I'm leaving out? >> Well, I have some questions further. I want to get your conditions as you have them written. Understood. >> That's all I got. Yeah, that's what I
got so far. So, if anyone >> Yeah, let's just make sure. So we're no one else has any more input to the conditions. >> I don't have conditions. No, just two points of clarity. One, on the landscape and design, you did have on the lower corner property an extra tree or
screenage on the eastern lot line. >> Yeah, I noted um that additional landscaping would be provided along the eastern property lines. That would include I suppose both properties actually. >> That's right. Yeah, I just want to make sure that we've got that because there was a gap in in the lower lot to the property. >> I'm going to I'm just going to say it. I
would feel a lot more comfortable if it was more than just Mr. Vuch dealing with the landscape plan since a landscape plan wasn't provided. >> I really would think that potentially having a subcommittee or a small group if you would stipulate to that work on
>> maybe a more screening and landscaping plan. >> Yeah, I' I'd be happy to join that committee, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. >> And also I would look at the architecture of the interlock the same. Are we going to call? >> Yeah, I think it's the same group. I think it's looking at the >> architecture and landscaping.
>> Thank you. Noted. >> Can I just actually I do have another note if I might go for it. I've got Joe priority to discharge into the sewer. Does that ring bells of anybody? >> I'm sorry. >> Discharge into the sewer. >> That's the overflow. >> The overflow does
>> as a priority. I've got a note here as a priority to try and Are we Are we going to go connect We're connecting to the sewer? >> Mhm. Well, the overflow typically does. That's >> right. I thought that's a question mark. >> Sorry. It goes into the storm water, not the sewer. Right. >> Right. Storm. Yeah. Storm sewer, not
sanitary. So, of course, right? >> Yeah. So, I just want to make sure there's a priority to discharge that >> cuz he was talking about some pumps discharging to the back elsewhere. >> Any other? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Please.
Just back on the landscaping suggestion. Whoever on our side does that also refer that to to the shade tree commit commission. >> The shade tree commission already saw the plans. >> Oh, good. Okay, great. Perfect. >> And they had no com they had no comments because there's no >> no recommendations.
>> No recommendations because um there's no it's private property. So >> no old trees. >> Correct. No old >> They don't have on private properties. >> I'm talking about the Yeah, that's fine with the old trees. I'm talking about planting a new trees. They'll have recommendations on species. That's all. Yes. And I think we should get >> I can consult them.
>> I would consult them. >> Perfect. >> Any objection from the applicant on on sending the landscape plan >> to a subcommittee? So, >> not the subcommittee, but also the shade tree commission to take a look at. >> I think they've already seen it. I think we would just >> Well, they haven't seen a landscape plan. They saw what was initially
proposed and didn't because they don't really have there's no >> to not overthink this. This is just to get to get input from them on species. That's all >> perhaps [clears throat] say the subcommittee with the advice in >> Yes. >> Uh consultation advice of the shade tree
committee has >> consultation with the shade tree. There you go. >> That's a different matter. Yes. >> Listening. Do we know if HPAC's been notified since this is a historic site? >> HPAC has been notified. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other Are you done Mr. H with any of
your >> under the conditions? questions still but only when we want to get to that. >> While I'm doing much just one thing point out um it's Mr. Aalco right you weren't present for the previous hearing. >> I wasn't >> but you did review the tape and you gave
me a certification so he's qualified to vote in my opinion Mr. unless you have any objection. But >> if he's swore that he's done that, absolutely. >> I trust him for >> sure. >> And I think everyone else is qualified to vote. Right. I know what just speak now for every piece. Everyone was here for the prior hearing.
>> Okay. Just double checking. Okay. That's all I >> Are are you good with as we go through just around Robin as far as reflections from the board asking your questions or do you want to get some question? >> I'd like to do some specific if that's okay. Yeah, >> just see what the opportunities are to
for change. Right. So the the four 4 in was the um the uh dry wells I think can accommodate 4 in of water. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Right.
>> If if you're going to ask >> engineering questions, I'm not even going to try. [laughter] >> Are we able to go to six inches? We we said at the time it's just a buildout as an additional cost to go to to support 6 in. Is that something we could even
consider? >> I hate to give this answer, but I have to. That's a question that really should have been asked of Mr. Hollows during the hearing. >> Really procedurally, I don't even think it's appropriate at this time, and I certainly don't have the ability to answer it in any event. >> I mean, theoretically, we could recall
Mr. Hollows, but I, you know, >> Yeah. I I honestly don't have an objection to Mr. Hollow's answering that question. I don't know that I have a client here tonight to answer that question though. If if you're going to look for a stipulation on it,
>> I'm curious to see what opportunities we now have. So that's your we have to go back and ask that question. >> I I think so. That's the only way it could be done. >> Let me think about that. >> I actually thought that question was asked. >> We did talk about it. We did talk about
six and it was a buildout and it's just a cost issue to go to a large size. That wasn't that was all it was. >> So I'm just asking that as a cons possible. >> Yeah, I think he's asking for a concession on that if it's possible. >> Uh the applicant would be >> if you'd like I can consult with
whomever I have. Okay. >> Yes. If you would mind because I think it may alleviate some of the questions that you issues that we have. >> Are there any other similar questions or Oh, >> the architects here So, and this is maybe just a general question. What latitude do we have on
things like heights? On height other if it's stipulates 35 ft, is there anything else that we can think about that more conforms with the neighborhood? >> You could ask the applicant to reduce the size of the height, but by ordinance they are permitted to go up to 35 ft. That's correct. >> Yeah.
>> So, we already discussed going down from 10 to 9 foot reduce the overall height. Is there any other opportunities to reduce our height further? Do we think? >> Could you get to 34?
>> Mr. Speak into the mic, please. >> Certainly. >> So, I'm just discussing any other opportunities we have to meet some of the concerns that have been raised. >> Well, we're going the homes are somewhat higher. I mean
there's a two story to twotory. We understand that uh the current homes probably have 8 foot ceilings and we have 9 and 10. We we understand that. >> Um typically when you look for concessions uh they're concessions that are taking into account the nature of the
variances. uh and in this case uh you know as you certainly have heard me say a million times already uh but for the unique situation that we're dealing with with having to comply with regular zoning as opposed to the cluster
uh none of our variances uh are putting us in in that kind of precarious situation where for instance setbacks is the most common when you started to get into height right if you have a diminished setback you don't want as high a building because it's going to be more imposing on the neighbor Right.
We're already fully compliant and certainly compared to the rest of the neighborhood in that situation. >> Well, actually on that point, I may debate that point. >> That's not Yeah, >> because we are going to 50 ft to be in conform. So, we're allowing for that. >> Well, that's the front step back and that's to make it conform with the rest
of the neighborhood. >> Yeah. Okay. Conforming. >> We started compliant. >> We started with the full 75 foot, but >> Okay. >> Overall, that wasn't desired. >> Understood. >> Right. So now you're you're in a catch 22, right? >> Well, no, because it's not the front
setback that you're typically dealing with there. It's it's your it's your impact on your neighbor. It's usually your side or rear setbacks. >> 50 foot setback >> I think there's something >> is going to be a lot more obviously higher >> nearer the property the street than 75 ft.
>> Right. Would you not agree? >> I I agree that that's true factually. >> True. Right. Right. Right. visually is going to look higher closer. So we could say 75 ft go back but then you have the issue about conform with the neighborhood sometimes find is there a
sweet >> that's not the only thing you get you get into the critical slope too in the second >> I'm just trying to make a point for a second Bob thank you >> okay >> so I'm just trying to see what this points we can perhaps get to where we can get to to accommodate some of the
concerns about the height right so we're allowing for the front step you've been nice enough to come forward, right? To go to 50 foot to conform, right? But it's going to make the mass of the house appear larger. Fair point. [clears throat]
>> I follow what you're saying. >> Right. Thank you. So with that, is there any opportunity to reduce the height to keep it in conformity, using your words, with the neighborhood? >> It's it's something that I certainly can't commit to easily. Uh, and it's
something that I would actually uh request a straw poll from the rest of the board to see if this is a commonly held concern because it would >> it [clears throat] would involve significant, you know, it's one thing to just drop the roof down on the second floor, right? >> But when you start re redesigning the
heights of the first floor, it's it's major changes. >> Yeah. >> And the only reason for pushing because I want to make sure everybody can hear and have the opportunity to hear what your comments are about. That's it. >> Understood. So, I'm not saying yay or nay. I just want to make a point that
something needs to be done just to >> I I understand it's, you know, clearly in this application, uh, we're walking a line between a neighborhood that was all built at the same time and has all the same kinds of houses. Uh, and our desire to build
houses that are are modern and conforming to, as as Miss Polo said, uh, you know, what people moving in are looking for. Uh, and the height is one of those things in terms of the interior heights. Uh, the design, you know, not
having the the standard, and I grew up in a colonial just like that. I love them. I live in one now pretty much just like those. Uh, but, you know, we're we're designing homes that are uh that are modern, but we did come off of the the grandiose homes that we originally came in with, even though those were also compliant
>> in that regard. >> Okay. And so, I want to go back to this idea of I want to go back to this thing of handling six inches versus four inches because and I thought I remembered this from the conversation last time and Bob
kind of um corroborated with me going from 4 in to 6 in. It's not going to make a difference. The the throttling factor was the size of the gutters as I recall this being explained by the engineer. >> Right. So to force them to put in the
ability to handle six inches is diminished returns >> is would you agree to that? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Again I just want to make sure we discuss these points right? >> There's opportunity to do things >> whether you can or able to a different
story. >> Right. So there's opportunity to do stuff. >> Understood. Would >> you mind if just one last point? >> One last point. Yes, please. size. I've heard people say it's a third, three times the size or four
times the size. I think I heard somebody say I think I heard somebody say that. Realistically, how much bigger is this house, these houses than the existing um the existing house? I think I heard 1,700 square feet existing.
>> No, no. Um what most of the neighbors have indicated and in my experience and that Miss Pleno can did you have any reason to challenge that their typical house size in the neighborhood now is probably about 25 24 2500 >> up to 35 depending on the biggest house.
Okay. So we're going from somewhere between 2500 and 3500 to 42. >> Right. I think so it's not doubling or anything like that. >> I think I heard the existing house was 1700. >> The existing is that's correct. That's what I said. Yeah. Yeah. Is it right on what's on the site now
>> existing, 1700, right? >> Take your point about the other houses on the property in the neighborhood. This is 4,200 square feet, right? >> What they're proposing, >> right? Based upon roof, if I remember, based upon roof size.
>> No, that's that's living living area. >> Living area. >> Living area. It's >> floor area. >> Floor area. >> Floor area. >> Doesn't include the >> between the two stories. >> Between the two stories. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not a 4200 square foot footprint. It's >> That's what I'm trying to get across. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's 21 and 21.
>> Everybody right here. It's a third three times the size. >> Four times the size. We got a twocar garage, which is the same as probably everybody else's twoar car garage. 22 by 22. Right. So, I'm going to put that to one side for two seconds. No different to anybody else. The actual house itself
doesn't look that extensively larger than the other houses. Yet, it may be a third third bigger or something probably I'll go about a third bigger would that be a fair >> yes >> fair statement about a third bigger than
existing houses >> I would agree that's approximately right >> third bigger I just want to make sure >> all right are we are we good >> so we can move on >> thank you thank you >> so what I'd like to do is just uh poll
the board and and if you'd like to make some comments against this application to help in in our decision to move forward with potential vote. Bob, you want to kick off with your comments? >> I'm not going to make any comments. >> You have none. >> Scott, did you have anything that you
wanted to add? >> No, I really like the idea of changing the look of the interior lot. To me, it looked like >> the front entrance way, >> right? >> Yeah. Right. >> It looked like a fast food place >> where you might get Mexican food.
[laughter] Chick-fil-A. No, >> it's got a bell on. >> It's got a Taco Bell already. No. >> That's the wrong board. Do >> you have any I'll come back though. >> Okay. Pam, we'll skip over you. >> I thank the public for their comments
and um living in probably one of the smallest houses in Longill Township, approximately a thousand square feet. I am also surrounded by homes that are um double the size of mine. Uh I can't say
it really detracted that much from the overall neighborhood and as houses like mine get demolished. That's the reality. The smaller houses get demolished, the bigger houses go in. Um and we are this applicant is keeping
within what the ordinance says. Um times change. >> Thank you. >> Tony, did you have anything you want? >> Yeah. So, I'm actually a little conflicted on this one. I think the the
waste wall the runoff mitigation plan is actually better for the neighborhood because there's nothing there right now. I mean, it's kind of it looks daunting when you put two houses on where one house is, but they're actually actively trying to help out the rest of the neighborhood. Where I'm struggling with
is this lot when the neighborhood was built was designed for a reason and it's before my time. So, looking at it, they could have built two houses here when they originally had the cluster development done. Why wasn't it done is one of those questions that none of us
were on the planning board at the time to know. >> Normally I wouldn't stop it just to try to answer that. This is the original Homestead house. >> Yeah. This was this house that's on the site preceded the development. >> Right. Right. But by by far 100 years,
>> but any developer tries to buy every house in the lot, right? >> To to maximize and even at the time. So, but one of the things that we're talking about for the approval is the uh letter E to promote the establishment
of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. That's the one that I have trouble with because the house on the lot, making two houses, I'm not sure how it significantly
outweighs any detriment based on the neighborhood feel that we're talking about here. So, I think from a rulebased looking at it from the law, it actually will help the neighborhood, but I think that's one of
those factors that I'm kind of going back and forth on. So, >> Mr. Jones, >> yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I appreciate the public's uh input on all of this. Um, I too, again, I'm going to
say I'm not a fan of the entryway to that second house and look forward to working on any subcommittee if uh this should uh pass. I have ridden through the neighborhood multiple times, whether it was in my car or I was riding my bike, so I know the neighborhood very well. I know that there's green spaces
on both sides of Heritage Road, not too far from Mr. Orenowitz. Um, I have seen this corner a lot. I was concerned about the corner just by the fact that there's no sight line. So, I'm glad that that sight line is now going to be uh addressed uh should this application
pass. Um I agree with my colleague here and a lot of his um struggles. Um I am also a little concerned about the 4200 uh square foot um that this home these homes uh are going to be taking on
respectively. Um, but I also know that the neighborhood does have different design homes as you go, as you ride through it. Um, so, uh, I think this is just part of growth and, um, I think that's just
going to be more of, uh, in the future. Um, I do appreciate the fact that there are is some work that needs to be done with regards to taking a look at that flood, the water, how it runs on the property, under the property, through the property, and how it impacts the
neighbors around them. Um, but I can tell you, um, the Payic River is not being impacted by those lots. It's being impacted by development that's happening in neighboring towns along the river. And we can see that happening. and I don't know if these two homes are going
to add to the larger homes that are already or the larger projects that are already taking place up and down. So, um that's kind of my feedback and comment. Um I do wish that the um the architect
brought the right paper pictures and we didn't have that little uh snafu in the beginning, but um it is what it is and we have the right information in front of us. So, thank you. Is is A8 backed? >> I haven't I haven't seen it. >> Somebody take it from the public. I >> I think we did pass it out and I just
want to I don't know if it ever came back. >> Does anyone have that that photograph we passed out at the beginning? The rendering of the new house. >> Yeah, it was in the last row. >> I think she's got it. [laughter] >> Could you send that back up, please? We got a lot of it. Thank you. >> So, thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thanks for not stealing from us. Appreciate attention.
>> Yeah, without saying anything that hasn't already been said, I would just first of all want to thank the public for their input. This is not an easy application as we try to integrate as Miss Ojins uh mentioned uh the modern
with the old. I'm also in a neighborhood with being in a smaller home compared to other uh homes uh that are in the neighborhood. And I think with the right approach that I feel like the applicant has uh brought forth uh being in earnest
making adjustments uh within the the zonal constraints and being accommodating I think um makes us favor more favorable than the earlier uh application uh uh had presented in this regard. So that's kind of where my
head's at. But with that said uh I think we're really Is that a point? >> Let me just have my comments. >> Yeah. >> So, and I agree. Thanks for the public and everybody and I thank the applicant as well for what they have done. I think it's personally it's an improvement with the with the storm water overall. I
don't think you've done anything negative. You've done everything you not many variances that you're asking for. Not many unrealistic variances either. Personally, I think that's all fine. We we talked about what things you could do to improve that even further. You got
the height down. We could have done the six inches maybe with the cutter. So then it just comes down to just the semantics of you know you're meeting all the conformities and everything. Then it comes down to does it really fit the neighborhood.
I don't think the actual floor area does have it cause an issue to me. I just still have that concern about the height. I think that does make it more monstrous than the other than the other properties but you are conforming that
then it becomes a simple do I like it or do I don't like it right so that's a a bit more of a conflicted thought that I have to go through but overall I do think you have done done a decent job with everything you propose so I don't
have any major issues with concepts and it's just the There's just a height to be honest. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. I think is that everybody? I >> think so. Okay. Um Mr. Zeli, are you okay with proceeding to a vote?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, we're asking a motion to either approve the application with the conditions as set forth or a motion to deny the application. Whoever wants to make either motion, please uh please go ahead. Yep. And make a motion to uh submit this
application for uh approval with uh the outlined uh conditions as stated. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> Call the roll.
>> Vice Chairman Jones. >> Yes. >> Committeeman Lavender. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hans. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Lario, >> I'm going to abstain. >> Miss Ojins. >> Yes. >> Mr. Alpalca.
>> No. >> Chairman Richardson. >> No. >> Uh, one, two, two, three, four. Motion carries. >> Motion carries. That's four out of four out of seven. >> Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
>> Happy Thanksgiving. >> See you next month or whenever I have the next planning board again. We have no >> let people think. So >> well >> we have what motion to adjurnn.
>> I mean >> is there a motion to adjurnn. So >> second. >> All in favor? >> I