That clock is five minutes. I know. Add it to the list. Right. All right. Um, I hereby call the zoning board of adjustment uh for Long Hill Township to order for our regular meeting of September 2nd, 2025
at 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. Call to order and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting/hering has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting/hering dates on the municipal bulletin board, by sending a copy to the echo sentinel, and by filing a copy with
the municipal clerk. Standard board procedures. Any meeting/haring conducted by the board is 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 judicial meeting/hering must be maintained at all times. Meeting cutoff announcement is made that is a matter of procedure. It is the intention of the zoning board of adjustment not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or
special meeting of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting to a later specified cutoff time. Electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to please mute your phones or any other other electronic devices as to not
interrupt the proceedings. Pledge of allegiance. Tom, would you lead us please? 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.
Thank you. Okay. Um, roll call. Uh, Mr. Geianus is on his way, so I'll mark him at the time he appears. Yes. Uh, Mr. Rosenberg here. Mr. Watts is currently absent. Mr. Zedznney
here. Mr. White here. Vice Chairman Groskoff. Um, I'm here and Chairman Gre here. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. So, let's just Yeah, let let's just The first applicant set up and then wait until Joe. Could the first applicant please come
here at the table and and set up? And here comes Gary. Gary's here. You'll have to say the the pledge of allegiance by himself. Yes. You have to say the pledge of allegiance by yourself, Gary. Yes. No, you can sit over at the table here,
sir. Yes. We don't make you stand throughout the whole thing. Is there any other witnesses you have? Okay, fine. That That's fine. Sit. Yeah, sit close to the Yeah, sit closer to the mic. Thank you. No, I'm just asking because I didn't know if someone else was coming to sit. Okay,
Mr. Chairman, while we're stalling for time, I will uh just point out that I reviewed the applicant's notice of this evening's hearing. I find seem to be sufficient. Everything was timely served uh sent to owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property in August 21st. And the notice was also published in the Echo Sentinel on August 21st,
2025. Both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing. Um with that, I guess if you want me to swear in or Yeah. Swear. Yeah. And swear on our swear on our planner as well. Could the two of you circuits raise your right hand for me? Okay. Do both of 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 help you God. I do. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Now, and uh I will swear in our board engineer. We're still waiting for him when he Yeah, we're still waiting for him. You have no uh no objection to just
Oh, there he is. Speak of the Raise your hand while you're walking in. No. No. Do you swear to uh be honest and truthful and uh never tell a lie? I do. Okay. Do you swear or testimony you're about to provide the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So hope you as
always. Okay. He's all right. He's sworn at. All right. Now, Mr. Schmidt, uh, we we have your materials. We've read them over. Could you just give us a introduction as to what you're doing with your property? Sure. Um, the quick introduction is
Pull that mic closer to you. That's okay. There you go. Yes. Very good. Quick introduction is it's an addition to the right side of the house for a twocar garage because the house currently does not have a
reason for the bar application because there's that sideyard set back. Okay. And it's where that little uh that little piece of your driveway is going and that would be continued. Correct. And that's actually one of the
positive things that I have. I already have a small driveway extension there on the right. As if there would have been a garage there, right? As if they were thinking about it. Yes. Um All right. So, um
um now just to ask you some questions. There are there is no other property you can buy uh next to your your property, right? Correct. Okay. So you you're constrained to the size of your property without any uh um
possibility of making it bigger. Correct. Okay. Um now um have you read our engineer our planners report? Did you read our planners report? I have not seen that document.
You haven't? You should have. Did he get it? De I can give him a cop, Mr. Chair. Okay. Yeah, I would certainly read it. Yeah. No, no. I'm sorry. You should have it. Uh, I do need that back before the end of the night, though. We Oh, never mind. I guess we got to We're
good. All right. Um, so I'm The only reason I refer to it is because normally applicants have looked it over and if there's any questions in it or issues, they usually come prepared to talk about it. But I understand you
haven't seen it. Uh let let me ask my plan the planner. Is there any questions you have for this applicant concerning any uh that the property? Uh no. What I would just uh advise the board is that in this zone, the R3 zone, this isn't in my letter, but in the R3
zone, we do actually require a twocar garage. Okay. So, this is actually bringing the property into conformance. Okay. So you're doing something that's actually making compliance with the ordinance because you're putting the two cargo in.
Uh yes and actually I think there might be a second thing and I actually I think right now the residence is smaller than what's required in that zone and by footage I think
would that just be living area or That's correct. Um the minimum floor area is 1500 square feet and they're currently just shy of that. Um so they will uh bring it up. Okay. So they're actually being
they're bringing another thing into compliance existing. They're creating another compliance. Okay. So this is the first time we've actually had people create compliances. Thank you. That's a good thing. So the only real thing that you're worrying about is the sideyard setback which uh is going from
existing 27.14 to what is it? Eight north. Okay. Correct. And that's just at the front corner because the sideyard line moves. Okay. It's a slight I see that.
Yeah. So it's a slight angle. So you've got um Okay. So right now you're at 29.33 and 27.14 and in the front right you'd be eight and in the back you'd be what? I think that goes up to Oh, okay. All right. But you're still
Okay. Can I ask a question? Yes. Go ahead. Are you an architect as well? Yes, I am. Okay. I saw you as an architect. So does he serving as a professional as well? Uh I I only swore him in as a fact witness but uh if you want I can if you you want to give the Maybe that'll fast track this thing.
Yeah. What are your credentials as an AR? Yeah. What what are your something else? Well, what are your credentials as an architect? I'm a registered architect in New Jersey and also New York. Okay. And is that what you do for a living? Well, right now I'm a construction manager and it's
But your you your architect license is still current. Yes. Okay. It's in good standing. Yes. Okay. All right. So, yeah. Swimman is an as an Well, you've been sworn, so I guess now you're No, you're sworn already. You're going to tell the truth no matter what. But um but now you're an actual expert. The board's recognized you as an expert
in the field of architecture. I like to think that I am. Okay. Good. Just have you ever testified before any land sports? I have. Okay. You have even better for your business. Many years ago. Okay. And also for myself.
Okay. Okay. Good. Good. Okay. That's that's a new one. Um so um I see your plans here. Um now, um it's just a garage, right? No other
uh no bathrooms, nothing. It's just a garage. Well, the second floor has a master Oh, you're putting the second floor. I'm sorry. You're right. Okay. So, the master bedroom and bath is going to be above the garage. Correct. Okay. And then you your house will have
how many bedrooms? Total of five. Five. Okay. Are you reconfiguring the second floor? There's currently two bedrooms on the second floor. Oh, so that is going to be reconfigured. Yes. Okay.
Okay. So, there's just two bedrooms on the second floor and there happens to be a bedroom on the first floor, too, or not? Okay. So, you're eliminating the bedroom on the first floor and you're putting it on the second floor. Exactly. Right. Um, you're making your living room bigger or you're making a family room or how what's
the current bedroom on the first floor will be an open family. Oh, okay. So, you're making it a more traditional first floor. Absolutely. Nothing has ever been done with that. Oh, okay. And and the house is an older house. I see it's you know when it was built
off top of my head, no, but I would say late 40s or early 50s. You would say that there's no um architectural restrictions due to like historical no preservation was on it. If you you would have heard about it by now. Yes. Okay.
Well, no. This is a traditional I guess cape. Would you call it? Yes. Make sure it wasn't George Washington. No. Well, he could have. Who knows? You got slept on a property. Um but um so you're trying you're turning this house that's rather small considering
it's you know they got the popup upstairs. You're turning it into a full room full living space downstairs and a usable bedroom space upstairs. Yes. Correct. Um modernizing. Modernizing. Okay. All right. Uh any
other questions from our uh board? I have just one. Yeah. Okay. your chain link fence. I can't see how close that actually is to your neighbor's property. Is that the 8 foot? The one that's on the left side? Yes. Yes, that's the 8oot.
No left side fence there. I'm sorry. It's not going to fence at the front. There's no wall against jail and it's actually Uh, dog run. Oh, it's it's a dog area. Okay. So, your
dog doesn't run around. Yeah. Sure. Um, and your deck, that's going to be the new deck, right? Right. That existing deck that you see in the photos, you have the photos in the Yeah. And on this existing deck would be
removed on the right side and it wraps around, right? And what would be you're putting a deck in place? Yes. Okay. instead of wrap around the side like it does. [Applause] Oh, okay. I see it. Okay. New deck.
What's the size of the new deck? Oh, going to guess the square. Oh, I see. I would say it's probably about 200. Okay. It would have been nice if you put
the uh measurements on there, you know, of the deck. Yeah, we always like to see those things. Yeah, I know. But we still like to see size though. Um I can clarify that. That's okay. Um so these striped areas
is going to be building then. That's the addition. Okay. So there is going to be a slight addition out the back. Yes, it's the kitchen area only. Okay. So when you look at the on. Can you look at the proposed first floor?
Yeah, the kitchen's bumped out. Right. And you can see the benefits of Yeah, I see that little uh s 4 foot bump out. Okay. Correct. So, to make the kitchen more usable with an island in the family room. Okay. Cook's kitchen.
Yeah. Good. Okay. Uh any other ex expert questions? No, I do not. Okay. Any other expert board me? Go ahead. I just a couple, Mr. Chairman. First, uh cowkeeping measure. The uh the photographs submitted with the
application. You took these? Yes, I did. Okay. Approximately when did you take them? Let's see. That would be just before I submitted the application. So, it's true and accurate to what's there now? Yes. I mean, this was Well, there's leaves on the trees now,
right? Yeah. It was it was I'd say March, but nothing's else nothing changed on your property since these were taken. Okay. Okay. So, that's number one. The uh the fence, how tall does that get up to? That fence, I think, is about 4T.
Okay. So, it's of a compliant height, I believe. Okay. You can't even see it in the picture. The second page of photos on the bottom right. Oh, you can see it. Yeah. Yeah. It's just and it has an
in a distract. Okay. Uh gentlemen, if you're discussing another matter, could you please step outside uh because it's a little distracting if you're talking about the next, you know, the next applicant. Um,
I don't mind you being here, but whispering in the in the uh in the uh gallery does gallery does be a little distracting. Um, is there any member of the public that would like to question the applicant? I have another question. Oh, I'm sorry.
So, just to the north where you're having the addition, it looks like from the pictures there's there are trees existing in that area or maybe it's hard to see. I'm looking at black and white. Okay. So there's it's heavily wooded on that side because it's my sideyard, but
the adjacent property's rear yard. So there's a lot of trees under there. There's a lot of buffer screen. Okay. So they're so their house is is facing differently is differently is they are they facing a different are they facing to the north?
Yes. Because their backyard and rear yard line is right. Okay. and their driveway in the front of the house is on the adjacent street. What street is that? It's Summit Summit Avenue.
Thanks. What street names? Just for the record. Um, do you have it? Do you have the name? And most of those are are they what types of It's just kind of It's not manicured. It's just forest type of
Right. Okay. trees over. So in general, you don't from your property, you don't really see your neighbors property in general. Right now trees are a lot of
Okay. And the only thing the neighbor's going to be seeing is the side of your of the garage area and the side of the second floor. Winter time where there's no except there's a couple of really tall Okay. But I mean his I it looks from the one
picture here his rear of his house is quite a distance from the sideyard. Yes. And that's on Western according to your uh Western is the street that that his house would his house is on. Right. Jason Street is Summit.
Oh okay. That' be Summit. Okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Any member of the public wish to question the applicant concerning his application? Speak now. I hearing none.
Okay. Closing it to the public. Um, any other comments about your uh project? No. Okay. So now we have you're making your your house square footage compliant and
you're complying with the twocar garage uh ordinance uh thing and the only thing your variance is the sideyard. Okay. All right. Um any member of the public want to comment on this application besides questions hearing?
None. Closing it to public. Okay. All right. Gary, would you like to start the deliberations on this one? Um, I'm a little familiar with the house and the neighborhood and I think it's a a brilliant change to the uh Cape Cod that was there.
It doesn't seem like it'll be impacting the neighbors at all. So, I'm inclined to, you know, approve this. Okay. Paul, would you like to continue? Sure. Um, I think uh I think um the House again, you said 1940s, it's
probably time for some updating anyway. And again, it's going to be in compliance. Um, like Elizabeth said, twocar garage is required now. So, I think that's great. You're going to comply with that and uh I would uh vote positive for this. Yes. Okay. Alex, I mean, anything the applicant has
spoken to has been positive as far as what he's doing for the house and in turn the neighborhood in general, I assume. So, I would certainly be in support of it. Okay. Tom, um I I think yes, the the applicant has
stated a very good case. It looks like a very nice improvement for the neighborhood. Uh, also the fact that the lot is pretty, you know, about twothirds of the required lot width makes it difficult for either uh to put this, you know, either on the north or south side,
you probably run into the same problem. and especially the fact that the neighbor to the north has a different um has a different configuration and is far away from the the uh line the um you call it the border of the properties. I
I would be supportive of this application. Now you uh a lot of cases that come before us have peculiarities that um have to be worked through. This is pretty straightforward. Thank you for bringing to the 21st century. Sure.
Yeah. I uh I feel the same way as the colleagues uh just expressed. I think this is one of the few applications we've had that's actually bring your house up to compliance. Um usually we have more variances than this. But this is this is a good thing that you're
actually improving the look at your house. You're improving the neighborhood. You're making it compliant with the with the ordinances by having the twocar garage. You're making your house more livable by having a nicer kitchen and putting the bedrooms on the second floor. So all in all, it's a positive uh you know, it's going to
increase the uh the the appeal of the neighborhood. Uh so I would be in favor of it. So would you like to uh give a summary, Mr. Chairman? Uh so the applicant here is seeking one variance. That's for the uh principal dwelling sideyard setback to the northerly
property line. Uh he's proposing 8T where 25 ft is the minimum required. As far as conditions go, I didn't note anything in Liz's memo. Uh didn't see anything from Joe on this either. And then um the only condition I that may have been part of this approval would be
that the applicant would revise the plans to show the square footage of the deck. Yeah. Well, just to show the dimensions of it. Yeah. Before they get signed. Dimensions of deck. Okay. And that's really about it. Unless anybody else had any other conditions that I'm missing or wanted to apply any
other conditions. I think that's that's about all we got. Okay. Okay. All right. Do I hear a motion to approve this application? So move. Do I hear a second? Second. We'll call Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. Mr. Z. Yes. Mr.
Gakus. Yes. Mr. White. Yes. Vice Chair Grosto. Yes. Correct. Yes. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you very much. You've done good. Thank you. Good luck. I want to say thanks for your time, consideration, and also the whole
process has been great. Wow. Wow. We don't hear that much. Thank you very much. I like to hear that. That was very nice of you. That's we don't sell we sell them here. Yeah, very tell all your friends. Thank you for the positive feedback. Now you can get making us feel worthwhile being up here.
Thank you. Good luck. Say the same thing you forgot to. Yeah. Right. Now comes the fun part. Paying for it. Yeah. Pain. Oh yeah. Okay. Now our second one up uh tonight is uh bulk variance block 13908
lot 15 zone C. Uh 45 Long View Terrace application number 25-11Z Manuel Costa applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property. All right,
Mr. Chairman, while they're getting the microphone situated, I'll just point out for the record I did review the applicant's notice for this hearing. I do find seem to be uh properly served. The content was good. Everything was timely uh served and published. Uh, so what does the jurisdiction here decide the case? Give a short version.
No, we'll give Is that microphone working or not yet trying? Oh man. Could be user error. You need me to scare it or No, I don't know. I think you we need we need a whole new system. I can speak loudly if that's
No. Yeah. No, that's not the problem. Problem is has to be recorded. Mr. Chairman, I I could swear on all the witnesses. Yeah, why don't you do that? Yeah. Okay. Uh, council, do you have a How many people you have? Uh, I have three witnesses for Could you just bring them up for the moment? I'll swear. Swear in.
Taking up some time. Swear at them and swear. Did I say that? Okay. So, three of you gentlemen, as well as our planner and engineer, if all five of you could raise your right hands for me. There you go. Do all five of 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, hope you got Thank you very much. Now, who's the actual applicant? Uh, have the applicant sit seated. Well, let him come up, too. Sure. I don't intend to have him testify, but he's certainly Well, we might have questions for him. I don't know.
I want him sworn in, too, just in case. We also have to kill time waiting for the battery. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right, sir. Got to raise your hand for me. 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, hope you got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All
right. Um, how we doing? Do you want me to use this? Yeah, you can use that for now. That's a rhetorical question. Okay. Yeah. How you doing? Okay. Okay. All right.
You give us a little synopsis of what you're asking for. So, good evening, chairman, members of the board. Benjamin Wine of Prime Mel on behalf of the applicant. Oh, good. Um, first off, I apologize for the distraction before we actually found a way uh in the last 10 minutes to uh
Oh, he's got that one. Thank you. to uh to eliminate uh or we believe eliminate three of the five variances we're seeking. Wow. Um so again, apologies for the distraction, but I I I think that that's uh that's something the board will will appreciate, but we'll go through it in detail.
Um for the record, the uh property in question is located at 45 Long View Terrace, and that's block 13908, lot 15. And there was a little bit of confusion. I appreciate uh greatly working with Miss Laney um and Miss Mr. Soi regarding clarifying the zone on this property. Uh
we initially believed it to be the R4 zone. There's a a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting it should be R4, including uh a 2002 resolution for subdivision that included this property, but based on your latest zoning map, um it it appears that the town records uh
do have it as the conservation zone. So, the good news is that single family residences, which is what we're proposing, are permitted in both of those zones. And to be conservative, what we've done is we're going to present our application tonight uh as if the as if the property is located in the sea conservation zone. Again, for the
purpose of being conservative and requesting and hopefully obtaining the correct relief for this application. Um, very simply, this is a unique one in that uh this application is a variation on something that was initially approved back in 1962. So, before I was born and
uh perhaps before some of you were born. Um, and that application, it certainly predated the municipal land use law. And that application was for lot 15 to uh to develop the site with a single family residence. Unfortunately, in 1962, there was no public sewer available in the
township and uh due to some soil percolation tests, they actually could not put a septic system on this site and were unable to actually develop the site. So in 2002, 40 years later, the applica, a different applicant went before the planning board in this
township to subdivide the property along with the neighboring PSEG property and actually incorporate an additional approximately 7,000 square ft to the subject property. In that resolution, it was the testimony appears that it uh it
was zoned R4. So again, that's why I even make that reference. But more importantly is that the township planning board took the position that they wanted to create a 20,000 ft lot for this site in order to accommodate the typical R4 standards and to be able
to develop the site with a single family house. They got the approvals back then and wouldn't you know it but they ran into another issue that uh your township did at that point have public sewer but it was under a moratorum um to be able to actually tap into it. So once again
foiled to constructing their single family house and that was about 23 years ago and uh and ultimately it has sat vacant since then. We're here tonight trying to realize a 63-year-old dream and uh and ultimately uh put a shovel in the ground and construct the single
family residence on this property once and for all. The plans that you'll see this evening are generally similar to what has been proposed over the years. Obviously building codes have changed. um some general aesthetics and and construction has changed. So, there are
slightly different nuances, but the operative component here is that this is going to be a single family residence on a property that no matter how you slice it, has been zoned to house a single family residence and we're just here seeking some relief for some unique site
circumstances. So, I do want to touch on those briefly before proceeding with my witnesses, but I I do believe that that introduction was certainly something that could at least help the board understand why we're here this evening, how we got here, and what some of the issues are. So, the variances we have,
we are proposing, like I said, a single family residence and uh we I'll start with the variances that we were able to eliminate. Initially, we were seeking relief to construct in a critical slope area, which the site is almost entirely a critical slope area. Um, so pretty
much putting down a paving stone would uh would run a foul of that variance. However, your your ordinance, and this is what we just determined, and I certainly will defer to Miss Laney. I'm not going to put her on the spot or anybody on the spot, but there is a subsection
142.2 2 that we just picked up on that says if the disturbance of the area is 1,500 square ft or less, you're exempt from uh running a foul of the critical slope area ordinance, for lack of a better term. And when I had my engineer
run the numbers, we were at 1548 square ft. So about 48 square feet over that. So with a little nipping and tucking to a patio in the rear, um we can get to that 1500 square f feet. So again, I'm going to hold that and ask Miss Laney to take a look at that during the presentation to confirm I'm correct. If
she disagrees, our planner will certainly put on testimony to support the relief. But I I I would have told her earlier, but it is something we noticed about 10 minutes ago. Um, with that, with uh removal of approximately, it'll end up being actually more like 200 square ft coming out of the patio in
the rear, not just the 48. But with the removal of that approximately 200 square ft, we will also eliminate the lot coverage variance. um from the C-zone we were at 16% which again we believed complied with the R4 iss 25% but the C
zone has 15 so we're about one one uh percent or 200 square ft over so again we can remove that from the patio so killing two birds with one stone um for lack of a better term. So that was something we were able to accomplish um getting rid of all those critical slope
area variances and the uh lot coverage variance. So what you would have now is a compliant application with respect to coverage and non-disturbing or exemption from disturbance of the critical slope area. What we do still have are two variances for the front yard setback. Um
not meeting the 75 ft if this is the C zone, the 50 ft if this is the R4, but not meeting the 75 ft. We are at 33 ft. And that is a very specific number that was not chosen at random. at 33 ft was specifically recommended by the planning
board in 2002 in order to ensure that there's at least 50 ft clear of the conservation easement in the rear yard which again you'll see on our plans momentarily. So that is one variance. The second variance is being in the C zone there's a 25 ft required sideyard
setback and we are proposing 10 feet again to keep us further away from that conservation area. that 10 feet again would comply if this was the R4 zone, but we are seeking the relief under the C criteria. Lastly, and then I promise I'll turn it over to the people that
really matter, but um there was a question in Miss Laney's report about uh what's known as a planning variance and fronting on a street. Um again, I will defer to the professionals in the room, but under the municipal land use law, there is a requirement that any lot
being proposed development does front on a street. Now, the MLUL does define street as improved or unimproved. This Long View Terrace is in fact a street. It is just unimproved. And so, what we would do, we would not be running a foul. We would not be seeking relief,
but the requirement ingrained in that section 36 of the MLUL is that we would post any necessary performance bonds to ensure that it is improved up to town standards um for the uh for the amount that is necessary to reach effectively our site. So to provide you with a driveway,
correct? To be able to it's it's a few more feet to get that unimproved road to be made improved to now front in front of our driveway area. So I I did start by saying this is a very complex application for a single family house, but it is uh like I said over 60 years
in the making and we believe this is the secret sauce to be able to get there. and we have a developer who's under contract for purchase and ready, willing, and able to put a shovel in the ground and realize this single family house and put it onto your tax roles. So, with that, um I do have
Sorry, can I before you start, I just want to give the board a little bit of background. Um so, one of the issues and and um Mr. Wine addressed this, but when the resolution was done in 2002, it wasn't even a just a suggestion. And it was it
was a condition of approval that the home be set back only 33 ft. And it was intended to um or between 32 and 33. And it was intended because there it backs up against the PSEG ement which also has a portion of
the tram tramco. Is that what it's called? Transco easement. And so the board at the time said we want to get the house as far away from that as we can. So we'd rather you be closer to the street. So it was a forced variance. Yes, ex was require it was or a condition of approval. The other thing
is that another condition of approval was that the addition the areas that were in the steep slope areas be put into a conservation easement which I believe that has been done. So that again restricts where the house
could be on on the lot, which is also explains perhaps why you only have a 10-ft. You have this big lot, but you the house needs a a a sideyard variance, and it was because um had to be squished. The board kind of required that. And finally, uh as Mr. Wy was discussing,
there is um the idea of well, they don't have uh frontage on on Long View Terrace. And the board in 2002 very specifically said, "We would rather you have a driveway than not u than try to um pro, you know,
pave the whole street because they thought it would provide sufficient access for you know emergency vehicles. Um but I think they also said that it would would result in significantly less land disturbances." So that was another um So where would the driveway go out to?
Well, I guess they'll explain it, but I just want to just go over that with you that some of what they're proposing was was was imposed on them was imposed on them 23 years ago. Okay. Yeah. And to be thank thank you, Miss Laney.
And to be clear, this obviously is a new application. So this board, this is the zoning board. This board could feel otherwise, but I think that those are very pertinent, helpful, contextual. Uh we always take into consideration what other boards have done and that we Absolutely. So with that, uh Mr. Chairman, I would
bring up my first witness is our project engineer. Bowman is admirer. Okay. Do you have an easel? Uh, do you have an easel? Do you need an easel? I'll hold it up. Do you want me to go? I have an I can hold I mean why don't you give him the mic? I was
going to say if uh give him that mic and you can use the one on the desk. Thank you. Why don't you get Why don't you get the easel? Easel De. So the board has correct. What you want me to go? Yeah, get the easel. This way if you want to get closer to the mic, you're not sitting there holding that.
You haven't heard enough of me at this. [Music] Sir, why don't we get your name and address? Right. Why don't we do that while we're waiting? Sure. My name is Baman Eadmmer spelled I Z A D M E HR. I'm principal of
development engineering and my address is 75 Parkhurst, second floor, Newark, New Jersey. And what is what are you licensed as? I'm sorry. What are you licensed as? An engineer, an architect. I I am a licensed professional engineer in Southern New Jersey. And my license
is current and inforce. Okay. Have you um testified before other boards? Almost all boards in New Jersey. Yes. We deem you an expert. Sure. And I have been before this board many years ago. Many years ago. Okay. I'm sorry if I don't remember. No, that's all right.
We see a lot of experts. So, Bombman, while we wait. Yeah. Um, I mean, I think it's fair to at least introduce the project. You have to be talking to a mic. Oh, yeah. That's one of the reasons why we didn't want you holding it. I got you. You want to hold the other one or hold it here?
Yeah. All right. Right. So, Obama, why do you why don't you start by uh introducing the existing conditions and what's But unfortunately, the public cannot see the uh just put it up there. Just put it up on there. Okay. Rest. Yeah. Against the laptop maybe.
Yeah. Here we go. It's better. Um Well, we got It's coming. The easel is coming. We usually put the easel down over here somewhere. So, yeah. like on it. You can even Yeah. Right there.
Perpendicular. Yeah. So they can So we can see it and they can see it. Actually, now that's not good either. Yeah. Put it Put it on the other side. Yeah. The other the other side of the wall. Uh up. No, other side of the wall.
Other side of the wall. Perpendicular to us. Yeah. Little bit little more to the right. Nobody can see. No, that's it has to go that way a little bit and slant it this way. This way. No, toward us.
Okay, that's good. That's good. Now the public can at least see it a little better. Okay. And we can see it. Okay. Everybody wants to come up and be quiet about it. You can come up and take Yeah. If anybody wants to get a closer look, they're welcome to. Well, between Mr. Mr. Wine and Miss Lenny. Uh I guess they both explained
the project so there's really not much for me to say. Thank you very much to both of you. Um but as they were explaining uh this uh roadway is uh unimproved
but uh based on again my visit of the site many years ago as well as uh aerial pictures recent aerial pictures the roadway is improved very close to the proposed driveway. So as part of this project, the
applicant will improve the roadway past the driveway so that he could access the driveway and also it will be a lot easier for emergency vehicles to access the proposed new house. So as
discussed the the site it's um has lot of uh critical slope almost uh 90%. So I would refer you to the second page
all this hashed area is critical slope. So we did a slope analysis of the existing site and as you can see it's pretty much covered with steepest slope plus the the PSNG or transco
easement in the back of the property and the conservation easement which is on the side of the property and also in the rear of the property. So as you can also see on the first page, these are existing trees that the surveyor picked
up. Uh we we had the survey updated recently. So I assume this trees are still there. But there are variety of trees at the site. Um we have oak, we
have birch, we have um um maple. So there there are variety of trees. And the other reason other than the critical slope was to minimize cutting these trees. I mean these are lovely trees. They've been at the site for many years.
And considering the location of the easement, the conservation easement. So the best location for a new house considering the requirements that the planning board set about 22 years ago,
we placed the house 33 ft exactly from uh long view terrace rideway line and we set the side of the house 10 ft from the property line as a setback under your R4
zoning requirements. And then we basically left with whatever we can in the rear yard. But on the right hand side because of the conservation
easement where the trees are and pushing the house all the way uh to the to the west side of the property. We were left with about 128 ft sight setback.
So we meet the site setback requirements for the for the R4 zone but not as Mr. Wine explained for the C zone. So and also we were able to discuss it among ourselves uh today and get rid of
some of the variances that uh this this particular site exhibits. But we are left with two uh two two variances. One is the side setback under the C zone is not 10 ft is 25 ft. Am I
correct? Yeah. And then on the other side we're okay and the rear we have 50 ft but we are showing 62 which is I believe is an error. So we have about 45 ft. So we will be reducing the patio. We
call it a patio, but it's actually a deck in the rear by five feet. So therefore, we can meet your rear yard set back of 50 ft. And also that will reduce the size of the patio. Therefore,
we can also meet the coverage, the lot coverage or imperous coverage. Under the old uh zone, it was 25%, under the new uh C zone, it's 15%. So, we can meet that as well. So basically we are left
with two variances front yard and sideyard and we can also meet the critical um slope disturbance. Yeah. So we we will comply with everything and then we will also meet with your with the requirements for a
garage. We're providing twocar garage on the ground floor which is sort of walkout basement. On one side is the slope. Yeah. Exactly. on one side is at grade on the other side is probably about 5t you know buried that's why the deck is
about 4T 5T above the um the finished grade so on all in all we are providing a 1 1600 roughly 1 1600 one one thing just to regarding the variances I think you guys still need
three additional ones regarding the setback from critical areas themselves. There's another provision under 142. So my read on that Mr. Soi is that that whole section is in totally inapplicable. Yeah. Okay. Comply with the 1500.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Yeah. That was addressed as well because those were also. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So, can you also touch on the storm water management that's being proposed at this site? Yes. Uh we are proposing a sippage pit in the driveway. That's the only
location we can do it because we don't want to really disturb any place that we don't have to and it's a pretty good because um the property you know slopes toward the roadway. So that's a logical location for a sepish bit. So we will not only connect the the
runoff from the driveway the sheet flow from the driveway into the sippish pit but we will also connect all the roof leaders from the new house to that sippish pit. And then we will also reduce the driveway. We are showing a 20
foot but uh we will readjust the the walkway as well as reducing the the width of the driveway from 20 to 19 in order to reduce that uh 45 ft overage that we have for the that out already with the 200.
Oh yes, you're right. We're taking a that was our first approach. Yes. Yes. So your driveway staying the same. Yeah. Same. Yeah. In terms of utility, I know I said it in the beginning, but I just want to confirm, we are permitted to connect into the township.
Exactly. Uh that's shown in this dark black uh line here. Uh this is where the sewer ends. Basically, there is a manhole, existing manhole. So we are basically extending that to the house on the west
side uh to minimize again disturbance and and also it's a logical location. It's next to the garage. Okay. So that's and then we obviously have all the other utilities that are gas natural gas. We have natural gas. Yeah. I mean if we
don't have it we can get it from this easement, right? I bet it's not that but we do have that. Yes. And we have electric of course and we have gas. Uh I have a question for our planner. Do you agree with their statement about the
1500 disturbance? Yes, there is at 142.2 um a after all of the standards listed in 142.1. It just says site disturbance with a gross area of disturbance of less than 1500 square feet shall be exempt
from the standards 1500 or less. Exactly. Less than 1500 actually. So up to 1500. Up to 1500. Okay. All right. So that that is correct then. But they're okay. Correct. Do you have any other questions for them for their expert? I don't.
You have any questions? Um with relation to the proposed rightaway, do you have a sheet you can bring up to show the lots on the other side, the northern side of Long View Terrace? Unfortunately, I don't have it here, but
I have a copy of the old survey that I can pass it on to you. And it shows the two neighboring properties, namely this lot and this. No, but to the north side of Long View Terrace, across the street,
across across the unimproved street there's Well, there's nothing improved, but what do you know the configuration of the lots that are there? Are they the rear yards of the lots? I am not really sure. I haven't looked at that. The reason I'm asking is because
respectful to our board and their prior decision. Yeah. It's not their decision. It's not their jurisdiction to decide that what what happens in the rightway relative to a driveway under a license agreement or the vacation of the roadway
consolidating into the neighboring lots. Um or the con or the extension of the drive of the roadway as a public road. and then the driveway teeing off it. That is the jurisdiction of our municipality, our township, right?
So our township governing body would make that decision. So ultimately the decision we have here tonight would be conditioned at the very least on them approaching our governing body and working out that relationship,
the connection to the roadway. And I deal with this in a number of municipalities. On a road like this that's already substandard improved, extending that roadway is typically most appropriate as a as a driveway um
and a license agreement with the municipality as opposed to a full road as opposed to improving. Yeah. At at the cost of this applicant improving the full right of way, right? To road grade. But this is the moment at which the township should
engage to make their decisions on vacating paper streets or maintaining them. Vacating their relinquishing their right to accept the paper street is the more appropriate legal term I believe to say it. Um or right make those transitions. So
the reason I was asking is just so we have an understanding of maybe eventual guidance to our governing body. But um I am comfortable with them proceeding with a driveway within the right of way and assumed as a license agreement with the
township. Okay. And then the the vacation can be addressed as a separate matter or even deferred to if north of Long View Long View gets developed are developable lots that could infill
as well. Okay. like perhaps the second or third person would be more appropriate to decide they don't want a shared driveway in that license agreement and they'd rather improve the roadway. Okay, I see what you mean. The house is across I'm sorry. The house
across the street, the driveway is coming off a Hickory Tavern, right? Just not clear to me if there are lots. Is this helping? If there are lots in the rear there. So, is that helping here? There's lot lines right there. Okay. So, yeah. Okay. Okay. So it
confirms to the rear. Okay. So then this would be the only this would be the only house. So my recommendation to our governing body will be sorry. But but for now, right? Yeah. That extending extending the road extending the road is not necessary. It
can be done as a function of a driveway with a license agreement. So it would be a driveway attaching to the existing whatever is there. Right. And part and parcel to that would be our governing body deciding to then vacate the paper street at their discretion. Okay. They do they don't have to do it. They could do it one and not the other or
they could do it together. Okay. So, practically for just for reference, it would either end up as a driveway with a license to be in a public right of way within a paper street we haven't accepted yet. Street, right? Or it would end up being vacated and a straight driveway
consolidated to both properties in which case you would need an easement from the neighbor to the north. Yeah. Or realign the driveway in your own property and at the property line. Yes. Okay. All right. So, but all logistics for our governing body and I'm comfortable with them proceeding as they they illustrate
on their plan. Okay. Thank you. I agree. Thank you. Then with relation to the storm water management as proposed and the lot grading since I didn't have an opportunity to prepare my memo and finalize it would be more
appropriate we just defer those conditions as a lock rating like under our single family development opportunities right for exemption if it was it would just be a lock rating permit and dealing with storm water management at my desk as the township
engineer I suppose. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. And then yeah, we can deal with that. We concur with yours. All right. Any questions uh for this witness? Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. So, not an engineer. Um my I think my understanding is there's a potential
that how it goes with the township, you would if the the rightway is vacated, right? Then you wouldn't be fronting on any kind of rightway anymore, right? So, you might still need that variance. Yeah, I was thinking about that actually. Well, if it's vacated, it would be vacated in our favor on our
side of the street and favor to the north after the after the approval is perfected. I understand. But then the lot still wouldn't be fronting on a public street. I think that they could seek the variance with the understanding that the board potentially would grant I mean assuming all of this is approved. But if
if the board were to grant the variance saying we prefer this alternative to to uh not granting the variance. Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. So that's still the planning variance plus the um
the front and other section of the ordinance too. Okay. Actually while we got the engineer one other question. Sure. Potentially two the front yard. Are there any retaining walls proposed in the front and the sideyard? Sideyards. Um on the sideyard. Nope. Except the driveway. In order to create a driveway,
we have to have two roughly about 2 to three feet retaining walls, one on each side of the driveway. Okay. So, they're going to be of a compliant height, which is 4T. Okay. Yeah. They are less than four feet. So, they don't have to be engineered. Yeah.
Yes. It would be a landscape wall basically. Okay. So, you don't need any variances for the retaining walls? No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You have a question? Yeah. A couple questions. Um I I think you mentioned something about the Veryard setback being an error or
something that the on the on the packet that you have uh it shows 62 ft but I looked at it today and I believe it should be about 45. Okay. Because 62 looks like it's it so the the label 62
Yeah. It it through the conservation easement that's mislabeled or that shouldn't be all the way to there. No, no. Basically, the line should be perpendicular to the property line, but that setback is not. So, if you make it perpendicular to the
property line is about 45 ft. Yeah. Is a slanted by removing a portion, we can make it comp. Exactly. Which is the zones. Yeah. Yeah. The the the rear uh your setback just got changed. So, from 25 to
50, so we could still comply. Yes. Okay. Um, I'm sorry because I don't have a lot of room up here to figure out what I was looking at. Sure. I believe there was something somewhere where it showed a neighbor to the east, I believe. Was it some picture?
West. Neighbor to the west. You mean this picture here? Oh, is it looking east? Yeah, it's actually Yeah, it's on that picture, I guess. Right there. Yeah, it is. Where where is that? little bit. I I'm not really sure because we got
this picture from Google map. Okay. So, uh I assume it's confused as to where that picture is in relationship to here. So, it's over here. Oh, is on this side here. So, it's on the
on the left of of your plans. How far off the property line are they? Uh it's basically right after the intersection uh as you enter Long View Terrace. So
it's immediately to the right. So is that and that is the same side where you were looking for the variance. Um the west side. Yes. Yeah. The west side. The same side where you have the 10 foot. Yes. Yes. Exactly.
And to the east there's nothing. Nothing. As far as we know, there is nothing conservation. Okay. And my last question, just again because it's so hard to look through everything. Um because of the slope, you have a walk out garage. I mean, is the
garage technically in the basement? No, garage is actually in the basement. Okay. Uh it's basically exposed to the grade on the on this side, which is the south side. Mhm. I'm sorry. on the south side which is am
I right? No, on the on the south side of Long View Terrace, right? But on the north side of the property, but then once you move to the rear yard, uh it goes up. So there is a difference of about 10 ft between the
uh finished floor of the garage and the first floor or the second floor as you wish. And then we have a patio or a deck basically which is about 4 feet above the basement. Okay. So I I only ask and I assume that
all our professionals have looked in this but I know that we've somehow sometimes had issues with the amount of exposure the amount of exposed basement and that it's been considered a floor if it's more than 50% or something. Yeah, I was going to ask that too.
This is just the the front. Okay. Just so it it doesn't qualify as a second as another. Basically, it's not exposed. Uh there there are no windows in the rear of the uh basement. There are only basically the garage
doors, right? Those are the only access you have from the outside to the basement. Okay. Right. And then if you want to go to the main door, you have to climb the staircase, go upstairs to the deck, and enter the second floor.
First floor. First floor. Oh, first floor. Yeah, I call it. Yeah, but it's second floor from the front, but from the rear is the first floor. Hey, Jonathan, watch your name tags on my phone. And I I guess this is also for so we are
all in agreement that this should be a C zone. I guess that's okay. So let's go over that. Yeah. All right. So um if you look at our current zoning map, this lot is in the C zone, but if you
look at the 2002 ordinance, the planning board ordinance approving it, they noted it was in the R4 zone. So there was some back and forth uh between the applicant and our various off professionals offices about um trying to find the
origin of the inconsistency and particularly because we found a 19 97 map um that showed it also in the sea zone. So we're not sure why it was in the sea zone in 1997 and then changed R4 in the 2002 and then currently in the
sea zone. I will say that and this was work that was done prior to my involvement on the long hill master plan, but this particular lot was actually outlined and is in the um land use element of the master plan as being an isolated,
you know, sezone parcel that should actually be reszoned to the nearest R zone. So there's a recommendation essentially to put it in the R zone R4 zone in the master plan. Um I we could
not I think the applicants repres representatives and certainly our my office and and our offices could not explain why it was in the R4 in 2002. Yeah. I mean my understanding of that is
it was just simply misinterpreted from the maps. Okay. But and and that being because you have to study the lot lines from the tax map that are present on the zoning map in every version of our zoning map dating
back to the 1975. Um, you have to look at the surrounding north, northerly and southerntherly lot configurations and block configurations to affirm that that line is and the trap the trapezoid and triangle of this lot
and and PSENG um are where they are that the the zone line is between I believe it's lots 14 and 15 as opposed to 15 and 15.01. So it could have been just a So it's just very easy misinterpretation at the time in the early 2000s, okay,
when it was put in the R4 zone, but it would have been consistent with the master plan recommendation. The other thing to uh note is that it doesn't meet any of the minimum requirements of a CZONE property. The minimum lot size in the C zone is three acres.
And so this it's it never was a conforming lot, right, in the C zone. Yeah, it it could have just as easily have been instead of misinterpreted in 2002 2004. Um it could have just as easily been
miszoned in the 70s on that map that they thought the same issue of which lot line they were drawing the boundary on. Okay. Because neighboring to them is the PSEG parcel that goes into the greater part of that
of that rightway. Okay. So, we're in agreement it's a C zone. I don't have to because I had a follow-up question then because here in at least on your uh zone requirements it says you have a proposed 20,931 lot area and you're saying it's an
existing non-conforming for R4, but that wouldn't be right. It would it would conform to R4. Yeah, I realized after I sent the letter, but we're not looking at R4. That was a typo. But I I'll I'll tell you the the the other thing, and this is very in the weeds, but in 2002,
the the reason it went to the planning board is because there was partly it was a subdivision, and they took uh square footage from the PSENG lot. And initially, they essentially the board made them take just enough square footage to reach
that 20,000 square foot threshold. Um, so it is not an existing non-conformity if it's in the R4. Yeah. But it's not but it but we and when I re released this letter on Friday, there was still a
question if perhaps we would discover some additional information. So that's why both zones are in the letter. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions by our board of his expert? No. Okay. Any questions by
applicants in the audience? Come on up. Unfortunately, you have to share that mic. Sorry. Thanks. Sure. How you doing? My name is Tracy Mloud. It's my wife, Lori Mloud. We live at 49 Long View Terrace. We moved there in 2001. Okay. Now, these are questions. I would
like Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, one, some of our concerns are the house is going to be 10 foot, correct, off of our property line. Okay. Which means you have to direct. It wouldn't apply to their expert. Yeah. Oh, all right. So, my house is over here
to looking at that pling. Looking at the map, it's Yeah, cuz it's upside down. I'm to the west. Okay. It's actually the corner of my house is pictured right here. Oh, that is your house. Okay. That's my house. Okay. And that Where is that on the map? Is that where you say it?
It's not shown. It's not shown. Okay. But I mean it would be there. Okay. It's right here. Okay. Let me swear this guy in just to be safe. Yeah. Go ahead. Swear you sir. I got to swear you in just in case he makes factual statements. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about provided with the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. So hope you got I do. Okay.
Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. So some of our concerns are the house being that close to my house. Um but how close is your house to their property line? Well, my house is it's like
20 19 20 feet off the property line, but it's in the front of the house. The property line's angled. So, depending upon where you take the number, it's different. Okay. Between the front and the back, but the physical building, how far is that? Your house itself,
my house itself is from the from the the actual line right here, the property line where I have a fence is it's about 19 ft 18 ft at the very front corner of the Fieldstone Foundation right here. Okay. So, their house would be how far from your house?
30 ft. 30 ft. All right. Yeah. Okay. And to the other side of the house. I'm sorry. The other side of my house. Oh, god. their house is. So I'm 20
22 feet off the property line and they are probably about 30 feet off the property line. It's it's over 50 ft. Well over. Yeah. You can't even we can't see each other's houses through the tree line. Are there trees separating the property here?
Yes. Yeah, there are some huge trees um all along here. All along right here. Okay. um on your property and on their property. Correct. Correct. So, your concern is the 10 feet off the property line.
Yeah. And a house being right on top of me when I haven't had anything there for 20 something years. Well, I understand your concern. Um but as I understand it, that was a forced location. That was that was one of the forced location, right? The 10 ft
essentially. The other the thing is in 2002 they assumed or they interpreted it to be in the R4 zone. The minimum sideyard setback in the R4 is 10 ft. Okay. But what about the con what about steep slopes and and they they they kind of carved out a
building envelope in the 2002 uh resolution and then asked or required that the rest be put in conservation easement. Okay. Now, how is that or how is that or how is that not um binding on us? Well, if it's in a conservation
easement, then do you want Yeah. I mean, so if the easement I assume was perfected, you have a new type, right? So, the conservation easement is a conservation easement. So, that that carved out area is is the area those right that carved out area is the developable footprint for the buildable
lot. Okay. essentially. Um the rest of the conditions of the prior approval being any of where they believe the house should then be cited in that developable area, I would defer to our attorney, but
I think it's within the discretion of the board to consider um relinquishing some of those conditions in favor of a different planning alternative in front of you today. Okay. Well, if somebody could ask me answer me how how much room would it be
could the house be moved to the right as I'm looking at those plans and still be within the building uh envelope. Is that a possibility? I mean that's a question but yeah I mean yeah could you give
I have a couple other Okay. So one, this manhole is extremely high and it's so high that when what I mean is in depth, if you open it, it's it's about 16 in deep. That's it. And so
toilet paper and stuff from my house, every so often I would either do one of two things. is I would actually open up my cleanouts and stick garden hoses in it and flush all the toilets because paper builds up in that in this manhole.
Okay. Yeah. Cuz it's the one right here cuz it's very high. So I've actually gone out and opened it. Do you mean high in relations to the pipes going into it? Correct. Yeah. It's if you open the street it's like it's like maybe 16 18 inches to the bottom of it from the
road. Hm. So I have a concern with that. So now there'll be another house dumping into it. So it's not it's it's not 6 feet deepish on the No. No. Absolutely not. I know cuz I've opened it. And I used to work for the city of
Summit in the sewer department. So maybe it's filled with sediment. No, no, you can see the cement bottom. Yeah. Yep. Yep. You can. And you could see the trough. So that's one concern. My next concern is garbage pickup and mail. And
third is snow because right now what ex on your on your problem with garbage is the truck going to back all the way up the garbage truck because there's nowhere for him to turn around. It's a small street. It's 7 foot wide. One in, one out. So I guess the question is what does the
garbage truck do now? What does he do now? Well, my house is right there. House is at the end. So we just put our cans right down there for him. So he just comes right to it and plops him in and then goes down the street. Well, turns around to go back down the street. He can't turn around. There's nowhere to turn around.
One at a time when we're doing So does does the garbage truck back up down Long View Terrace to get to your driveway to pick up your garbage? Me? Yes. No, he doesn't back down it. No. So he comes head on to the He comes head on. We move it right down
to the intersection. Okay. So you walk Yeah. Because it's only like the intersection Yeah. It's only like from from my house to the intersection is about like 30 ft. Okay. So you make it easier for the garbage truck. Yeah. Yeah. And the post office truck does the same
thing basically. Correct. Well, the post office uses my driveway to turn around. Okay. All right. Well, which which is fine. Yeah. I I've seen them do that. Yeah. Um and then snow. So the snow usually the road ends actually before my property
line. So the black top just stops before the property line. Like that's how it's always been since I've been there for 21 years. So they pile the snow up there because there's no other place to put it. So I guess the question is, is he going to do the same thing? The plow truck,
is he going to are you going to have enough room to push that snow all the way down? Because it's quite a bit of snow. Yes, of course. Because he has to have access to his driveway. So, he has to clear the roadway, right? Either Well, but I heard you say you were just going to turn it into a driveway and
goes right into the house. Yeah. I'm saying that he could still push the snow out of the driveway, otherwise he won't have access to the house, right? So, that's what he will do. So, and in terms of So, just to clarify though, that the he is not going to be the applicant because
that's still in the public right of way. So, so, so the township's plows and we're discussing what will be in exactly their consideration of what I was discussing earlier. That's what I was talking about, right? Um, it'll be part of their consideration
speaking with me as the engineer and our public works director and and others, right, that would make those services to decide if they they want the driveway, which they can only address in lensure from
their property line, right, into their property. and how to deal with the remainder of the road that has not been constructed through in front of your frontage. Okay. Um if they were to vacate the portion in front of you, your new neighbor would
need some form of easement between either you and them or the neighbor to the north and them to get through that property line. Um, but I think the decision on how snow will be plowed and
how garbage pickup will be done will really be deferred to the governing body on where the delineation of the public rightaway ends. Where the public rightaway ends, we have an obligation as a township to provide our full services for the taxes that we impose on the property. Otherwise, some form of
credit. So, if we are not going to pick up the garbage and and I'm sure um those that pick up the garbage appreciate not having to come down to your property to get it and you walking the clans back and forth, but you do have the right to have it
received at your driveway. No, I just But it's for them to pull all the way up and then back all the way up is Yes, agreed. And that kind of changes the threshold when we talk about the next house down, right? which is why we're because it's further down.
Right. Right. Um any other questions? And I think that would not testify for the act but in those considerations of those types of movements of other vehicles, emergency vehicles as well as then
municipal services is is why the part why the K turn is provided for the driveway on the plan. Yeah. Okay. Uh, another question I have is during construction, if this is approved, where are all the vehicles
going to park? Where all the deliveries going to be? Can you answer that or is that outside? Well, and I could answer it, but again, that's best resolved among contractors. So, obviously, they have to there is
really no access past the driveway. So obviously they're not going to occupy the roadway in front of your property and also they won't block your driveway for sure. So I guess I guess the I guess the answer really and speaking you know the
the applicant is if it makes sense for the contractors to construct the roadway extension for lack of a better term first provide a staging area that's what they would do. If it made more sense for them to just clear a couple of the trees and drive up onto an unimproved
there. That's what they would do. But I guess to answer your concern, which is a valid concern, um, is that they cannot disturb, they cannot park on your property, they cannot block your driveway, they cannot block your access to to your right of way. And that's something that would have to be coordinated. And if they did do that,
that would be a violation. Um, and you know, I just know how it goes because I'm in the industry. So, I I get it. And uh you know I can say this comfortably that you know it would be incumbent upon my client to be a good neighbor and ensure that overseeing the construction process you you you know there will be disturbance because there
as you know in the industry there's always no listen I I I get it. I get it. Um but those are those are the concerns that we have as of right now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome. Um,
one of his concerns was the 10 ft. Is there any possibility of moving or shifting the pro the house? I'm not saying you should or you shouldn't. I'm just saying is there potential? Well, obviously we could push it, but I
believe 10 ft minimum on on this on this house side. And he said 19, but let's assume the other the existing house also has 10. So that will be 20 ft separation between the two homes. And I think that's pretty standard.
Well, I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I mean it if you if you were to move the house, how would it change your plans? Well, it it will really not change much, but obviously we could preserve that 10
foot. Let's let's say if we make it 15 ft, right? set back the 15 ft will not be disturbed. So in terms of the disturbance it's going to be the same amount. Can I ask the question? I think the chairman's asking what if you had to dig in further if you took this and shifted
it 5t 10 whatever the number is what's the impact to the site by doing that? Yeah. The other side the back not much because again the grading is about the same. Okay. If you look at the cross-section profile of the the footprint of the
house, if we shift it another five feet or so, it will be about the same. The only difference is that we have to improve the roadway additional 5T. Oh, so you have the shoreline a little longer and you have Yeah, we have to Exactly.
What I would also imagine is you may disturb more steep slopes and bring Not really. If you look at this uh steepest slope plan, as you can see, it's about the same. The only difference
is that you see this white uh triangle here. So, this is not critical slope. Okay. Where where the driveway is. So, if we were to push it another 5T, we are still okay. Okay. So, you'd only be able to go another 5T. Yeah, we can go another 5T
without impacting a steepest slope or critical without reaching the threshold to require the variances that we discussed earlier that and that's I think the the bigger concern is to have the discussion so that we don't have you coming back for an amended approval if you were to shift
that's correct wonder then if that's the pleasure of the board out of you know sure if that's what would make you know the neighbors more comfortable we did that I would almost avoid having to come back here much as you guys are great I would I would almost kind of preemptively ask for the critical slope
variance and just say in the event that we can no longer meet that 1500 due shifting it to accommodate the neighbor we would be granted that variance. I have no problem with that asking question. I mean in so much that the change in that disturbance over 1500
is specifically towards adjusting the sideyard setback. my engineering reasons. I wouldn't have any to the detriment of the steep slopes. Right. And it would be it wouldn't change the size of the house. It wouldn't change. Right. Understood.
It would be just shifting it to the east by 5T. Um, yeah. Take a poll of the board. Would you guys think shifting five feet? Mr. Sherman. Yes. Yes. Before the board does that, just real quick, because Joe brought this up, the the conditions of the prior the 2002 approval,
I see a specific condition about the front yard setback being between 32 and 33. I don't see a specific condition regarding the sideyard setback. Yeah. So, we're not So, that's one. Okay. Um, another point on that, what is the square footage, the footprint of the house that you're proposing? Um, about 1,600.
1600. Okay. 1612 to be exact. Minimum of the zone. Yeah. It's it's roughly my point with that is the uh the condition in the uh 2002 approval indicated that the home footprint would be 27 and a half I'm
sorry 27 5 in by 40 and the garage would be 22 by 22. So that equates to just around 1500 square feet. Yes. A little more or less the the house now currently I thought but it's it's five I did five instead of five inches. So it should be
like 0. Yeah. Yeah. So I Yeah. I just realized that it was inches and not half a foot, but very close to that. I guess it's helpful that any conditions imposed by this board would supersede that. Anyway, absolutely. Just to give the board an idea of what was contemplated by the prior approval.
Just to be clear, the house measures 26x 62. Okay. The proposed house. Yes. Uive of the garage. Yeah. Inclusive of the garage, right? Because the garage is under the house, right? It's basically a rectangle, right? I I got that. Um what what is uh
the board's um polling on that? Would you shift it over to make it further away from the house next to it? Considering that there's a lot of space available to the east on and there's nobody to the east and and there is nobody to the east and there is somebody to the west. Yes.
As much as we could move Yeah. without affecting five. Could we even go 10? Yeah. Well, as I don't know what the maximum is. I think they looked at it and said 5T without disturbing without digging anymore for exactly 5T will not have any any impact
on critical. Okay. Yeah. So the the else just to go back to that critical slope plan. Yeah. There are areas there's like three or four white sections that come from the west to the east that do not right see
on so just on the left side of there. Yeah. Those don't count towards critical slope. Okay. So as they move over there is about five feet in each of them. Okay. That when they move over they won't create additional disturbance. As they go from 5 to 10 ft they will absorb that
disturbance as part of that calcul. So is 5t good with everybody. That's the most we can do. You know again we want to make the neighbors happy and he's lived here a long time. He's used to the vacant lot and we like to have as much separation between houses as possible considering
the next there's nobody on the other side. So, and plus the house being built, you'll be further away from the neighbor. So, it's so win on both of them. Okay. All right. So, make that a condition shifting 5D. And also maintaining the, you know, the the growth that's there, not just
shifting it. I mean, you're not you're not disturbing anything on the side. No, that you're shifting it away from Exactly. Nothing. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. You might be disturbing less trees on that on this side. Yeah. All right. That's correct. Um
uh any other questions from uh any other um applicant other public? I see I see someone coming up. Please tell us your name and address. My name is Christopher Webb. I live at 99 Hickory Tavenvern Road. Um I live
there for 30 years. So I guess people around where we live don't move that much. Um I have a Oh, we're going to we're going to swear you in. Just swear in. Oh, just in case you say facts. All right, sir. You do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So be God.
Now be keep in mind this is mostly questions, but if you happen to say something as a fact, we just want to make sure you're sworn in. Okay. Sure. By all means, I understand. Um I actually I'm I'm very impressed with the application. The uh um the pivot has
been excellent. um because I came here thinking that we were talking about um our zone and of course now we're talking about a C- zone. But I do still have a couple of questions. Um and one of them has to do with the slope. Um we now know
that we're going to be over the 15%. But can you tell me what the actual average slope is for the property? The actual average is about 15 to 16%. Okay. Okay. So, we're only marginally over it. Yes.
Um because I mean obviously there's got to be an upper limit somehow. But the critical slope definition here is anything greater than 15%. So that's why we have two categories. If you look at this table here um anything above 15% is shown in
hatches which is which is about 18,000 square ft. Okay. Out of the 21,000. Okay. The lot size. But up to what kind of slope does the hatched part go? I mean up to 30 40. No, it's pretty much uniform, right? Okay.
Yeah, you can see it's the cross lines. Yeah, the cross lines are like every 5t and they don't they don't go drastically high. Yeah. Good. Gotcha. But it's pretty uniform and mildly slow. Okay. Thank you. So that's why we chose the site of the
house so that we will have the minimum impact on the critical slope. Right. Um I don't know whether this is an appropriate question at this stage. Um but obviously that slope um especially with the weather that we've been having recently um is presumably going to mean
that runoff from the property is going to be a bit more of a challenge than if it were flat. Can you tell me anything about what kind of um measures you're going to be taking to make sure that the properties we are we are um downhill of
this property? what measures you'll be taking um to make sure that the properties downhill um are not um uh badly affected by the okay the runoff because we are building against the the critical slope right so we're going to have sort of a guts all around the
building so not only there will be a gutter on the roof but there will be sort of a swell real quick could you give the mic back so we pick up what he said I was going to say that please there will be some sort of a swell that we're going to be proposing around the building. Okay.
So, because we want to make sure the building doesn't flood, right, because of all the runoff. So, all that water will go to this um dry well or sippage pit, right? So, there will be the roof will be covered. All this area will be covered
and the rest of the property it will maintain its existing drainage flow. This the same flow that it exhibits today. We are not touching these areas at all. So, so the impervious area that you'll
be creating water coming off that will effectively be captured by your swale. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Because we don't want the water to go inside the house or or off the or off the property. Exactly. Exactly. So, we will we will be collecting all that runoff, you know,
because right now the runoff goes straight into the roadway. Okay. So, it will be encountered by the building here, right? So we will create a swell. So we will depending on the slope we will either run it off to the side either to
the east side or the west side and then take it to the front and eventually to the sippage pit. What happens to that water? Because I guess we already microphone microphone. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry guys. What what happens to that water in the sippage pit? Because um we already know
that there are percolation problems in the property. Well, we are hoping it will percolate. Sorry. Stay nice and close. Yeah. Here, let's stay close. So, we we are hoping that the percolation will uh will be fine there. So, we're going to do a percolation
test. Okay. If it doesn't drain, either we have to increase the size of the the sippage pit. Okay. And then we will have open grates on top of the sippage pit. So, water will evaporate and then also will overflow into the surrounding. There is not
nothing else we can do because there is no storm main that we can connect the overflow pipe into it. So it's going to be basically hydration or evaporation. So if the committee were to establish some kind of procedures that you should
follow if it turns out that the pit is in insufficiently large, you would be happy with that. Of course, we will do that. Yeah, no problem. We'll comply. the uh what we do is we usually uh have our engineer work with the uh with the applicant to come
up with an adequate me measure to keep the water on the property and we trust the expertise of our engineer to develop that. So what I was mentioning earlier was this will be conditioned on a lock rating permit. So, it'll be handled at the township engineers desk block
rating. We'll get into some of the additional details on ensuring this meets our minor development standard, which is what this will be. This will be a minor development. It does not appear be over a quarter acre of new impervious, right? And and the limit of disturbance will be
well under an acre. Um, so this will meet our modern development standard for a couple inch storm that has to be attenuated into the drywall. And then as the engineer stated, there's there's a lack of infrastructure in the area that the overflow can be connected to. So
then we'll be looking at anticipating that overflow during larger storms and ensuring that it drains as the property does today and and alleviates as much adverse impact as possible to anybody else. Understand? Thanks. Can I ask a question about that?
Yes. So, there's one seepage pit plan now. Looked like it was in the driveway and there's a potential that your driveway, for lack of a better term, gets larger when the township doesn't want to improve the road up the road. So, they're going to give it back potentially, right?
Or let you lease it or something like that, right? So, if more seepage pits were needed than just one in the in the current driveway, would that be where they'd go if there's overflow? cuz I've seen so the the applicant in their
application and their contractor would construct would include the extension of that roadway as a private driveway. That impervious coverage that is in the paper street is inclusive to their development application as a minor development. So,
their dry well will need to get larger will address it'll address both this home on the lot as well as some at least some offset for what might be down gradient that can't be drained
back to it, right? Because they're going to be extending the roadway from where it it doesn't exist currently. So, that will that will all be inclusive to the storm water management calculations. is just not inclusive of your zoning calculations relative to the lot boundary.
Um, so yes, there's a potential that that drywall may turn into two. It may turn into a different type of configuration like the arch vault systems we see or something else based on the soil conditions under the driveway and where they believe is the best place to put it. And then I concur.
If I don't concur, then we'll go back and forth a couple times. Good. Okay. Great. Any other questions? Yeah. Um I I had a further question. Um the um on on the um doing the
construction, doing the foundations to the property, will it be necessary to blast? Um we don't believe so, but if it's a requirement, then obviously we will work with uh the the township engineer to
secure the proper permits and also meet their condition. Well, um I I guess the concern and and I remember the previous the mic up. I I I remember the previous per um hearing on this property. um it was raised as an issue is that we have
this gas pipeline which is really quite close to this property. Yeah. And um one would think that at the very least it would be a good idea to have a chat with the the owners of that pipeline to to to see how safe it would be to carry out
any blasting operations on this property where that pipeline is concerned. Absolutely. Yeah, they would have to. that will be a requirement to basically inform all the property fair enough neighboring properties as well as all the utilities. Okay. Um and and this maybe is um more
um crossing tees and and dotting eyes. Um but when you went through the variances um uh the one variance that um you uh you need as a result of going to the C zoning uh some reference has been made
to it but I don't think at any point um anybody has actually specifically um pointed out that there is a need for an approval um for um waving the three acre minimum area.
So sir, we will have a professional planner testify whose job it is is to speak to all of the variances and justify each one of them. Yeah. That that was that's not the uh engineers that will come back. Yes, that's another hearing. No, no, no, no. Tonight that's the gentleman sitting here. Appreciate it. You're welcome.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Any other audience? Okay. Come on up. Identify yourself. Tell us where you live. Thank I'm I'm Larry Fast Lawrence Fast if you want the formal name. My
wife and I Phyllis who's back there live at 498 Longill Road that is on the other side of the power cut from the properties in question. Your property would fall somewhat behind ours uh across from the power line. Uh the
question which um was already ju just asked partially what was about excavation and blasting um has there been any determination on that? I mean any sample again because I'm worried about the transco pipeline?
No, we haven't done any geotechnical engineering activities on the site but if it's required we will do one during the construction before construction starts. Good. Well, pertinent to that, I'm sure as you're aware recently the public
service electric and gas towers were replaced in 2020 to 2020 21 and they had to do some significant uh engineering to get their new tower bases in even though they're not very big. Um they're considerably smaller than a
typical seller would be. But um they had uh and I was one of the agitators on it to get Transco inspectors there regularly during the construction because that is a 36 in high-pressure interstate main. This isn't just a
little local gas line. This is a a really big problem. And that blow up we had in Edison a while back. We have to swear you before we go any further. I was going to let you finish your thought, but let me get you then. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide in have given or have given is and will be the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. So, help me to God. Yes. Keep going. Good. Um, just that one in Edison was an 8 in and we're talking to 36 in. So, we're very careful about it and the contractors and PSEG themselves, I guess
being in the gas business, was very helpful for that. If you had to do that, is that budgeted so that you could have those inspectors there? And I'm sure that Millington and Sterling fire departments would appreciate it. Uh sure we we haven't really gone into that
details yet but we are far away from the gas transition line transmission line. So we really don't I don't believe it's a it will be required to have an inspector but obviously they will be informed and if they require an
inspector obviously the applicant will provide an inspector. Yeah. Just further to that point, part of the reason for this conservation ement that was reported on the property is to keep this development as far away from that area as possible. Correct. We'll have to comply with whatever the
requirements are. Um, good. Now, uh, next question has to do with what happened with the, um, topography after the 2021 tower realignments. And the first um year after that was
done, there was such a dramatic change in the way that the water management on the PSEG property, which is uphill from you, as well as the rest of the houses on Long View Terrace, um that they had to come back with a whole separate
engineering plan to create a uh storm water management system in order to uh direct the water away from the down slope. houses. However, um that water was still and even to this day finds its way to
Hickory Tavern Road. Have you been in touch with them to find out whether that water management plan as it was executed over the last couple of years protects the property in question tonight? No, we haven't contacted them yet, but
we will definitely contact them during the construction if the project gets approved. Thank you. Now, also pertinent to that to water flows um because we're at um the Great Swamp uh watershed under the
US Fish and Wildlife Service management and just about any project anywhere near Myersville in the last well probably in the last 60 years but particularly in since I've been observing things over the last 20 25 years um generates a lot
of interest from also the protective groups like the great swamp wershed association ation as well as fish and wildlife. Um, have they been uh brought in for any discussion? I've seen the the project papers that PSEG have prepared
in advance and it's like a phone book. So, do you have anything on that? I can answer. I don't know that uh Bowman can answer that, but they have not been contacted. I just, you know, and I I don't want to sound like a like a broken record, but all of these any approvals that are required, one of the conditions should the board make a
motion to approve our application. Um, and I can correct me if I'm wrong, would be compliance with all outside agency approvals. That means if you needed, which obviously we don't, but if you needed Department of Transportation approval, that would be a requirement. If you need a Department of Environmental Protection, that would be
a requirement. If you need fish and wildlife, that would be a requirement. So, your questions are are are excellent, and I think you clearly live in the area and know exactly what the issues are. We would be required to comply with every single one of these necessary outside agencies. Yeah, our
our approval doesn't excuse any other required approvals from any other agencies. If this might help you understand what this board does is adjudicate whether or not this complies with the zoning, right? So, exactly. If they need a variance, they need a variance. But all this other stuff that you're referencing, again, valid
concerns. That's for a completely different body. There's a lot of different, you know, bodies that have interest in this. Theoretically, we could say yes and the project may not even be built because of some other issue that you know. Right. Exactly. And just as a a followup on
that, um that's the reason I'm asking the engineer here and the applicant because I know very well the function of planning and zoning uh from some of my other work. And um it just it's good to have a lot of the information ahead of
time. If you're going to get stonewalled by the federal government at some point uh or something having to do with the water management from our major interstate utilities, then it would, you know, I would just think it would be good to know and you're the guys to ask and I don't I I understand it's not this
local board's jurisdiction. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Any other questions? No, I think that's it for now. I think we'll be back later. Fine. We'll be here. Okay. Any other questions from anyone else in the audience?
Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to close it for questions. Uh yes, chairman, I intended to call my architect and my planner unless in the interest of time I know that there's another application. Don't worry about that. That's our problem. I was just going to ask if you if you wanted to hear from the architect. The
planner is absolutely necessary. No, no, you have an application. And don't worry about anything else. That's our issue. Then we will call our architect. Yes. And uh he can speak to the floor. You have the right to put on your full uh 5 minutes.
Um yeah, let's just take a five minute bathroom break. Or whatever you want to do. Yeah, five minutes. All right. Why not? at 8. Um, 9.
No, I'm sorry. 9ine. Yeah. 9:24. All right. So, go ahead. Your architect. Sure. Swear him in. He's already sworn. Oh, he's already sworn. Okay. Just to give you some credentials. So, we Yep. Yeah. Um, so I graduated with my bachelor's degree of architecture in
2013. I got my license in 2019. I've been in good standing since. Licensed in the state of New Jersey. Um, I've been in front of the board, numerous boards. Uh, Long Hill. It's been a while while since I've been back, but um uh and uh so yeah, happy to be here. Good. We qualify you as
What was your name, sir? Javier. Last name, please. Fuentes. Fue ts. Gotcha. Sounds good. All right. Go ahead. So Javier, if you can please walk the floor briefly through the floor plans and the elevations. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, we'll keep
it nice and short. So basically the we have the basement, first floor, second floor. On the basement, we have the twocar garage, the stairway up that takes you to the first floor with an access from the front here. There's a doorway here, and then there is the
basement area over here on the side for storage. You take the stairs up or you can take the stairs from the outside going up over to the balcony where it takes you to the front door. And here you're at the first floor. So nice big open uh um open concept space um with a
family room on the side, living room in the back, dining room and kitchen uh with a powder room and a closet. And then going up to the second floor, we have our access to this level, which is uh taking the hall space and minimizing
this the the dead space of a hall space and really trying to maximize the the the square footage. I'm sorry, the use of the square footage on the interior to create these uh goodsiz bedrooms for each of the So we have four bedrooms and three bathrooms with the third bathroom
being a jack and Jill shared by two bedrooms. the elevation which shows um on the bottom right uh shows the front elevation and I know that there was an error uh um noting that as a side
elevation. This is the rear and we have our sides on this side. So on the front you can see this is that entryway I mentioned with the garage the stairway that takes you up to the balcony where we have our entrance to the first floor. You can see on the back rear elevation
where we have the difference um in in in the grade. You can see that um the first floor is not too far off from where we have our uh exterior balcony um rear pad um deck. And so you can see the design
of the elevation being uh an exterior stucco metal and a lot of uh glass uh to make it really nice. Um and we have a you know it's a much more modern approach to um but um not uncommon you know in some of the new construction
that you're seeing now. Um and that would you know summarize the design overall for the plans and you know any questions or comments I'm hoping to on the page you were just on. Yeah sure. Can you tell me the I read it earlier. Can you tell me the complete height of
the house because it looks as if it's Well, you tell me. Well, um yeah. So, we have our our marked elevations here from the front at the edge of the basement up to the top at 32 feet. And then on the back side,
you can see that it's much lower. So, it goes up to it's 25 ft from here to the top to from the grade there as well. Let me just make sure. Yeah, that's right. That's correct. I so I thought I saw that the the dark area at the top was
the the measurement was below that but perhaps my memory fails me. Oh no. Yeah, you can see it cuz so basically what we have is we have the one long dimension but then we have a breakup of the of each of these sections. So this portion of it here,
this is a twoft section. Then it goes from there floor to floor. But this is the overall. And what's the overall again? Yeah. So that's 25 on the rear and then over to the front we have a 32 and 32. Correct. Okay. Yep. So it's within the height.
Yes. Correct. Yeah. And then I believe there was that question prior about the you know sort of exposure of the basement right because there is the the concern of the height but as you could see you know most of the building u the basement is covered. All right. So it's it's below ground level. Correct. Below ground. Exactly.
Okay. Any questions about the afterlife? Paul, um just curious, why'd you go with the flat roofs to avoid the uh variance if it would have been a height if you did a hinge roof or something something like that? We felt that it, you know, in in this design, it's really about trying to
maximize the the the the front the the square footage inside having to take up a roof. Yeah. Would essentially, you know, a pitch roof would change the height of the building. And so, you know, thinking about the concern of the slope site, you know, and also taking
into the account the differential that we're working with, um, you know, from the front and the back, we wanted to simplify the design in terms of of that. I mean, a flat roof is a lot more maintenance. I was just curious. Oh, no. Yeah. Well, this right, it is a design. They don't last 10 years. They'll leak
in here. Yeah. Yeah. What? It's a design concern for sure. But I know it's something a um I know there there's a lot of different technology that's going into flat roofs now that make them more reliable. What is what how are you accounting for
that? I mean you are you doing a roof that is more modern than a normal uh like are you pitching it so it Yeah. So there there'd be uh in this case there'd be a tapered insulation roof over the top to be able to get the
water off and shed off properly obviously because this is not it's when we say flat not truly flat obviously right. Yeah. So there's going to be something inside of above this with tapered insulation and material you would have on gutters but it wouldn't be a gutter. It would be drained the roof. Yeah.
Right. Correct. Any other questions? Is there an elevator in the house? Wait, I'm sorry. Is there an elevator in the house? No. It's a cool house. Could use an elevator. I know, right? James house, right?
You have a question? I was just wondering how many other houses of this design have you done? I'm sorry. How many designs design is this? I mean, you say it's a popular design. Oh, no. When I say what I say is in the newer construction, there's a a lot more of this style that you're, you know,
you're not commonly seeing um from the older construction with the pitch roofs and that sort. So that's why I mentioned it's a more modern look than it is a traditional standard construction and that one of the reasons for that was because of the slope in the front and not wanting to go over the height.
Right. Exactly. Getting the most living space. Exactly. trying to take care of considering the height of the building, you know, overall the the aesthetic. Um, but but it it it essentially gives us that, right? It helps us be able to take care of being able to use the footprint
to the best of its ability without having to, you know, create this massive building um with with the roof and all. Any other questions? So, yes, I know you said it was misabled. This this lower right is the front, I guess, right?
Correct. Yes. So the sliding door is the front door or there? Yeah. So it's we we have a a proposed design for um with with could be a sliding door, but it's going to essentially be so something that's a little bit more modernized that has um
one operable door and then you know others that could function in other m other matters other ways. the the the design right here. Obviously, things could change though, is that the first floor is above is above the ground, right? So,
you can't you actually have to walk up. I think it was said before you have to walk up to get to the front door. Yes. As opposed to being from the ground level, you can't get to the front door. Correct. Correct. Any other questions concerning the design? Okay. uh our experts.
I don't have any questions. Engineering. You hear me? I'm good. Any member of the public have a question for their architect concerning the building? Oh, wait. Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to close
it to the public for questions about the architect. Um, anything else you want to tell us about the building? Um, no. that that that pretty much summarizes it and the I think the questions you have are, you know, perfect to what exactly we're looking
for here. What would be the color of the building? Um that that I wouldn't really know just yet, but I mean at the moment we're we're really kind of going through the design as a very simple white, you know, more contrasting colors, right?
Um but maybe later in the day maybe a stucco look. Yeah, at the moment, right, that's where our design intent is is for a white stucco and uh and glass and metal, black metal look at the top. Okay. Anything else?
Sure. With that, I'll uh call my next witness. Oh, okay. That this is it for the architect. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to leave this. Oh, you're you're good. You got yours. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Good job.
I'll give this to you. Just let me know. Uh good evening. All right. Uh name and credentials. Yeah. Matthew Flynn, Lynn Nnn, professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I have my license in the state as well as my AICP certification, which
is the national lensure for planners. I testified before this board about two years ago and numerous other boards across the state and your license is still current in the state of New Jersey. That's correct. Any other states? No. Okay. Uh deem you as an expert. Thank you. Thank you. So Matt, um just preliminarily, you
heard the testimony of our uh design professionals obviously. Um just to reiterate and then I'd like you to take it away, but the the variances that we have remaining for the application um to be clear for the front yard setback uh being at 33 ft instead of 7
based on the season zoning. We have the sideyard setback has now been shifted um based on the neighbor's request from 10 to 15 ft. Uh we're still deficient of the 25. And then finally, we've got Oh, and what we what we suggest that we
would do is ask for the critical slope variances out of an abundance of caution given that we are shifting the house by 5t and without bringing up AutoCAD and all that, we're not sure. we may run a foul of that 1500 um and I believe that would be it. So with
that I would ask you just one more the the street frontage and the street frontage which may end up becoming a planning variance if it is vacated um because then we would not front on a street um because it would be vacated in our favor but uh so if you
can speak to those variances please. Sounds good. Uh so just by way of background from a planning perspective uh here the question before the board this evening is not whether a single family home is appropriate for this property or whether it belongs here in the first place whether it's the CZ zone
or the R4 zone. Single family dwellings are permitted use in the zone. Um we're not proposing a subdivision where we're trying to get more than one home. We're not proposing any non-permitted uses such as multif family or anything like that here. were simply proposing what's
permitted in either of those uh zones. Uh the Piso Manton case out of 1994 tells us that um it basically establishes that a municipality cannot use a zoning ordinance to render a property undevelopable even if it is
undersized. As was noted, the CZ zone requires 3 acres whereas we're at about 20,000 square ft. Um but again some u some development here is uh is uh permitted and here we are again proposing a permitted single family use
as was mentioned at the outset. This is really the culmination of much deliberation that has taken place over the past number of decades. It was approved for single family dwellings uh twice. conservation easements were created essentially mapping out where
that uh development footprint should occur. Um the board had already acted on it might not have been this board but in the past regarding that front setback variance that we're seeking again. Um in that 2002 resolution the board noted that some level of variance relief is
inevitable for this property since this is highly encumbered by steep slopes. And of course, we had the 2023 master plan recommendation that this would be reszoned to R4, which would actually eliminate uh a couple of variances
further. As was noted, this property has been sitting vacant for a number of years. But just to reiterate, that's not because uh the question is whether development should occur here in the first place, but on the contrary, it has been established in I would say multiple
instances that single family is appropriate for this property. Um it just so happens that there were unfortunate uh delays that were beyond the applicants at that time uh the applicant's uh control. Um, so again, the applicant really is
trying to finally provide what has long been in the works for this property. Here we're looking at a lot area of 20,931 square ft. Again, 3 acres is required in the C zone, but only 20,000 square ft is
required in the R4 zone. Again, the 2000 2002 application sought to acquire land essentially bringing this up to the 20,000 that's permitted in the R4 zone. Um, but again, a variance would be required since we are in the C zone
since we do not have the 3 acres. Um, again, just the the variance relief that we're seeking is front setback 33 feet is proposed, 75 ft is required in the C zone. side setback. We have agreed
to go up to 15 feet whereas 25 feet is required in the C zone. Importantly, only 10 feet is required in the R4 zone. Again, that's not the zone that we're in, but we do pretty much we are situated in an R4 zoned neighborhood.
All of our neighbors around us are also in that R4 zone. So I think that providing that setback of 15 feet is actually in keeping with the requirements of this neighborhood that we are really a part of. And finally the steep slope disturbance and the steep
slope setbacks. We heard that that potential variance would only be required um to accommodate that greater side setback. We just haven't run those numbers since that was something we agreed to on the fly. But again we are permitted to uh disturb up to 1500
square ft. we wouldn't be much more than that. So it would be a slightly I would say dimminimous variance if there even is one. So from the on the planning end what I did was I looked at the site itself of course as well as the surrounding neighborhood to tie those variances into the statutory criteria
for the relief being sought. I think in this case we can look to both the C2 test which is the balancing test. the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments. And we can also look to the C1 test which is the hardship and we heard about
all of these encumbrances um on the property. Just to start with the C2 test um the positive criteria, the benefits of the application, we look to the municipal land use law, the purposes of zoning set forth therein. Why do we have these controls in the first place? Uh
purpose A, promotion of the general welfare. Here we're going to be providing storm water management. Um we're providing a permitted use in the zone finally after all these years. Um single family it has been a permitted use all this time. Finally getting that
uh developed in accordance with zoning purpose G variety of uses in appropriate locations. Again it's a permitted use in the zone trying to accommodate the concerns of the of the neighbors increasing that side setback. um purpose I desirable visual environment. When we
look at the requirements of the R4 zone, which again we are in an R4 neighborhood despite our zoning, this is actually a modestsized home. In the R4 zone, we would be permitted up to 25% of uh coverage. Here we're at substantially
less than that at just about 15%. Um so I would say this is does not constitute overdevelopment. That would stand out in the context of the neighborhood. Purpose M is efficient use of land. Again, this is not overdevelopment by any means. Um, which I think ties into the negative
criteria, so no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. The steep slope disturbance again is mitigated by storm water management. And again, that would only be potentially necessary to accommodate the greater side setback to our neighbor. The front
setback again has already been vetted um uh via prior approvals. At that time, the board found that the front setback of 33 feet would be better than pushing the home back into the PSEG rightway. The side setback again complies with the
R4 zoning. Our neighbor that we heard from to the west is in that R4 zone where 10 ft is the requirement for side setbacks. So, the proposed 15 ft I think is is adequate. In terms of zone conformance with R4, we would be
compliant with lot area, lot width, um minimum floor area, maximum floor area ratio, side setback, rear setback, lot coverage, as well as building height. So, this is a substantially uh compliant application in that regard. It's not
going to stand out as having a substantial detriment to the rest of the neighborhood. Rather, it's going to fit right in with that which is allowed throughout this uh neighborhood. Like I said, I think we can also look to the C1, the hardship test, whereby the relief relates to the unique conditions
of the property as opposed to something that is inappropriate uh for the property. In 2002, again, the board found that quote, if the critical areas ordinance was strictly enforced, the applicant would not be able to develop lot 15 and it would remain vacant in
perpetuity. Again, that's counter to uh good planning here. We're proposing a permitted use and the relief that we're seeking I would say is appropriate um and necessary to some extent to to get that development on the site. Um so with
that, I think just to tie everything together, I think what we're proposing here is appropriate from a planning standpoint. It makes sense to consider the R4 zone since this really does sort of uh complete that R4 zone neighborhood. It's sort of the missing
corner of that neighborhood. Um, but really all said, I think none of our variances are going to stand out as having a substantial detriment um, in any regard. So really that's pretty much it unless Mr. W you have anything further. Just just one uh, one further question
and Miss Laney brought it up just before regarding the uh, the planning variance which may end up necessary if the governing body elects rather than a licensed agreement um, to pursue some type of vacation. if you could just speak to that again on the uh proactively in case that becomes becomes
an issue. Sure. So, this is not a C variance. We're calling it a a quote unquote planning variance since this is a requirement that comes from the municipal land use law, not the township uh zoning ordinance. In this case, it comes from section 35 of the MLUL. The
rationale or the justification for that relief comes from section 36 which essentially says that as long as we can provide adequate and sufficient uh fire safety and emergency vehicle access uh
then that that relief would be um would be warranted and I think in this case that requirement would be met. If if the board needs to hear anything further in terms of the dimensions of getting firet trucks and the like, of course, our engineer would be able to address that further. Just gonna ask to that point. Obviously,
you've heard it'll be a 20 foot wide driveway, alternately known as a double wide driveway. So, uh so do you have any concerns that a an emergency vehicle could not adequately access that driveway? I do not. Okay, that's what I thought. So, chairman, that would conclude my direct
examination of Mr. Just real quick on the planning variance front, I think there's a there's also an ordinance provision on that too. Yes, there is. You want to take that? Yeah, there is. Just there's a a provision in the ordinance that requires street frontage. So, not only is it in the MLUL, but it's also in our
ordinance. So, it would be a variance. Variance for what exactly? For not having street frontage. Okay. Winds up that way. That would be So, I guess we could put on a record that that could potentially also be a C variance at that point. Um, but again, I
think it's important to note that this is a lawfully existing property. We're not proposing a new property that lacks street frontage. It's something that's already there and we're simply proposing to develop it. So, you're just hedging your bets whether it's a paper street or vacated. If it's vacated, then you want the
variance for front, not fronting on a on a street, I believe. So, yes. All right. Any other any questions for their planner? Oh, one more. Another one I picked up you mentioned at the beginning. you are seeking the variance for the lot area as well for the C zone I would I would say so
it's an existing that that's a good point I I would say I was the question I was going to ask which is is this a per the subdivision was perfected creating this lot right so this lot exists uh as a a lawfully
created lot um so I in my mind then they do not need to um seek the variance because it's a pre-existing nonconformity. Exactly. I would agree with that. Okay. So, we don't we can scrap that. Any other comments from our experts?
None. Okay. Sorry, Mr. I'll let the board go first. The one thing I wanted to address this was raised in Bliss's memo. Um what conditions of the 2002 approval would still be applicable here? I know that might be a a slog to get through, but um
why don't we let the board ask their questions first before we get to that. Yeah. Um questions. Go ahead. Um I assume you saw Liz's me comments. Um, one of the things I guess maybe it was also for the architect, but I guess in your in your professional
opinion, um, if you read her, her point number six related to, and I don't, again, we didn't discuss this with the architect, but the building design elements and other things. I I don't know the neighborhood, but I'm assuming because of the style of this home and what Liz put that uh some of these
things are not typical for the neighborhood and for the town. um can you speak to that as to how that um conforms with the you know the things that she mentioned? Yeah, I'll I'll defer to the architect obviously, but I would say from the the planning end I think the testimony I
laid out in terms of the bulk requirements um speak a little bit to the compatibility of the proposed development in terms of the neighbors but when we talk about architectural design elements I would defer to the architect.
Yeah. So, as I mentioned before, you know, the elements of the design are more of a modern look. And, you know, um you can see that there, if you go on to um Zillow, you'll see um that there are a few houses that are um not currently
built under construction uh that are being proposed that are much more modern look that have different materials like um a standing metal seam um and things of that sort. So, you know, um this is uh again a more modern look and not
exactly what you would see as traditional. Did you do you saw what Liz wrote in in this point regarding that? Um I'm sorry. I may have missed I don't know. I mean the the one was regarding the buildings with expansive blank walls are prohibited and long
horizontal facade should be broken down into segments. Excuse me. Having vertical orientation through the use of appropriate design features. Do you feel that this design adheres to that or and then do we have an issue if it's not? If it doesn't
adhere to that, let me just add that. I think one thing that may have been confusing with the architectural renderings was the below grade looked like a wall.
Okay. And so what was perceived as um okay a blank unadorned wall was actually below grade. Oh okay. So so there really isn't an unadorn exactly. Okay. But then the com the sentence before at the end of page seven
is that still I will say this there are design guidelines in the ordinance and they are just that they're guidelines. Okay. Um and so you know this is what is preferred I suppose in in the township.
Um the architect has made um some points for why the design was pursued this way. Among them being the change in topography and also the issue of the height. Um if if it were to go to a pitch roof. And
if you have a flat roof, then it it may all work together better um than than certainly trying to get a variance for height and have and yeah and be like a colonial house. And I guess this is why I asked the planner not obviously these are design
issues but I I guess in a planning sense obviously you said the bulk is not as consistent with the uh the neighborhood but you wouldn't so as a planner you wouldn't speak to say use of glass balcony guard rails um as and I'm not
saying this isn't a very nice design but it is a little bit unique to our town. So, as a planner, you wouldn't you wouldn't consider how the design looks as compared to all the other properties in the neighborhood. What I will say is it it might give the
some board members comfort that if we look at I think it might have been you that pointed this out earlier that the properties across the street actually front on Hickory Tavern Road. It I don't maybe it wasn't you, but uh this is a
somewhat isolated property. It's not smack dab in the middle of the R4 zone where we have residential neighbors on both sides of us. Behind us, uh that PSEG easement basically cuts across so that to our east we really don't have a
residential neighbor. Of course, behind us we have the easement. Then across the street we don't have homes, which is pretty atypical for a for a residential zone. Uh, so when we talk about substantial detriment to the to the
neighborhood, I would say this is somewhat isolated and it's not going to stand out as being right between some more traditional homes. Okay. And one last question, sorry. And I don't know if this is going to be too time consuming or if this is even
appropriate, maybe even for Liz, but the Liz mentioned earlier some I guess and I'm going to get this wrong, some reference that this was an example used of a of a C-zone that should be maybe turned into an R4. Um, I guess in your opinion as a planner, I don't want to
get into like what the thought process was or why Czones exist, but in your planning experience, do you feel that this should probably be an R4? A loaded question. I know your answer, but yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense for
sure to to to come to that conclusion. Um that would obviously not be something that we figure out tonight in this uh setting, but it could be a rationale for saying I would say so things that are being that are inhibiting the construction here because
of the Zone wouldn't inhibit you if it was an R4 zone. So by almost nature of the fact that this is zoned perhaps some people would think incorrectly, it might be one of the rationale for allowing for development here. Yeah, I think something I tried to say before was that
this is sort of the missing corner. If we think of the R4 zone in this area as a square, you basically have this PSCG easement that cuts off one of the corners of that square. And then this property was also taken along with it. I don't know why. Um even though this has
been a privately owned property for a some decades now. Um, so by hypothetically if this were flipped to R4, it would complete that that shape. It wouldn't stand out as being some, I'll say, random R4 property that's off
to off to the side or anything like that. Okay. Thank you. The master plan also recommended that it shift to res. I have a question. I'm not sure if it's for you or for the architect. I don't see any lighting design uh on the outside on the outside at all. Is it all
going to be under canlevers or good? Yes. Yes. Thousand watt candle wire. Yeah. It only affect one neighbor. Yeah. I mean I wouldn't say I I I mean um you know no there's not um currently shown uh the design for but I can say that at at the very least from a a
zoning perspective you know the design of any lighting on the exterior would be intended to not um down facing and not Yeah. Exactly. No. No. um pollution, light pollution, you know, disturbing the neighborhood and all that. So So it be a light next to a door, a light next to
that would require Yeah, that would be required to meet the code requirements, especially that. Exactly. The entryway at the door, the stair the garage. Correct. Okay. Is that something you guys would be willing to stipulate, too? All the lighting features on the outside either shielded
or directed downward. No light spillage. Absolutely. Okay. There you go. Yep. There you go. Good cact. All right. Any more questions for their planner? Does any member of the public have a question for their planner?
No questions and close it to the public. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Um, any other witnesses? No other witnesses. Okay. Do any members of the public have a comment concerning this property?
Actually, Mr. Before we do comments, I hate to go back to this, but the conditions from the prior approval. Oh yeah, that was a question. Yeah, why don't we go through that before anybody gets this? So, Mr. Soi, I went through them while everyone was talking. I was trying to do it as well. I actually don't believe any of them
would remain applicable if only because things that needed to be perfected like the subdivision and conservation would have part of that prior approval. And a number of the comments appear again I don't have the benefit of the prior plans but a number of them or the vast majority of them appear calibrated
specifically to that submission say you'll revise the the you know the uh from zoning board to planning board on on the uh on the plans you'll revise the uh the size of the pipes. Um, so I think I don't know if you're comfortable with this, but I I would recommend just
stipulating that we would comply with the board for this board professionals um comments both in their letters as well as, you know, post approval. And I think that would take care of overriding unless there was something specific. Yeah, I I'm of the same opinion, Ben. I most of them seem to just be kind of
irrelevant to this particular project. Let me just run through them one more time. Signature block on the plans, drainage improvements. Um, yeah, plan revisions, plan revisions, plan revisions. Uh, yeah, there was like conditions about the architectural style. They
wanted a colonial style home. Obviously, that's not what you guys are proposing here, so that's not really applicable. Um, I guess there were a couple towards the end that I thought might be relevant. Um, we have the conservation easement deal with already. Um, restriction, limiting, and per coverage
to that shown on the plan. Um, I don't think that's really necessary because you guys could seek relief at a future point if you if you go over uh drainage plan that'll be kind of different. We have the uh the grading permit going on here. Yeah. Roadway extension should be drawn on the plan
and construct of the approval of the township engineer no longer applicable. Oh um there should be provision in the first retail contract for the sale of the property advising the purchaser of the nature of the deed restrictions to the approval of the township attorney. So that was done. I took a look at the uh the deed conveyance deed and it
references the pipeline ement and the conservation easement. So I believe that that okay and then plans revised you have to do that anyway. Correct. So yeah I going through it. Yeah I think you're right unless you have any other thoughts. I think we can just kind of scrap all that. I'm I'm comfortable with it.
Okay cool. Okay. I would just maybe perhaps in like in your resolution in your conditions make reference of the relief the discretion of the relief in the replacement of the plan being with the engineer
and then that way I just have the lenency to do what needs to be done for the grade for the grading. Yeah. Yeah. Right. That basically we maybe reference cross referencing those conditions that they are effectively replaced by the review of by my lock rating. Okay. Understood.
Okay, now getting back to the public. Any man member of the public wants to make a comment concerning this application? Okay, close it to the public. Any closing statements? Um, yeah, chairman, I will keep it brief. I appreciate the board's time
this evening. Uh, this is, uh, as I was explaining to Miss Miscellane Mr. reach during the break. You know, I predominantly work on multif family commercial applications, larger scale applications, and every once in a while I get a single family house. This is the first single family house I've worked on that have this many nuances as part of
the application. Um, you know, typically it's I'd like to put a deck on my on the back of my house and I need a rear yard setback because my house sits where it sits. This is obviously a number of conditions. Um, you know, apologies to my client when he sees uh, you know, the
bill for much thought went into this and work with the board of professionals on trying to navigate anything from the the the zoning consistency whether it's R4 or C all the way up to how do you handle the critical slopes um what happens if we front on a on a street don't front on
a street so these are all things that that make this an incredibly incredibly unique piece of property and and therefore unique application coupled with the fact that some variation of this very application was approved over 60 years ago and So I think um I would
respectfully request uh the board having heard the testimony tonight the stipulations made on the record including including to shift the uh the proposed development um 5 ft to accommodate uh the immediate neighbors concern as well as all the improvements that are being made in storm water
drainage that will be only an improvement from what exists today not detrimental including an aesthetic that is unique but sits on a unique piece of property and ultimately the conditions that have been put on the record will be part of any resolution. I would respectfully request that the board
approve and grant the application as presented this evening. Thank you. Okay, Jonathan, would you like to start the uh Sure, why not? Um, thank you for uh the presentation and for the applicant for
being um amanable to suggestions and uh requests uh within some reason. Um I think that to start with um the one thing and and the questions I was asking is that's really limiting the con the
ability for you to do anything within the um without variance is the side is is the sea conservation zone and I I think that the case has been made um in many areas that perhaps this is not the appropriate zone for it but it is the
zone that I think we all agree it is. So in terms of the hardship, I think that's the main thing I'm seeing here is the fact of the matter is the minimum lot area for a conservation zone is quite large and because of the size that you would be required to I guess if it was
that large, you would probably meet all of these um mo most if not all of the variances you would you wouldn't need if if it was that size and your lot is about 17th of that size. So I think that that the fact that you're in a C-zone
but so unders sized for that zone, you know, and even in comparison to some other, you know, pro properties we've seen here where we see undersized lots in the zone in maybe R4, this is way way unders sized for the zone it's in. So I think that's a large even though as a
lot in an R4 zone it would be a pretty normal I think size lot um for for this zone I think that is a big hardship and therefore and the topography of everything makes it a kind of unique situation as you've stated. So I think that that kind of makes a lot of these
and I as I think we've said that if you were in an R zone you would have many fewer variances to come for. I think as I mentioned earlier the fact that you were willing to move this another additional 5T to allow for additional uh distance between the neighbors um yard.
The one thing I did have kind of a you know a concern about was the design uh the the the fact that you are kind of isolated on a I guess essentially kind of a deadend road. I think Amelia rates some of that even though I think that
I'm sure some of the neighbors would say that it probably does kind of stick out but because it is so isolated I think that uh I think that concern might be a you know more concerning if it was in a different location. So, uh, with all that and, uh, the, um, I guess some
other things that I'm sure others will mention, I would be supportive of this, uh, application. Thank you, Gary. Um, I think it's a really difficult site to build on. I I know that the lot's been sell for sale for a while. It's incredible that, uh, it's already been
approved for something and and now is uh, potentially getting approved again. you've addressed a lot of the concerns. Uh moving a little bit further away from the neighbor I think was great. Um it was kind of discussed a little bit about, you know, you'll be a good
contractor to the neighbors who, you know, will see your trucks and whatever else come back and forth quite often and they've been living there for a lot of years without this. So, you know, have patience with everyone
and be a good contractor neighbor. Um, and I think you've you've met a lot of the challenges and that's going to be the next one except for you got to get through the township still, right? Mhm. Yeah. The road there. So, okay. I take it you'll be in favor
of it. Sure. Okay. Uh, Alex, um, I just echo the concerns about the design of the house. I think it's really out of character for the area. Um, I also wonder whether there could be any kind of restrictions or or something as
far as the side the sideyard setback and what's disturbed as part of of the of the construction because clearly there's a lot of vegetation that's there now and that that in in and of itself is a buffer and if there's a way to kind of restrict that and the concern I have is
that the main sewer and all the seepage and everything seems to be running in that same area there and I'm just wondering whether that five feet is really going to be enough to kind of meet that desire of of the, you know, the the buffer that that the neighbor was asking about that I think is kind of important to the the construction of the
house. It's like, could the sewer come up the edge of the driveway instead of the edge of the yard? The sewer has to go to the house, but Sure. Go to the house. It doesn't have to go through the sideyard to get there. It could go the driveway. Sure. I mean, that's something that the
engineer you would deal with, right? As far as uh where that would be the best use of it. Um I'm just exc the the I think it's a force man. Yeah. Is it a force man? No, not necessarily.
The sewer lateral from the cleanout is is in the driveway, not in the side. Oh, okay. So, it's already in the driveway. Okay. Right. So, I think that will offset by the 5T to the westerly side of the driveway where it is currently proposed.
And then the on the side in that setback area is where a trench drain is then connected around this from the rear connected around to the drywall. So I think that should be able to be a minimal disturbance. It
really comes down to um the final grades around that side of the building and I'll be as sensitive to that in my lock rating review. Leaving as much buffer as you can. Yes. Could Could we I mean would we stipulate that if there was any disturbance that they'd have to replace
that in in some equal amount? Yeah. Replace any any trees any buffer trees. Any Yeah. Yeah. It's your discretion. Yeah. I would say that so we have more buffered.
Um okay, Alice. Uh Paul. Yes. Um, I think the uh client um Mr. Mr. Cen is uh representatives did a great job uh presenting everything. Um I think we did the best we could as far as uh
neighbors. We had they had moved the house over 5T which is you know the most you say you could go. I mean we did what we could. Um so I'd be I'd be in favor of uh passing this. Thank you Tom. A lot's been said and I'll echo it. Um,
yes, the house is different than the colonials that built in the area. Yes, it is going to be built into what is now a dead end. U, so maybe it doesn't bother them so much. I didn't hear one neighbor complain about the style of the house. That's true. So, what I did hear is a neighbor say,
"Could you move a little bit away because I've been lucky enough to live here for 30 years or so on uh without people looking over my property." you were lucky for that period of time, but uh this house has been approved as you
said for 60 some odd years to be to be built on this property with the conditions that we have discussed this evening. So, um, your willingness to work with us, uh, gives tells me that,
uh, this application I'm in favor about passing this application. Thank you. Cut that out. Yeah, I I'm concurrence with the rest of the board. I think that you've put a lot of time and effort into design and I understand the flat roof. I understand
the slope and trying to get the most living area out of it. Um, you know, and you know, it may not go with the rest of the neighborhood, but there really isn't the rest of the neighborhood. There's no other really houses around it except for the one that that the person testified
to. And I don't think it'll really um be that much of a detriment that designs are different everywhere you look. I mean, there's houses, we have eclectic neighborhoods. They're not all the same cookie cutter house. and uh you've worked with us, you know,
with as far as the location of the house. You've worked with us other things. So, and you'll be, you know, working with our engineer for those other matters. So, I would be in favor of it. So, do you want to Yeah. Do you want to take one, Mr. Chair? Thank take.
Okay. I'll do my best to summarize the application, Mr. Chairman. So this is all presuming the board uh I think we no one's really arguing against it at this point finding that the property's in the C zone because we're going through those standards. Uh the first variance being sought is for the front yard setback of
the proposed dwelling. 33 ft proposed for 75 ft is the required minimum. Second variance is for the westerly sideyard setback of the proposed dwelling. 15 feet proposed or 25 ft is the required minimum. Um so I'll go back to that one. uh applicant is seeking uh
variances for development within critical areas and setback from critical areas to the extent needed to permit the house to be shifted 5 feet to the east if they go over that 1500 square foot threshold. Um applicant is also seeking a variance from the ordinance for development upon a lot without street
frontage. Uh the retaining walls we have noted are going to be compliant so those are no longer applicable. Did you guys also want to seek a lot coverage variance to the extent needed for the shifting of the house? I don't know if that's that's a good point to the extent that it is needed. Um yeah, why don't we do that to be safe?
Yeah. Sorry. Oh, and then the uh planning variance, we call it quote unquote planning variance from section uh the MLU section 35 requires that no
permit for the erection of any building or structure shall be issued unless the lot of butts a street giving access to such proposed building or structure. So that's the planning variance being sought. Then as far as conditions go, I don't think we directly addressed it, but all the conditions in Miss Henny's
August 29th, 2025 memo, I think it was all just plan revisions. So, I don't think you guys should have an issue with those um conditions I picked up during the hearing. One second. Okay. The applicant shall get a roadway extension approved from the township either as a driveway with a
license across the right ofway or via a relinquishment of the right of way by the township. Does that make sense? I think we could yes knock out the language on that if revised that is needed in resolution uh review. Uh the applicant to applicant shall obtain a lot grading permit at
which time storm water management will be addressed to the sction to the satisfaction and review and approval of the township engineer. Correct. Sounds good. Awesome. Okay. Uh the applicant shall shift the footprint of the proposed dwelling 5T to the east. Okay. The any exterior lighting fixtures
shall be directed downward or shielded so as not to cast noxious light spillage onto neighboring properties. And then the applicant will place any trees that are removed from within 15 ft of the uh westerly sighted yard setback boundary subject to the review and approval of the work planner as you're up on that
one. And that's all I got. And then just just I'll just also note the 2002 approval conditions we've determined to be not applicable. So those are all superseded by this any approval here. You want to just pass it to me? I think that's so Oh, hold on.
So we could at the board's discretion pass the landscaping along that sideyard to my Yes. jurisdiction as opposed to the planner. So it stays with just the township engineers, one person and doesn't need engineer. Okay. Right. It it is a typical
uh coordination that does occur during lock rating permits. Okay. As well off. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the application? So move. I hear a second. Second. Vocal. Who wants to move the second?
I do. Okay. Gary wants that honor. Mr. Rosenberg? Yes. Mr. Geianis? Yes. Mr. Zadraznney? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Vice Chairman Groskoff? Yes. Chairman Gre? Yes. Motion carries. Congratulations.
Thank you. Nice job. a couple. Yeah. Um Deb in 15 minutes. I don't We're not going to No. So what's the next date? Carried to 16 two weeks.
Do we need a um a waiver of anything or they can be carried with no further for what's right. What's the deadline to act on that one? Do you know? What's right? Take care. Take care. What? They extension,
right? That's what I meant. We need the extension to discuss. All right. So, what date again? 16th. Okay. So, let's make sure they're going to Yeah. The next applicant is Are they here?
Yeah. Would you step up, please? We have to discuss the uh a date for you to come back. Sorry we couldn't get to you tonight. We tried. It's a little, you know, I don't want to start something and we only have 10 minutes. Would it be fair to you? No. All right. Uh, and who are you?
Uh, Kevin, the applicant. Okay. Uh, what date was that again? Uh, two weeks from tonight. The 16th. The 16th. So that's September 16th. Are you available? I am. Is all your witnesses available? We double check, actually. Okay.
I'll move things around. Yeah. I just want to make sure because I don't want you saying yesterday. I got another one. Sounds good. Good. Okay. So, it's going to be carried um uh the use variance and bulk variance is block 11102 lot 16 zone R3 766 Valley
Road application number 25-09Z. Sarah Benton and Kevin Smemedley. applicant proposes the construction addition to a detached garage at a single family residence to be utilized as an apartment is going to be carried to um September 16th without further
notice. 7:30 p.m. here in the municipal building and if we need it, you guys will give us an extension of time to act on the application. I'm not sure what the deadline is, but uh yes. Okay, that's all I need to hear from you. Thank you. Dad may reach out and get that from you. We got to double check notice. No,
without further notice. They said that's why I said that without further notice. We carried it by voice announcement. I better put on the record. Mr. Chairman, should have said at the beginning. I checked their notice. It all checks out. They're good to go. We can carry it. Okay. Sounds good. All right. See you then. Take care.
All right. Prejudice, right? Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? So move. Second. Second motion. All in favor? All right. We're