All right, we're on the air. >> Okay. Uh, the zoning board of adjustment regular meeting is hereby called to order at 7:35. Uh, adequate notice of this meeting/hering has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting
hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board, by sending a copy to Deco Sentinel, and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Standard board procedures. Any meeting hearing or hearing conducted by the board is a quaso 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. and any regular or special meeting of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting/hering to a later specified cutoff time. Electronic devices everybody uh take out their phones and
put down the volume so we don't have anybody's ringing phone interrupting us. uh mute the cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceedings. Pledge of allegiance. Would you lead us, Tom, please? >> Gladly.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Okay, roll call. Uh just to let you know
u uh Jerry Aronio called me and said he couldn't make a family thing come up. >> Okay, >> he's excused. >> So Mr. Rono is excused. Mr. Geonus is excused. Mr. Rosenberg >> here. >> Mr. Watts is excused. Mr. Zidrosny is excused. Mr. White
>> here. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff >> here. >> Chairman Greet >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. All right. Now we have the m minute minute meetings of March 4th, March 18th, April 15th and May 6th. The May 20th, June 17th, and
July 15th are yet forthcoming will be forthcoming in the future. >> They're staple to your agendas. >> Yeah. >> So, um, has everybody had a chance to review them? I I looked them over. They looked fine. Um, any questions or comments on these minutes?
>> Maybe the application 2510. I think we should uh get rid of that one. >> Okay. Yeah. >> No. >> Um but you know, any any comments on the wording or the spelling or the grammar? Okay. Hearing none, >> do I hear a motion to approve March 4th,
March 18th, April 15th, and May 6th minute meeting minute meetings minute meeting minutes? >> Yes. >> Wait, hold on. >> So, do I have to do them individually? >> I was going to say there's some people like >> is everybody >> Oh, yeah. I got to do them individually. Okay, you're right. Yeah. >> Do I have a motion to accept the March
4th, 2025 minutes? >> Some move. >> Yeah. Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, roll call on that one, please. >> No, you can. >> Oh, okay. Do I uh All in favor? >> I >> I Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept the
uh March 18th, 2025 minutes? >> So move. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> All right. Do I hear a motion to accept the April 15, 2025 minutes? So moved. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion? I need a second. >> Second.
>> Okay. >> Oh, wait. What? >> Mr. White wasn't here for >> I can't second. Oh, I wasn't here. Sorry. >> Right. Okay. So, do I hear a second from someone who was here? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, all in favor? I >> I >> Okay. Now, the May 6th minutes.
>> Um, >> actually, hold on. April 15th. Sorry. I just want to go back for a second. I'm I seem to be both present and excused and absent. >> Yeah. >> You're special. April >> 15th >> April >> Yeah. Right. >> And I think you were there.
>> Yeah. Okay. So that's a correction. >> Yeah. >> So we'll approve it with that correction. >> Or were you not you? I don't think you were there. >> I don't have you in the vote. >> Oh. So maybe I wasn't. I don't know. >> So he wasn't there. Okay. >> I'll double check it. >> All right. 15th tax
>> with that proviso. Just double check who was there. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um now we have the May 6th one. which is >> only the two of you, >> right? Okay. Uh, only Tom and I.
>> Yes. >> Can we do that? >> Yeah, you can do that. >> Sure. All right. I second. All in favor? I. Okay. >> Now, we did the minutes. That was fast. >> Now we have the resolutions. And the resolutions are Michael Definis
application number 25-02Z. And that one is the hearing date was June 17, 2025. The board action was June 17, 2025. Memorialization is today, August 19th, 2025. Has everybody had a
chance to review that? >> Just the two of you. It's >> just the two of us again. >> I was actually Yeah, I was here for that. Oh, >> you were here. Okay. Yes. >> Jonathan, you're the only one knowledgeable that's here. >> Okay.
>> Do I have a motion to accept the uh resolution of uh 25-02Z? >> Yes. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. >> Uh all in favor? >> Well, now roll call. Okay. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff. >> Yes. >> And chairman.
>> Yes. Motion. >> Okay. >> All right. Now, we have the uh >> Philly Phillip application 25-06Z hearing date June 17th board action June 17th memorialization August 19th 2025
>> same >> same people okay uh everybody had a chance to look at it >> any problems questions corrections okay hearing none do I hear a motion to uh
accept the August the uh 25-06Z resolution. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Roll call. >> Vice Chairman Grant. >> Yes. >> Mr. White. >> Yes. >> Chairman Grant. >> Yes. >> Oh, wait a minute. Did you you say vice chairman? >> You demoted him.
>> He demoted. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. That's okay. >> That's okay. We >> chairman. Chairman. >> Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I thought Yeah. I heard my name twice, but I didn't realize what was in front of it. Okay. The next next one. Uh >> the next one is just the two of you. Yes.
>> Yeah. Right. The next one is just the two of us, right? Got this guy called Paul White here. Application 25-10Z. Uh it's the uh hearing date July 15th. Board action July 15th. Memorialization August 19th, 2025. Tom, have you had a
chance to look at it? >> I have. Very good. All right. Do I hear a motion from you? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Vice Chair Groskov. >> Yes. >> Chair Greer. >> Yes. Motion carries. >> Okay. Good. Done with that. Now, now we got the fun part. >> Mhm.
>> We have to look over our uh >> my neighbors aren't going to >> our lovely uh zoning board of adjustment annual report for 2022 and 2024. >> Chris, I forgot the resolution. So, if you want to read it or >> Oh, yeah. >> Uh I have a copy if I I just pass it down.
>> What's that? >> Just a one page resolution just memorializing adopting the >> assuming we do that. >> Okay, fine. Yeah. >> No, no, I know. um having had a chance to look at it. Um now who's how did this get done? It was
between um um Liz and um >> and Deb Deon over from year to year's really >> right. So you I'll I'll just walk the board through it real quick. So basically it starts out the beginning paragraph is pretty standard as far as
the requirements from the LL MLUL. Um then it's you know then Liz's summary board planner summary. Then uh Joe reviewed previous reports uh the previous annual report uh that Casey and Keller did as our engineer prior to when
Joe was here. >> Right. >> So and he agreed and ba you know basically the same and agreed with Liz. And then there's a little summary from me a board discussion and then as you'll note on page three I put in a year-end summary of all of from So the the years
we're reviewing currently, which is 2022, 2023, and 2024, I put in the amount of applications that the board saw that year and noted the approved, denied, any withdrawn or pending. >> Okay? >> And then the following pages are all of
the applications that the board saw, >> okay? >> In detail, which gives you the application number, the filing date, address, descriptions, status, and memorialization. >> Okay? Um the only comment I have is on sheds. Do
do you want to go into I know it says amended to to greater square footage. Do you want to have why that's needed or do you does it matter? I mean our our reasoning behind it. >> We could say to comply with um >> UCC >> UCCC code
>> uh and to make more practical to be more practical. 10 by 10 isn't too practical. >> Right. Exactly. >> Okay. Yeah. I'd like a little explanation because if the Planywood looks at this and say, "Well, why the hell should we do it?" >> Yeah. >> You know, what's the reason behind it? >> Well, in addition, um I don't know if we want or I could add something in my
summary, but I have been kind of working with the zon the planning board to >> update sheds for other reasons in addition to sizes, >> right? >> There are certain zones in town that I as a zoning officer would like there to be less restrictions on setback. So, for
instance, every zone in town you have a 10 foot setback. Well, which is impractical sometimes. >> Sometimes impractical. Yes. So depending on topography, but the smaller zones in town. Yeah. >> I feel there should be a five foot setback. Right. So >> Right. So you don't have to jam it against the side of your house. >> Exactly. Exactly.
>> So unless the board wants me to update that, I'm going to continue to work with the planning board. >> That's fine. But I mean, I just want a little explanation in that so that they it goes along with your what you're doing% >> they know that we're in line with that. Now the generators too. >> While you're on sheds. >> Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> If you if you wanted to do it. >> Yeah, go ahead. Let's do >> person on sheds. >> Um I see that you the idea is to amend to permit greater square footage. I like that. >> But would you would >> to your point do you want to do that by
different R zones? So three, four, and five, you might have greater amounts. >> Not really. And I'll tell you why. >> Okay. >> Um because regardless of the zone, there's an impervious coverage calculation. >> So that's number one. So, if there's a large zone or a small zone, if you're
coming to me with a shed, you got to meet your impervious coverage or else you don't get a shed. >> That's number one. >> Number two, some of the larger properties, they may come with like a like a huge shed. Okay? >> But the UCCC code states anything over
200 square feet requires construction permits >> in addition to the zoning permit. >> So, that's why we want the code just to reflect that anything, you know, 200 square feet or larger, >> you know. But if somebody comes in with like a Rubbermaid shed that's like >> Yeah. Right. >> Like I'm going to be like
>> 12 by 10 or something, you know, something small, then they just need a standard zoning permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, another question on that. Uh, what about two or more sheds? You could have two small utility sheds that are like 5t deep and 8 wide. >> Not allowed. >> I know they're not allowed, but maybe we
should maybe we should could discuss that >> or they let them hash it out. >> If you'd like to if we'd like to put that forward to the planning board. I don't think that As a zoning officer, I don't personally think that you need it because some some properties in larger two, they either have like a pole barn
or detached garage, >> but if you call it a barn or a garage, it isn't a shed. >> I do think what we do need in the code, and Liz, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we need a better we need better definitions of what accessory structures are. Okay, >> that should Yeah, that could be
>> for instance the you know under accessory structures right now you have generators you have sheds you have >> it's ridic generators to be cons yeah yeah to be >> a pole bar is less restriction less less restrict >> but to be consider to consider a
generator a uh accessory structure is ridiculous >> exactly >> it's not a structure >> can't do anything >> especially where we live everybody's I'm out of power every other >> exactly where I'm at >> Oh well I ridiculous since the since the pandemic, I I see at least 5 to 10
generator applications on my desk every month. >> Is there a way we could just make it easier for somebody? >> That's what we're trying. That's what we want to do. We want to make generators easier to to position on your property and easier to get one to put on your property, not make it as ownorous as if you're building an addition to your
house, which is what it appears to be. I would say, but a good idea, Tom, that to your point >> is if you maybe we could add like if you want two sheds that don't equal a certain square footage, >> right? True. Yeah. >> If you're going to Home Depot and you're
buying like a Rubbermaid pre-shed or something like that, we could put we could suggest to the planning board that we allow people to have two sheds back to back as long as they equal a certain square footage. Right. >> Or 100 square feet. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Whatever. Yeah. Right. because it would so maybe they
want two because one's got the pool stuff in it or one's got kids toys and the other one has garden stuff. >> Yeah, swimming stuff. Whatever. >> So, in that respect, I agree with you. >> Yeah, that's where I was going with that. Thank you. >> All right. Um, but what about the
generator one? I mean, uh, is there any way I mean, >> is there a way you could do like a waiver or something? Like someone just wants to seems they want to put a 4x4 concrete pad and put a generator deal. Why does it have to be 10 feet from uh from your house? >> Uh not 10 feet from the house. It's 10 ft from
>> It says 10 from a principal building. >> This language needs to be updated because we had put it in because we had been interpreting it that way and a closer read of the ordinance as it only applies in non-residential use. >> Oh, so yeah, we have to fix this, >> right? I mean, it doesn't need to be
fixed. What needs to be fixed is how Joe and I >> That's fine, but we have to fix our report because I don't want to report to him. >> So, in other words, you don't need to have 10 feet from your house. >> No, but I think I think though both Joe and I >> I mean, it's it's it's sort of a stupid
thing, but it's a little annoying because it refers back to previous sections on >> on accessory structure. We were kind of like just put it all in one place, >> right? Well, that could be a suggestion, too. Why don't we rewrite that >> that to say that >> in the UCCC code is there a minimum
distance from a window? So I know when I put my generator in that was one of the clauses. >> UC and UCCC basically states you know a certain vicinity within a window or a door or I think vents too like certain types of vents from a home
>> it has to be f the generator has to be five feet >> or but if there's nothing on that side of the house it can be 18 >> 18 inches. is the closest that it can get to a home. That is my understanding. >> Okay. So, when you say >> 10 ft from any property line,
>> what if a window is higher than it? Does that matter too? >> It does matter. >> Okay. No, but I'm saying does that make it >> Well, like a second story window. >> That I don't know. >> Okay. >> But a second story should be far enough away just >> It should be, but I don't. >> It should be. >> I'm not an electrician or >> Well, that that's due to the fact that
it's a gasoline engine and it doesn't want fumes sucking back into the house because that can happen. I had a uh a pump on my I lost electricity and I was pumping out my my uh my um >> sump pump >> sub pump pit and uh I had to keep the garage door open and it sucked it back
into the garage. You know, you don't realize that. >> I mean that Yeah. I'm not 100% sure is like I said the the distance I know that there's code for that. >> Yeah. >> So that the electricians in UCCC use but I'm not exactly sure, you know.
>> Yeah. Okay. I know that there's if there's nothing on the side of the house, it can be 18 in. That I do know. >> Yeah, >> because there's nowhere for it to suck back in the exhaust. Okay. >> All right. So, with that said, just fix the generator paragraph so it sounds sounds like it it understands what the
ordinance is and that >> what we mean by it. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. Let's maybe we should start over here by the undersized lots. Let's start with the front. I just went to sheds for some reason. um undersides lots. We've been telling
them this forever. Th >> this was Yes. And it's in the master plan. >> And I like the way you wrote this because it it's true. It's like what did we expect? Some millionaire to come in and buy all the property and knock them down. >> That ain't happening. >> And it and and you want people to invest
in their properties and improve their homes. And so >> you want to not particularly for single family homeowners, you don't want to make it too ownorous. And so I think >> and mo most of these lots that we're dealing with are in the downtown Sterling area. >> No one's going to knock them down and
build another house because most of it's in a potential flood area. So you're not going to invest the money in there. They're not doing it. They'll make the house bigger. They'll make them a house more useful, but they're not going to buy three lots and build another house. Right. >> It's not happening. Um,
>> you know, another thing we're finding too is that, you know, which this board has seen multiple is the impervious coverage. >> Yes. Because >> you have the prop properties that clearly don't have any >> water issues, right? >> Even though, you know, the town is the great swamp. Yeah.
>> You know, and >> you know, it causes problems for people to do additions or they have to come to the board because, >> you know, >> Yeah. Yeah. Unfortunately, with the smaller lots, it hits you harder because, you know, you're already over it because years ago, they didn't care
about that. So, they built the house, put the driveway, whatever, and you were basically already over the 20% at that point. So, what whatever you do on your property, a deck or whatever, you're you're 25 26% over the So, yeah, that is
an issue. But then again, you have the issue is if everybody goes to 30% on their property, then you've got no no place for the rain to go. So that's that's the uh >> Yeah. >> But a lot of them are already 30% and they still they still have to come in
when they want to do something. I mean, no. >> Again, you have in my neck of the woods over there, it's uh there's lots that are 50 by 150. >> No, I know. >> They're so narrow. I mean, they have a house and a driveway. They're already at 35 40% >> pretty much. Yeah. Yeah. And um you know, you're talking about, you know, if
it was a new house, they'd knock it down and they could be in compliance. Uh the two new houses that are built on gates due to the terrain. >> You can't, right? >> Like if I knock down my house where I live, I have I if I had to go back 50 ft, >> I'd be at the bottom. I'd have all the water running down a hill right in my
front. I'd have to I have to have my house 20T from the curb and all the house on a block. So even if you were to knock them down due to the terrain, >> you couldn't do you couldn't you couldn't do it 50 feet anyway. No, you can't. It >> it is a mess over there because like you said years ago it was like you know from what I understand they used to write on
the back of the envelope I'm building this house and that was it supposedly you know and that was it. They let him do it supposedly. That's that's that's how easy it was. I talk to the oldtimes in the area that's telling me. >> Yeah. That's that's basically creating a lot of issues for us now. >> Yeah. Now yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz now the audiences get modernized and and and updated and none
of these areas comply with it and you've got people that are just coming in going bought the house that way. I don't know. But I understand like we sympathize with them and that's the problem. But, you know, I like that uh that issue because, you know, we have to just maybe they
should zone it to what's there and then deal with the coverage and then deal with, you know, so that you can tailor it to the to the property or to the neighborhood and not make that neighborhood already non-compliant basically. And, you know, >> that'd be hard, right? Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean, they still might have to come in for a variance, but at least it would be less ownorous and less of a of a problem. >> Well, and I think there's ways that we can, you know, and Joe could give input as far as, you know, the runoff and whatnot. >> Yeah.
>> To lessen impacts on residents who want to, >> you know, modify. >> Yeah. when it comes down to the water issue, Joe's gonna have to get involved in, you know, >> well, see, it's not always water because sometimes these people are just popping up their roof line and it's an issue.
They're not doing any impervious coverage. They're just making a wall that's now more wall next to what was already not uh you know, >> same footprint. They're just going up. Yeah. And they got to come for a var. That's crazy. Yo. Yeah. >> And >> the one lady was here for six inches. It
was crazy. >> Yeah. >> The one in Mitchell. >> But um you know that I like that paragraph. So that's that's good. Any other comments on the undersized lot? Changing the wording or anything? No, I think that's good. Okay. >> Corner lots. This is Yeah. Corner lots and and and through lots, but you have
streets on both ends. >> We got to have a a thing where you come in and you say, "This is what I want my front lawn. I want the front yard to be where my fouse faces and I want the rear yard." And that's forever. And now whenever you come in, we're going to consider this the front lawn and this
the rear lawn. Not that you have two front lawns because >> it's an interesting question and I was going to ask bring this up tonight because I literally just got a call from an attorney that's getting ready to submit an application regarding a corner lot >> and he he and you know he works in
multiple towns so he basically said all right wait remind me what long does do you say that their front their address street address is their front yard and then the other side is the sideyard? No, we don't >> like no long. So, can do are there some towns that actually do that?
>> A lot of towns have two front yards. I mean, or the setback. you have to make the setback from the the two straits. >> But then there are differences as to how you consider the other >> the other lines because for example, you
know, you typically want a rear yard that's, you know, allow allows somebody to have >> a fence, >> you know, a patio or barbecue or whatever. And so you don't >> or a privacy fence >> or a price >> because if you have a backyard with a h with a street next to you can't put a fence over there because that's
considered a front lawn. That's ridiculous. >> So it's it it I mean the other So anyway, everybody handles it a little differently, but I think the problem in in Longh's ordinance is it doesn't handle it at all. >> Right. It leaves it up to us to figure out.
>> Are we able to are we able to designate by ordinance? Like can we say all right if your if your property address you know is one street then the other street can be your sideyard and then this is your rear yard. Are we able to do that? >> You can do something like that. I mean I
some towns it's like oh the if if let's say it's the narrower of the two um street frontages is >> I mean it it it depends on what you want to do. I mean I >> we should do something like that because
>> what's happening now is people are coming in and and with two front lawns it's it's a greater setback and you can't you know you want to build to the side of your well you consider the side of your house and we're considering it a front lawn. Oh no you got to be 50 feet. What do you mean 50 feet? Supposed to be 20 on a sideyard. That's ridiculous
>> especially on narrower lots. >> Yeah. Well, and that's the problem with this one application that's going to be coming to us is literally to my understanding the way the house is situated on the lot. They meet one side, but now they just want to go straight up. >> Right. Right. >> Because they're too close within the
front yard setback on one of the sides, you know, one of the fronts. >> Key here is side and we're consuming it a front lawn, >> which is totally ridiculous. It it it what it matters if let's say well I'm not sure it ever matters really but like
the if every other house on that street that's it's the sideyard for that guy but it's the front for everybody else >> else's way back then it looks weird right >> but it's it >> normally that isn't the case normally your house is sitting the same as everyone else is set back
>> but you just happen to have a sideyard that's that's bordered by a street >> and now because of that >> the guy next to you can do something that you can't do because you have a 50-ft setback and he only has a 20 foot setback. >> Devil's advocate though, if you call one street a front yard and the other street
is going to be a sideyard, you could take that house, put it back here 50 ft on the front yard, but you can move it all the way over to the other street so it's only 20t off right >> now. Is that what you want to do? >> That could be awkward. >> Where the other houses on that street will be back 50. So you're going to be
sticking in front of them by 30 feet. I'm not saying it's a plus or a minus. It's just the opposite. >> No, but it also some towns also say you got to look at what the other setbacks are like prevailing setback. I was just going to say, yeah, I know the previous town that I worked in had what we call
an established setback. >> Yeah. >> Where they took >> like two to four two to three houses on each side of the subject property. >> Yeah. >> And if the setbacks were all within, you know, a foot or two of each other, then you didn't have to go for variance. >> Okay. kind of thing.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> So, that would be maybe something under yard modifications, too. But, um, >> you know, but again, like a surveyor would have to prove that to the zoning officer. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, that that would make sense other than just summarily saying it's 50 ft because it's a front yard,
>> right? So, if it's an established setback, >> and a lot of towns will have something like 50 feet or the prevailing setback. whichever street is set back 20 ft. >> And there aren't too many houses set back 50 feet in most of these neighborhoods you're talking about.
>> I mean, and even >> the houses I'm thinking about like on the Greenwood Drive area, the corner houses, even if you came closer to the street, it wouldn't affect anyone else's because there's usually nobody the house the the street is not designed that way. It's not like a grid.
>> Yeah. You don't see the other house. It wouldn't make any difference, right? >> But, uh, the house is I mean, there's one on uh those houses that on River Road and that little street that they call uh Valley Road, but it isn't. It's just that little
street that goes off. The front of the house is is the Valley Road address, but their driveway is on River Road. >> Right. >> So, is that their front because that's their address or is this their front? >> Right. >> Yeah. I I Right. I I would say it probably should be where the house
itself is how that is oriented. Meaning like where's the front door? >> Well, originally that was the front door. Now they do have a front door over here. They have another front door with a garage. >> So that's the guy that came before us for the deck. >> Yeah. >> That the rear yard was basically as as wide as that table, you know. So >> yeah. Yeah.
>> Uh you know, was his rear yard really his rear yard or was it the sideyard? What was it? Mhm. Mhm. >> You know, but um it's a that's the weirdest property when it comes to that because of that location of and the streets and his driveway and that and
the doors. But >> but you also you have a situation sometimes where the corner lot the the house next to it is the the house at the corner is backing onto somebody's backyard. Yeah. Right. And then if you
allow that person to only have a minimal sideyard setback, you're really allowing that house to like kind of have a greater presence in the other neighbors backyard. >> True. >> Anyway, >> there it's been handled in a lot of different ways and we can
>> Yeah. But I think we have to at least handle it. >> And not not let you know, >> at the bare minimum, we just designate a rear yard. You know, >> I was going to say Tom's devil's advocate here. I would say that and I don't know if they can handle it this way. Most of what we see are existing,
you know, footprints and they're just asking to do something else and they get they get dinged because of the fact that they're they're not looking to actually move their house. In most cases, it's not looking >> second floor. There's usually going up. Yeah. >> So, it's usually something or or you know some other thing and that they get dinged because they have a pre they have
an existing um >> uh issue. So, I don't know if they can write it in such a way that it says um like essentially if you have >> they're not changing the footprint. >> Not changing to the footprint then it then you're you're kind of grandfathered in or something but if you're looking to do new construction you cannot
>> but changing the footprint basically moving the footprint >> you know moving the whole house >> then you can't be within >> you know whatever you said about the existing the existing setbacks on the block or something like that. One of them has a front yard. >> I mean, I don't know if that's getting too ind depth, but
>> And basically, I think what what I hear we're saying is that at least have some guidance for us. >> Cuz right now, if there's no guidance, we're sitting here saying, "Okay, what do you want to pick as your front lawn?" >> No, I mean, cuz that's right. I when I started here, people said, "Oh, we always just say two front yards and two
sideyards." And so, I've always put that in the letters, but there's nothing in the ordinance. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think we did because if it wasn't in the ordinance, it was We say one time that it was Mos is it Moscow? Yeah, >> Moscow. I >> But it >> but it's not defined.
>> It's not. Yeah. >> So that's what we go to, right? >> Yeah. >> All right. I think we beat that one to death. >> Um >> setbacks. Similar type of thing. Do we do from the deck, from the patio, from the steps, from the stoop, from the you know, where do we go? Where do we
measure it from? Some, some municipalities say it's from the building wall. It's from the foundation, >> right? because what's in front of it is just a minor cuchment. It's not something that you know unless it's a grandiose >> situation lately with one of the variances that was approved and they're
in final >> and as most of you know I think that you know when you have a variance they go through construction we have the applicant do what's called an asbuilt survey >> right >> so that Joe and I as the engineer you know and my zoning officer we can just
confirm that they came in you know with everything they were allowed by the board the interesting scenario was was there was a was a detached garage. The surveyor took the measurement from the property line to the roof line, >> right?
>> Not to the and it was a two-ft difference. >> So if he does it to the roof line, then he doesn't come in at the setback. But if he does it to the foundation line, it does. >> Interesting. >> So >> the roof line wasn't >> You can't do that. >> No, can't the other way around.
>> The roof line. >> No, wait a minute. The roof line would have been further away. If you have a overhanging roof. >> Yes. >> Technically the setback. >> You're saying where the eaves are where it comes out. >> Okay. Yeah. It's Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. >> So part of the structure. >> I mean consistently we have not
>> we have not done that. >> Like if it's a if it's a um a bumpout, an architectural bumpout, we would take it to that, right? >> But we've never measured exactly to unless a surveyor has and we haven't caught it. But in this particular case, Joe just said no, it was to the
foundational, >> right? That's what you would think. Yeah. >> Yeah. And he and then it fit. But that's my point is Liz, as Liz is saying is that we don't have a specific definition. So it's kind of >> there should be. Yeah. Here again, we need the guidance. >> It shouldn't be le left up to us as the board to
>> do that because sometimes we could have an inconsistent >> right >> case of one way we're one time we might be doing it one way and then another time we'll do it another way because of whatever the situation is. We should have a consistent way of looking at it, >> especially since we're semi-judicial. We're not supposed to be making opinion. >> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. We're
supposed to be go use We're supposed to be guided by the ordinances, not having to interpret them. >> Exactly. >> Not activist judges. I think >> Yeah. Well, uh but um Okay. So, we we killed we did generators sheds. We did goals and objectives.
Okay. >> Before we go there. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Okay. So the goals and objectives these are in the ordinance at the beginning and I think they were mimicked the um master plan from the 90s and the thing
with the new master plan these goals and objectives are now outdated and we have for example in well actually it wasn't here it wasn't at this board it was um the Delaware avenue >> oh that's right yeah the the lower subdivision
>> yeah where um the justifications given by their experts were saying consistencies with the goals and objectives in the ordinance when that is is outdated and it's unusual to have the goals and
objectives of the master plan in your ordinance and so I would recommend taking it out just because it it's too confusing and it's too much of a you know >> it it it gives them out time basically. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, it was just because
the guy kept talking about a rural that it's a rural town or semi-ural town because that's what's the language is whereas the planning board specifically took out semi-ural from all of the map anyway. >> I just would recommend it. >> Yeah. It's a problem when it doesn't
sync up. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Because we're going to get arguments based on things that aren't relevant. Yeah. >> Yeah. Or it's just Well, we don't consider ourselves semi-ural anymore. And what they're going to say, well, it's in your ordinance. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But not the master plan. >> But not the master plan. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Which is what they >> Any other comments on that >> on that note. >> Okay. Good. Um yard yard modifications should be made clear to under >> I like this one. >> Additionally, section relating to reductions and impervious coverage decks
if certain storm water mitigation strategies. Okay. Explain this a little better. So, the yard the yard modification section, right, allows for some exceptions. Um, for example, if you're going to go up or if you're going to go into the um into the required
setback, given you meet a whole bunch of other conditions like you've met all the impervious coverage, you met this, you met that. We almost never have somebody who meets all those things. So, this section almost always never apply almost never applies.
what Deb and I have a couple of times you you start reading it's so >> convoluted >> convoluted and this section the the section I specifically called out with the impervious coverage is because if you recall we had a woman who came in
and wanted to just rebuild her deck right and she needed an imperous coverage and there was some discussion on the board and we said well the ordinance allows you to do this if you do X Y and Z and when Joe, who knows a lot more about swarming order than any
of us, looked at the resolution ridiculous. He was just like, "That's insane. That's so overkill." >> Yeah. >> And so, but we were like, "What's in the ordinance, >> right? We were following the ordinance." >> And so, >> yeah. Okay. >> That is kind of, you know, it's I think probably just outdated, >> you know.
>> Okay. So, that should be looked at, modernized, and reworked. >> Exactly. >> Okay. And you'll help him with that, right? >> Yeah. I mean, and Joe >> Yeah. She's Liz is the writer of the ordinances, >> right? Obviously. And I'm the big mouth of the group. >> Really? >> No.
>> Ah, never would have believed that. >> I'm the zoning officer, too. So, like I'm the one on the, you know, the >> you're the you're the front line. >> I have to be the one that gives everybody the bad news. >> Yeah. Very bad news. >> You know, so and like, you know, Jonathan was saying before, my like my co-workers get annoyed because they hear
it's like I'm like a broken record. I Well, >> I've never seen the board deny these types of variances for existing non-conforming conditions. It's not your fault. Like literally, I'm a broken record. >> So, >> well, when you buy a house, most people
aren't like, "Well, what's the impervious coverage?" >> No one. >> Yeah. Nobody thinks I don't think anybody I I very seldom me as an attorney, I didn't even think of that. Sometimes you don't think of those things. >> Unless Unless Unless somebody within the family is
>> somehow involved in >> or some sort of municipal government, right? Nine out of 10 times people >> No, see now I would think about it, >> right? If you're not aware that you inherit the the the problems from >> the owner, unless there's a variance or unless he went and got some uh some
redemption. Yeah, >> it's kind of shocking it doesn't show up in the real estate like >> No, it doesn't. That's the funny thing. Yeah, that title search is just ownership and there's no place that searches that, >> right? >> Title company should really do that. That would be like an added bonus. Oh, we not only search title, but we search
the ordinances and we search permits and you know we we can tell you if you're violating something or the >> gu it a cost. >> Yeah. Nobody wants >> and you would also could use it as a negotiating. Well, present owner has to get a component. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Because you failed to get your co for
something or you didn't get the final inspection for this or you didn't even get a permit for it. Yeah. Well, there are there are there are realers out there that will take the initiative and submit Oprah requests >> when they're looking to sell a house to a client and that's very helpful to a
propos, you know, future buyer, you know, home buyer. >> And then other real estate agents will say they don't want to know that because then it'll screw up the deal. >> They won't get the sale. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Why screw up the deal? And I'm sure Gary would be more diligent. >> I know. He's probably a good one.
>> Yeah. Um Okay. Now, board engineers, uh, board Okay, go ahead. >> Uh, I there's an item here, and I'm not sure if we captured it last time we talked about this. I know we talked about it at some point. >> Uh, mother daughter suites. >> Oh, yeah. >> And getting that whole
>> Yeah, we should put a paragraph about that >> cleaned up, >> you know, just and and actually citing uh that one application that's on Southfield that keeps coming back like a bad dream, you know. It's >> senior suites and accessory.
>> We had to massage that, you know, and that should really be clear. And I think, oh, one of the things in your own is where if you >> have that and then you sell it, you got to rip it out. I think it's ridiculous. >> They should they should really look at that and say if you're selling it to someone who's going to use it for the
same purpose, you can leave it. If not, then excuse me, there may be some reason you have to remove it or, you know, you can you can leave it if there's a if you qualify for this or whatever. But I like what you said there for the same purpose because what you don't want is you don't want somebody buying a house that has >> a two family
>> and yeah and then it becomes a brothel or >> something which is going on now >> with your mind. >> Um but um >> brothel in town >> interestingly enough and I Chris and Liz could speak to this because obviously I will probably learn more in November
when I go to the league again. >> Yeah. But I took a course at the league last year that basically was about this subject, what they call ADUs, accessory dwelling units. >> And the state at the time, we were told, is working on um basically legislation
that's going to >> force municipalities >> to accept >> to choose either a plan A or plan B. So you're so each municipality is going to have to choose >> okay >> some way shape or form of legislation to be able to include ADUs in their uh
zoning >> in their zoning. Yeah. >> So I don't know Chris and Liz if you >> I've been hearing about it for years. >> This is what Senator Cory Booker was trying to present that one where he he said you can use your garage and everything else you >> uh you know I don't know if it was Cory Booker Cory Ber may have been they didn't they didn't specify which senator but
>> well that's he's he's federal level. He's talking we're talking state level here, >> right? But he was trying to he was trying to you know okay where you if you had a garage you can make it into an apartment. If you had a basement you can make it into apartment. >> But I mean you you've brought this up Paul that in your neighborhood you have people that either rent a house or rent a part.
>> They're advertising and they 2,000 a month for a basement apartment and they're advertising and they get it and it's been going on. Supposedly if they don't have a kitchen, right? >> If they don't have a kitchen they can I I find this amazing. >> So >> they're not supposed to rent it out though if it's not an apartment. >> How are they doing it? Well, then they're doing >> illegally.
>> We don't know about it. >> Oh, they know about it. I know. I know. You guys know about it. I thought it was if they pulled their kitchen out. 24 Torbert. I'll tell you right now, the guy rented that right now. >> Oh, no. No. That's a I can tell you that's a whole different scenario. >> How? >> He because what he's doing, he built a commercial kitchen in his garage to do
um cooking of something he wanted to cook or something. >> But we worked with him. He's not according to the zoning. He went for all the zoning. He's not violating anything and he's not renting it. >> We've we renting it. >> Well, >> he's renting it. So, >> he's renting it,
>> but we've tried. >> Well, so he's living there and renting it. >> I believe I believe I believe the township committee, you know, again, this is a while ago. Um, it started with the Airbnbs. Everybody was renting out Airbnbs. Okay, let's get >> U. Mr. Pigeon said other towns start it
where you can't rent it, you know, weekly or daily or nightly, but you can do 60 days plus and you can rent it. >> Okay. >> Is that the way I No, I thought they said no Airbnbs or >> No, no Airbnbs. You can't do an Airbnb where you can rent it nightly and things like that. No, cuz they had crazy stuff.
He's talking about Bronos. They were shooting They were actually renting Airbnb down my street and they were shooting pornos in the backyard. It was unbelievable. You You just can't make this up. Just cops came everything. You just can't make this up. the people living next door they have a kid that you know young kid he's looking out the window Thomas hey look at this run
>> yeah so that's when they said let's get rid of that's when he said let's get rid of the Airbnbs >> and u god yeah it's unbelievable and you know >> not expect that here >> oh no no it's unbelievable and then um actually I was in front of township committee and they said well you know probably local people need another place no you go through the guy's reviews you know I couldn't get it I couldn't get a
a hotel in Newark it was a you know flights were cancelled I had to come out to long hill thank god I was there yeah people come from Newark they were coming from wherever you know, and renting at the end of my block. I'm like, you had people, you know, pulling up with Ubers in the middle of the night, unloading their cars with, you know, luggage, going to the wrong people's houses, going, it was
just crazy. >> So, anyhow, they made it they made it where it's supposed to >> park people there. >> Yeah, tell me about it. >> But, uh, >> I mean, I can tell you that, uh, the staff looks on a regular basis. Yeah, I know. >> on these websites to make sure. So, I mean, obviously, please let us know if
there's you find something, but from what we understand, everybody who's been notified who had advertisements on Airbnb or >> to yank it. Yeah. >> Yeah. To take him down. I mean, apartments.com from from the research that we've done, like there definitely
are many two family grandfathered apartments in town. >> Right. >> Right. >> So, I I we haven't found anything illegal. >> Okay. to this, you know, going on. That doesn't mean there isn't any. >> No. No. >> You know, when we when we hear about it, we research it. >> Okay.
>> But the point being is Yes. >> But what but what can we put in there about that? What paragraph can you put? >> I think we could say that this is an issue that's come up and it should really be further examined because there there are Deb is right. This is being, you know, been broached on a statewide
level and of course we have home rules. So most municipalities are like, well, don't tell us what to do, >> right? >> You know, don't. But if we're addressing it, at least the state can see that we're addressing it. >> No, 100%. But I think the idea at statewide I my understanding was that it would be sort of permitted in every
municipality probably in residential zones. So >> yeah, but I mean >> they would force you to >> they would for you know >> force you to take one plan or the other. >> They would give you the ordinance. I I don't know >> cuz I asked that question specifically. But I mean I'm I'm more concerned with the fact that if somebody has one and
then they want to sell their house as if as that same use for someone they they're almost procluded from doing it. >> Yeah. I mean the other thing I have thought felt is that why limit it to senior meaning if you have a disabled
adult you know. Yeah. It shouldn't be just it should be anyone that you're have to take care of or somebody that needs your assistance. Sure. uh it shouldn't be just elderly. >> So, and from my experience too from other research that I've done, you know,
um when you have single family zones, somebody wants to build onto the house or a detached apartment, it should be a use variance period. >> Regardless of the use, regardless of, you know, but you know, and then it then it's everybody is treated equally and
you take it on a case- by case basis. the board does um now we'll what depending on what the state says obviously >> but yeah you're exactly but we should I we don't right now even on a state case by case basis we have no guidance from the when the ordinance except for a very
draconian thing that you can have it but you can't you know what do we call it and you know what happens if they want to sell the house with it to someone who wants who wants to use it for a similar use >> it's coming for a use variance we have to put the we have to you know All right. But we had we had trouble with
that one because it was >> she >> Did we get that? Was was that a D1 with that one or was that a D3? Do you remember? >> I think it was a D1. I think it was a D1. >> And then she came back to have it reclassified. It was It was a mess. >> No. And I >> Well, now first she came So you're
talking about 300 Southfield. >> Yeah. >> So first it was a senior suite, >> but the reason she came to the board was because it was over the square footage. >> Right. >> Right. It wasn't detached because she was attached but it was attached but she was over the square footage >> that is allowed by our ordinance. So
that's why she came to the court >> when the individual was no longer living there. That's when she came for the youth variance. >> Right. >> Then wanted to have it as an apartment for you know a teenage or like not a teenage like you know a college student or another family member that was in the
senior. >> Right. Right. >> So >> that's where we have to have the address the guidance from the ordinance. Yeah, >> but maybe maybe people are okay with if if a house has an an you know ancillary apartment that that's okay.
>> Well, but but the ordinance should at least address >> 100%. But I think it's hard >> one way or the other. If they if they don't want to have them, fine. If they want to have it strictly a bio variance, if they want to I don't really doesn't matter to me as long as there's something in there that addresses it so we're not trying to make it up as we go here.
>> Yeah, I I 100%. Um but um all right. Any other issues? >> Okay. Any other >> one? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Is it in family >> TV or something? >> Um okay. What about board agrees with
comments? Okay. Within the past several years is apparent that the current escro deposit amounts required by ordinances are not sufficient for the review hearings and resolution. Um, >> so you want to raise the escrow? >> Yeah. >> Okay. To what?
>> I don't know yet. >> Comparative with other towns, right? >> The bottom line, yeah, I'm a I'm going to compare it with other towns, but I have to, but I've been working this summer very diligently because I got to catch up. I'm so far I'm literally behind in collecting money
>> from literally almost every applicant >> that we are running out of money. Mhm. >> So, and we run out of fast and I can't bring it in fast enough. So, I don't know whether I'm going to bring it up to 3,000 5,000. >> Well, what was it? What is it now? >> 2500 >> is the estimate deposit.
>> Okay. All right. So, you got to bring it up more more than that. Okay. >> We need to bring it up. I've had some suggestions by some some of my colleagues to say, "Oh, just a flat 5,000." But that's it's a big amount. It's a big amount to swallow. >> Yeah. And it shouldn't be arbitrary. It
should be based on what you think. What have you been seeing here over the last say two years and it maybe bumped that 5%. >> Well, that's the thing is it's anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 depending on the type of application. >> So, I'm trying to keep it, you know, I want to do something with like residential maybe, you know, 3 to 4,000
somewhere in that. >> Right. And commercial make it higher, >> right? And then commercial start at least 5,000. >> Yeah. Oh, I Yeah. I have a tiered system where depends on what you're doing. >> You know, I definitely will look at our fees. I don't I don't necess >> and look how much they ultimately spent. Yeah. >> Exactly. I don't necessarily think that
our application fees are um too much or too little at this point, but I do want to do some research into other towns to see how they're charging. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I've heard people say, you know, they don't do something because of the cost, and I understand that, >> but at the same time, we have to be realistic considering the cost of our
experts, considering the cost. And this is this is another thing that I'm a broken record and I and because again I'm the bearer of bad news. So I have to tell these people, well the escro deposit is X, you know, and and you're probably not going to get any of that money back. >> But I try to say to them, listen, but you this is a small town.
>> We don't have a planner and a engineer on staff time that will cover these expenses to the and the taxpayers are not going to cover them for you. >> Right. Right. So >> I I think one alternative, and I hate to talk myself out of money, but I think that it would be to not have
professionals reviewing some of these single family applications. >> All right. Now, I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. >> But at the same time, how do we pick and choose which ones you review, don't we? For for example, I in one town that both Chris and I firm works in, we don't do
any uh we don't do anything with um single family residents unless it involves a use variance. >> Okay. >> And so a deck you wouldn't do, >> right? We would shed coverage. >> We wouldn't do any of You know something? I understand what you're saying and I and I agree with that in
some respects because I've seen your reports and pretty much they're just outlining what standards we're looking for, right? >> But they're really not fact specific because there is no no fact to that you have to really consider. It's just that the board should look at these criterias
which we already know. You're just giving us a outline with negative and positive criteria and things like that. I think there are comments that where I think we're most valuable with the single family is looking through what's on the lot and what's in the ordinance, right? And and and and doing the zone.
>> And you know something with our ordinances being so messed up sometimes it is helpful. >> Yeah. >> So you know at this >> I would almost say like like I agree with Liz like because she is such a help to me. >> Yeah. in some of these, you know,
because a lot of times there's so many gray areas in the interpretation, but which we'll hopefully fix things. But on the flip side, the one thing we could do is I could have, you know, especially on residentials, if the board were agreeable, we could try, you know, I
could say to Liz, listen, could you just write up in an email format a zoning chart? That means she doesn't have to come to the the the meeting >> and bill for that time. >> And bill for that time. Yeah. >> She'd just be billing for the minimal amount of time of the record. >> Very basic. Don't even like not even put it in a she could put it in an email form to me and then I can include that
with the package to the board. >> Well, as sometimes the engineer does with just an email. >> And on the flip side, if there are situations that we feel warrant >> a larger more expanded, >> then I I do and I think a use variance
case is probably and I think perhaps some of the non-residential depending Oh, yeah. >> You know, you would want to >> Yeah. some of the more complicated things that that infringe upon more of the >> like the Wendy's. I mean, you'd want >> Oh. Oh, you definitely. Yeah. >> You know, and if there's an impervious
coverage, if it's only because of impervious coverage, which we've been seeing. Yeah. >> I don't even think Blizz should be involved, but Joe should be involved. >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. >> You know, and and we've even seen that he's been very good about looking at something and saying, "Listen, this is existing conditions. I don't see any
issues with this." And he'll write like a quick email. I don't need to appine. It's fine as is. If the board decides, you know, that >> I I we could work on that and and try. I mean, that doesn't negate the fact that you may have to raise the amount, but the point is at least we might be using less of it.
>> Agree. >> Yeah, I think that I think that's appropriate, too. I think sometimes it's >> because that that's I mean you mentioned Paul that some people don't even bother coming for a variance because of the cost and it may be something that we could help lower the cost because it
isn't that burdensome or or odious a thing they're doing that would require both experts to opine on in a three-page report >> agreed >> or sit here and tell us you know so >> something something as far as you know again I know this from people who spoke to me about the gentleman who spoke
uh the other week um one of them had a uh their front staircase was the old wooden staircase they wanted to rip it down >> and but >> and they wanted to put you know a good concrete one can't do it with 50 foot go get an asbuilt go get >> the staircase even if I pay to build it's a couple grand now I got to get an
asbuilt survey that's two grand got to get a lock right you know what >> see now that's >> stick stick the rocks under the wood and they got a staircase that's falling apart that they're just going to leave >> see that's where the ordinance should come into play that's where somebody should replacing an existing structure as as a it's like say a wooden staircase
that's already in that and you're not expanding it. You're just replacing it with a similar different material. You shouldn't really have to. >> I mean, you should just basically get a permit and saying, "Okay, it's it's there already. It's it's in the into the uh into the front lawn set back, but it's already there, so it's not really
changing anything." >> But again, it's a wooden staircase that was probably put in in, you know, 1960s. They want to change it to a concrete one, but now you got to dig footings, >> right? You know, I guess >> right as soon as you you say the word footings. >> That's like the That's what are you gonna do? You're trying to make it better. You're trying to make the house,
you know, somewhat somewhat into 19th century. >> You're trying to make it safer. So, somebody's footing through the wooden steps. Yeah. >> Yeah. My neighbor next door has this problem. He keeps your stuffing rocks under and he leaves the wooden and you know, he knows to do it right. It's got to all be pulled out and they're going to have to do footings and he's not going to do it cuz just again just for
the paperwork and applications. He's going to lay out six, seven grand to put the staircase in. It's only a couple grand. You're going to spend four or five times the amount. >> So, what are you going to do? You're just going to leave it? >> Okay. >> Which doesn't help anybody? >> No. No. >> Because the next owner is probably going
to want to do that anyway. So, >> but Okay. I I I think we've come up with a more more issues than than originally. >> Could there be a waiver for something like that? >> Well, that's that's something that >> is that possible when you just say >> definitely it just depends on the situation. Like I can't speak to it without looking at
>> Well, it's it's a wooden staircase now. want to put a you know concrete and brick and everything nice safe you know make it the code put railings where to you know >> so I well I can't speak for construction I mean I can say for zoning if somebody's replacing it as is for zoning purposes it's fine unless they're unless they're making it larger
>> I was just going to say bring it back >> the footings would probably end up being >> so so many inches larger because you have to put the brick and everything else you know inches not feet you know >> the only >> but it's not going to come out close it's going to be the same distance from the house maybe a little wider But >> it Yeah, I don't I I personally I don't
think I've >> ever denied a front porch replacement or >> really Okay. >> Not off the top of my head. Unless, you know, >> unless they were told to get the survey or something >> expanded in some way, shape or form that >> Yeah. making a making a stoop into a porch or something like that.
>> Well, again, the old the older porches, you're supposed to have what, a three-foot um um platform. You know, >> I I own a house on 22 Milton. It's been built in 1930s. That platform's a foot and a half. You know, >> for me to fix that, it's going to have to be 3 ft. So, therefore, it's going to
be wider. So, now what do I do in that situation? >> You might need a fair, >> right? >> It's crazy. So, guess what? I'm going to keep hammering nails in that and keep that thing going. You know, that's it. >> But it's not fair cuz, you know, again, it could look a lot better. >> Yeah. And more functional.
>> Cuz I tell people all the time, I've I've been through the variance process myself and I live in a house that was built in 1940. Yeah. >> Literally anything I do to my house, I need a variance for. >> Yeah. That's not fair. Yeah. It's not fair. >> So, I feel everybody's pain. >> Yeah. It's not fair. Yeah.
>> But I mean, how would your town do it >> as far as, >> you know, giving >> We have the established setback. >> Okay. >> So, if if I've It's funny you say that because I've always wanted to put a portico on my front because I have like I have a colonial and I don't meet the front yard setback. But if I do, if I
submit the established setback, then I'm allowed to put the portico because >> into that and not going beyond that established setback. See, now that's something we would might want to consider. That would help the guy with the steps. >> That would probably help the guy with the steps. Exactly. >> Well, maybe put that in there in the report. >> I don't know. Exactly. You
>> Well, she would explain that. >> I I think Well, that would go in What section would that go in? The >> setback section. >> The setback section. There you go. See, we came up with another issue because Right. Right. Instead of what the ordinance says, this is what you have and this is now your established
setback. You go go into that, you're in trouble. If you stay within that, you're fine. Exactly. >> So that would help people that want to make a steps. >> But like I said, you know, if it was built years ago, you're supposed to have a three-foot platform landing and you know, a lot of people have a foot foot and a half. So right there, you're going to have to be Yeah.
>> It's going to be changed a little bit. I ask too um Chris and Liz, I don't know if any other towns do this or if it's technically not allowed to do. What if we were to set up some sort of subcommittee of the zoning board that
when I receive an application and deem it complete? >> Yeah. >> I were to send it to let's say the chair and then two other individuals because you can't have four. >> Yeah. So, >> and those three individuals could review it and decide if planning is warranted or you know engineering.
>> As long as you're not violating the open public meetings act, I don't think it's an issue, >> right? >> List has a different opinion, but >> it's not it's not it's not a technical review like you know I think actually my in my hometown they had something like that on the because what they did they had a zoning board and a planning board
and they merged them at some point. They were trying to >> sh not saying we do that here. What I'm saying is at the time there were a lot of moving around to try to cons, you know, >> to avoid excess professional costs, right? >> So I think I'm pretty sure they set up like an application subcommittee.
>> Yeah, we used to have a review. >> I know that this particular board cannot do technical reviews for commercial and use variances and things of that nature. So if we take that out of the the discussion and we automatically know that those go to the professionals, right? Mhm. >> But resident little residential
applications if we could form I mean I would suggest if the board would consider it just >> and what would we be doing? >> So you'd look at the application and you'd say okay this is an existing non-conforming application for imperous coverage for a deck or a shed or whatever the case may be. Okay. Um, and
you could decide, well, I don't think this warrants based on the neighborhood, based on the the, you know, the application itself. The >> warrants what? >> What? >> Warrants what? >> Warrants a review from the planner. >> Oh. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. I I I didn't quite get what we were our
conclusion was supposed to be. I'm sorry. Uh, because beyond that, we're not allowed to make an opinion about the thing itself. >> No. Well, yes. So we would look at it and say we don't believe we need a uh a planner's uh report. We don't think we need an engineers report.
>> And you could do it as like I I've seen in certain committees like you could do a rotating committee if if like everybody on the board wants to be involved. Say in the month of January >> we get three people >> it's you two and Paul and then the month of February it's three other three other people. You could do it on a rotating
basis or whatever but >> if that's >> everybody has the misery of another night. Yes. Yeah, >> but at least those three individuals from the board are looking at the application and saying, "Well, you know what? I would really feel more comfortable based on the neighborhood and what they're requesting >> if Liz did it."
>> The idiosyncrasies of the area. Yeah. Okay. And maybe we would say, "Well, the engineer is really not needed on this one because there's not much engineering on this." Exactly. >> And he usually does that on his own, too. He'll figure that out. The only thing I will say is, and I've joked about this, it's not a joke, but storm
water comes up all the time. >> Yeah. >> Even when we think it's not going to, it comes up. And so when Joe is like, I don't need to review this. There have been a couple times where >> it still come up. >> It came up and then he was mad >> at the conditions that we put in the in
the resolution. >> Well, let me put it this way. I think that that is probably a good idea, but let's talk about a little bit more and figure out >> for sure >> the guidelines on that because >> depending on which tour you're picking,
I don't want to have it being um non non um >> inconsistenc I don't want inconsistencies. I want it to be objective. So, I want to have some guidelines to follow on it or something. Maybe we can make up a checklist to say if it meets these things, it doesn't need it or if it doesn't meet these
things, too. because that way you give somebody guideline some some guidance on this just like we want guidance from the planning board our own is we should have our own on that >> and I mean I mean because Liz can attest I think you know going back almost eight years now I've been here and when when
Ed you interviewed me and you said well how how many you know in Livingston goes on the zoning board at night and I said oh you know 10 >> yeah I looked at my jaw dropped I go >> I fell off the floor like what >> you know and I don't and please tell me if I'm wrong, but from my experience in
an existing non-conforming condition like Livingston didn't have a plan the planner and >> ever hardly ever the engineer and then they would look at it and go, "Okay, existing non-conforming small lot. Okay, you're approved. Just >> no questions."
>> No, no, no real anything. Okay. I mean, and obviously they they were looking at it for conformity to the neighborhood, >> right? Mhm. >> You know, you're not talking about, >> you know, a McMansion when there's a little tiny cape, things of that nature, but the the, you know, the standards.
>> I couldn't imagine doing that. I really couldn't. >> Yeah. Like my little house in in Livingston. Like I need a variance for everything. Everything I do. >> Now, would they treat yours the same way? >> Yeah. >> Oh. >> Although, I went for a fence variance and it took two hours. >> Really? >> Yeah.
>> You never know what you're what's going to happen. >> You never know. Were they were they on the fence about it? >> I couldn't resist that one. Sorry. >> Of course. >> But that's what but my my point being is I I feel like there's definitely a way that between the professionals and the
board, we can kind of figure out >> a way to limit some of the fees. >> Yes, that's what I'm thinking of. >> Especially existing non-conforming residential. >> Right. Right. Or Yeah. Very simple uh things here. All right. Um I think just to sum up I think not having to do a
report if we just did like a zone table and then maybe some things that like hey this is out you know we can't understand this >> right right >> put it in an email >> and then we probably aren't needed at the hearing and that actually is going to save >> but I I just want to make sure that in order to make that decision we're basing
on objective standards and some checklist that we have so that way no matter what group of this of this party is looking at it we're looking at in the same perspective in the same standards. >> Um, >> but like I said, I think in the town
that we both work in, it's it's, you know, >> anything that's not a use fairance and not a non-residential, we don't review. Okay. >> I got a couple other towns where the the zoning officer will just do a uh just a brief memo saying this these are the variances they need. >> Okay.
>> You know, >> that's really bad. >> What can you do with that? >> I could totally do that. >> Put them on the spot then. Yeah. >> More work for her. Yeah, she has enough work. Come on. >> Yeah. >> You said you said there are towns that actually have full-time like obviously those are larger towns >> on on staff. >> On staff. Yeah.
>> And what do they do in terms of charging the applicants? >> So, it depends. Um, some t like since I work in Livingston, I can speak from Livingston and uh I don't know if they still do this or not, but when I was working there, what they would do is if
the engineer needed to review it. Um, for residential, they never charge for engineering or planning. If it was commercial, they would charge a portion of their hourly fee. So, let's say, >> I don't know, >> so basically the town people picked it up. >> Exactly. >> But it was only a portion of it.
>> Okay. >> Because full stop. They're full-time on staff, >> right? But I mean, as far as residential goes, >> residential were never charged for engineering. >> See, we used to have an onstaff engineer uh years ago and they decided they didn't want to do that because they didn't want to they didn't want the
expense of his salary, the benefits, and all that other nonsense. So, they decided to go contract and that was more led to putting the charge on on the applicant. >> Well, yeah. Because you know in a town like Livingston and only one example
there are 30,000 people versus 9,000 people here. Right. Right. >> Right. Yeah. >> And that's rounding up. >> There's more to spread the the the uh the misery. Yeah. The cost. >> Exactly. >> But actually even in towns that do have in-house people, they often hire them outside consultants too.
>> Oh, I know that. Yeah. But I mean it's it's >> Yeah. They just they tend to want to now hire more consult or more contract people as opposed to in-house. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's better for their budget if they put
the cost on. >> Exactly. Because it's a fixed cost so much a year. It's not okay the healthcare went up or okay the pension went up or whatever. It's not the it's not the same. >> In Livingston for residential applications, they don't even collect tax. >> Really? >> Really?
>> Nope. Just a flat application fee. So tonight their fees are being just there's nobody to charge it to. There's no escro. >> No. So well I do the budget every year >> and this is part of the budget >> and I budget >> and I tried to get out of it.
>> So there there are times when the town >> we didn't have is footing a bill. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Each year in the budget, like the planning board budget right now is >> like over the top high because >> between plan and working on revisions of ordinances,
>> right? Right. You know, >> would it be cheaper to hire somebody? >> Yeah. Joe, the attorneys have been >> working overtime. >> Working overtime. Yeah. And like I can't even fathom what they went through for, you know, up to June 30th with the second. >> We barely
>> I thought Steve was kind of hard. We didn't have to do that much here in Long Hill, but I you know, the consultant who wrote the housing plan, I'm sure had to, you know, fill a lot of hours. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, but yeah, for so for general general things for the board, Yeah. that's
always budgeted every year. >> Okay. >> The board's pretty low, but >> So, Deb, now uh based on what we talked about, now Liz, you're going to go back and we redo this and >> I'm going to redo the generator section. I'm going to talk about the accessory structures, >> the sheds.
>> I'm going to say the sheds to comply with UCCC code and and practical, you know, whatever. >> Well, if I make a suggestion, let's why don't why don't Liz and I do I'll do the board observations and the synopsis. >> Okay. >> And then we'll do a final review. >> Well, because we added things. We added
paragraph. So, that's what I mean. We're going to have we're going to see that in a final review. Yes. >> And then next meeting we adopt it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> If that works for everybody. >> Yeah. Fine. email it out and we'll all look at it >> at the next meeting. We're looking to adopt what's presented, not to open up the whole discussion.
>> Right. Exactly. Because we already had the discussion. I mean, there might be some grammatical thing changes, minor things, but nothing nothing substances, right? >> Because we all have looked at it in the email. We have any comments, we can say it then. >> Yeah. >> Um so, um what's coming up next meeting?
>> Well, next meeting you have three applications, John. three >> that hopefully will be easy peasy >> is 92. >> Mhm. >> Uh yeah, 92. Well, >> I only see I only see two >> two family the use variance. >> I only see two. Oh, 92 is another one.
Okay. >> Yeah. >> A new house and a addition with some vault variances. So, and if everybody got the, you know, my application status, I wanted to provide this because literally between our last meeting in June, we've received seven new applications
>> and that's of ones that I didn't know were coming in. >> So, you feel confident that we can handle these three in one meeting? >> No, I'm not confident, but I think we can. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm not confident, but I >> Who's going first? >> Uh, I 766 Valley Road has to go first.
>> Okay. So they're first and then who's second? >> Um 45 Long View Terrorists. I'm going to put them in order and then 26 Highland is going to go on. >> Oh, okay. So just the way they're listed here. Okay. >> Yep. >> So worst case scenario if we you know I'm kind of >> We don't get to Highland then, >> right? I'm I'm kind of leaving the
second meeting in September somewhat open in case >> that's the 16th. >> Yes. In case we have to carry anything. >> That's But you already have somebody on there. >> I have Yes. Only one >> Greenwood Drive. >> I think I only put one on the 16th. >> Yeah. Only one. Okay. So if we have a
carryover from the sec from the second, we hear it and then we go into the second then we go into the Okay. >> I thought Burger King was coming back here. No, >> Burger King is going to the planning board. >> And why is that? >> Why don't Sorry, we reopen that up. I thought I thought >> I mean just give us a simple
>> I'm just surprised we did Wendy's here. What's the difference? >> Well, no. Burger King's existing. They're just changing. >> Well, >> so is Wendy's existing building >> Burger King and correct me if I'm wrong. >> Yeah. The problem with Burger King is Burger King started out in 1980 something youth experience with the
board. In my experience as a a board secretary when you are with one board you stick with that board. However, >> Burger King has had other site plan applications since that that went to the plan. >> Okay, fine. They can have it >> because and so the last two or three
applications >> certainly the last one which was for a very similar application to what they're doing now which is upgrades to the property. It was went to the planning board. >> They I like I said, they can have it. They're they're more than welcome. >> Steve Warner. Steve Warner ultimately with the the their attorney said,
>> "Okay, >> go to the planning." >> Nice to >> Yeah. >> So then we got You didn't know that? >> We're overworked. Anyway, we have three We have three coming up under 60. Yeah. So, >> you only have one on 10 seven. >> Uh 10. >> Yeah, because that's a big That's a big
one. >> What's the >> Oh, right. That's for >> Oh, yeah. That's That's going to be That's >> Is that across from the town? >> Oh god. >> How many apartments is that? That's four. >> Is that the one across from the towels? >> No. >> No. This is uh >> 620. >> This is Main Avenue.
>> So he's proposing um >> I'm looking at Valley Road. >> Is that the one across from the hotel? >> No, that was already approved. >> Yeah, that was already done. >> This is down further on the >> What? >> On the right as you're going toward >> if you're going up if you're going north on Maine. I think it's on the right side. >> It's on the east side. Oh, it's on the right.
>> Lower. Yeah. And it's further to the south from >> What do they want to do? >> He's proposing >> because he went through a lot with the D, too. So, he's proposing two structures that are pretty much identical with >> I think
>> So, he's knocking down what's there. >> Yes. And he's proposing four one of the lots doesn't have anything on it but a garage. >> Okay. And then one of it's like three lots, one staying as is and then the two lots he's going to knock down the garage and he's going to do two buildings with commercial in the front and then four
apartments in total. >> Okay. Two and two. >> Okay. >> So, um >> yeah, the D gave him a hard time because of when they raised the flood plane. Yes. In 2023, >> it went right through his >> Yeah. He Yeah. Main Street got hit pretty hard. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, but that that that application I anticipate taking the whole evening and >> Okay. you know, public, etc., etc. >> And I'll tell everybody now for the 1021 one, I have to recuse myself because that's on firehouse property. >> So, I will not be sitting here. Tom, you can have
>> Is that a cell tower? >> I'll do that one. >> Yeah, that's a that's a cell tower. >> That's my last job before I became a lawyer. >> Yeah. There you go. >> I was a cell guy. >> There you go. >> I thought you were saying you sold cells. >> No, no, no. I would go uh >> He's got a great cell tower. Would you like
>> I would think it would be easy. I would go find people who would like be interested in like leasing land to AT&T. >> It was actually interesting >> if you're getting paid, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I got >> Yeah. >> I had no luck cuz they signed me in Westchester County
these things. So I had to spend my years >> and in Jersey I probably can't believe it. They're like, "Are you nuts?" >> Yeah. >> So, uh, Myersville Road. That's to be determined. You haven't figured out when to put that on yet? >> Yeah, that one. Um, yeah. So I'm I'm kind of holding back to see what happens
because we only have one note. We have only have one meeting in November and we only have one meeting in December. >> Well, okay. Now, is that it says addition? What are they doing? Addition to the house, >> an addition. >> I mean, I know that, but is it a garage? Is it is it about back, forward,
sideways? >> If I wrote bulk variances and addition, it just means they're setback variances usually. >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> And I I can't >> Oh, bulk. I didn't see that. Okay. So, they are doing the footprint thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I will not be here on 9:16.
>> You're gonna miss the 9:16. Okay. >> All right. >> Previous coverage. I think you can handle that without everybody's busy. >> So, we got two on the 16th. Okay. >> Pool and bulk. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Greenwood Drive wants a pool
and Hamilton Road wants a bulk variance. Okay. All right. >> Yeah. Those are th those two are hope you know again like existing non-conforming. >> Yeah. >> So >> okay >> hoping they go quickly. >> All righty. Sounds good. All right.
So any other business we need to do. >> Uh I don't have anything. I I I did the uh the dates for 2026, but I don't usually pass those out to you guys until like the fall. >> Oh, fine. Okay. All right. But um >> it's probably >> Did we stay away from the election day?
>> Always. Well, >> no, I take that back. So the the election day if it presidential election. Okay. >> I'll put a meeting on. >> Fine. So >> presidential I'm not putting it on. I think that's what >> So yes. So the one in for next year
would be on there. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean this Well, this year's we not on for this year. No, this this year it's >> governor election. >> The governor won. >> Yeah, this year it's governor November. >> We are on for election day this year and that's the only and the reason why is
because that's the only day literally the only day because there's four Tuesdays in the month of November. The first Tuesday is the election day zoning board. The second day, the second Tuesday is Veterans Day and the office is closed because we always close on Veterans Day. >> The 18th is the League of
Municipalities. So all of the professionals, >> so nobody's >> nobody's here. And then the week of Thanksgiving is the plan board, >> right? Okay. So >> I probably won't make it on that day because I'm working the polls >> and December I've stopped putting the
zoning board meeting the first Tuesday of December because of the volunteer dinner. >> Right. Right. >> So it's either usually Tuesday or Thursday. >> Are they still having it on Tuesday? >> She never knows. So like the last minute. It depends on. >> So if if it isn't on a Tuesday, we can have the meeting,
>> right? I mean, I could change it if you want to. >> Colette told me that the end of last year that she told him for this year to book it. So I don't know to book it for Tuesday. I'll double check for what date. I don't know. >> Yeah. Well, get that known ahead of time. So >> Well, definitely. But like the last time I talked to her about it, she's like,
"Would you stop scheduling it that week?" >> Well, you got to pin her down and say, you know, because people want their things heard. So, if we can get it done, >> people want their things heard, but the volunteers don't want their dinner. >> No, no, no. I'm just saying if the dinner is not on that day, then we can
have a meeting is what I'm saying. I I don't want to give up a meeting if we're not doing anything. >> Oh, no. We can definitely we can change it if you want, but it's scheduled for the 16th right now. So, >> okay, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> That's it. >> If that's it, do I have a motion to second? All
>> in favor? We're done.