Okay, we're on the air. >> Call to order and statement of compliance. I hereby call to order order order the zoning board of adjustments meeting for May 5th, 2025 26 at 7:36. Uh 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 of the echo sentinel 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. and any regular or special meeting/hering 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 all in attendance are requested to mute cell phones or turn them off and any electric
or any other electronic devices as do not interrupt the proceedings. Pledge of Allegiance. Tom, would you lead us, please? >> I aliance 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. >> A roll call. >> Yes. Mr. Aronio, >> here. >> Mr. Gianakus is excused this evening. Mr. Rosenberg >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Watts is excused this evening.
Mr. Zidrosny >> here. >> Mr. White >> here. >> Mr. Zorke is excused this evening. Vice Chairman Groskov >> here. >> Chairman Gre >> here. >> Chairman, we have a quorum. >> All right. Now, our first application that we need
our engineer for, but I'll read it at what it is. is it's a bulk variance block 1510 lot 25 zone R-20 previously zone R4 located at 258 Union
Street application number 25-22Z Francisco Guaja >> applicant is requesting relief for impervious coverage and structures constructed without a permit without permits. So, um,
maybe we should have him take a seat up here anyway, just to get ready. Would you, who's ever going to testify, would you come sit up here, please? >> Just sit right there on that. And then, uh, why don't you swear them in and then we'll swear in our expert in
>> Hello. Are are you both going to be testifying today with regard to this application? You're both going to be giving testimony. >> You're both speaking to us. >> All right. We both have to. >> If you are both witnesses, then you cannot translate for another witness.
So, you'd need somebody else to translate for her. Um, >> just translate. >> I'm sorry. >> No, I'll be just translating. >> Can't translate. You're going to be a witness. >> If you're going to be a witness, you can't translate for another principal witness. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So either she testifies with another someone else translating for her or you know the board can try to understand if she has something that she would like to say. >> Can somebody else in your party translate? >> Okay. >> Fine. Great. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Why don't you sit over there then? I want you I want you to have her sit there and you sit there since you're going to translate and we want you microphone >> the other end. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Have her >> just switch seats. Switch seats. >> Yes. Just switch seats. have her sit right right over here.
>> Thank you so much. Very good. >> Okay. So, the two witnesses, if you could please raise your right hands for the both witnesses. And do you swear that the testimony that you're both going to provide with regard to this application will be the truth. So, help you God. Yes,
>> and for the uh interpreter, if you can please raise your right hand, do you swear that the interpretation that you're going to be providing this evening will be to the best of your will be accurate and to the best of your ability. So, help you God. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, uh I really don't want to start
without >> Well, what can we start with getting everybody's name? >> Yes, we can do that. >> Everybody's name on the record >> and you can tell us that the notes is accurate and all. >> Yes. >> So, we have I'm assuming Francisco. >> No. No, my husband. My husband today.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. What What's your name? >> Daniel. >> Daniel. >> Huarees. And >> u Am >> J U R A. I'm sorry. J U R A E
>> E Z. Okay. Daniel D A N I E L. Okay. >> And our translator, >> Megan. Mary. >> Okay. What's your last name? Because I'm sure I can spell it, but
>> Okay. >> I have took us. I Z H I U M >> I'm going to call Mrs. M if I need to ask a question on that. >> That's the easy one. >> All right. >> Okay. And and your So your last name is >> Gua. >> Gua. And your first name? And your first
name? >> Guadalupe. >> Guadalupe. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now, let me just let me text Joe and see where he is. >> Yeah. Just go through the preliminary. It's about the notice and everything's that we can. >> Okay. And Mr. Huarez, you are testifying as a fact witness as
>> so I'm basically a friend of the family and I'm going to be doing the work. >> Okay. So you're the contractor effectively. >> Fine. Okay. So you're part of the Okay. uh notice was given for this application
uh and it properly showed um >> so we can legally hear them >> what yes what what the application was going to be about. >> Okay. >> All right. >> It's satisfactory. >> Did we get a report from
>> Twitch? I think I saw it. Okay. >> He rescended it. He said he was going to give the he wanted to do cross-examination, >> right? Okay. >> Tonight. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> And find out what needs to be done after seeing what the testimony is. >> Thank you, Gary, because I I didn't
think I saw one, but then again, I didn't want to think I missed it. >> Where is he now? Did you find out? >> I just said, "Are you almost here?" He hasn't responded yet. >> Maybe because he's almost here. >> Maybe because he's almost here.
or he's been pulled over for writing texts. >> Yeah, right. All he's doing is telling him he's doing it for us. >> Come on. Do you Frank Sinatra in person? Come on. >> No.
>> All right. Um, just a few moments. There he is. >> All right. >> Speak of the dead. >> Man, man of the hour. >> Couldn't start without. >> You were just waiting with baited breath for you. >> Sorry about that.
>> That's okay. >> IT emergency before I left the office. >> Should take a hammer and fix it. >> Yeah, just go. All right. >> All right. Now,
Joe, would you like to to give us some background as to what your thoughts were on this? >> Um, yeah. My my concerns were that
um the the survey with the notations on it are not specific to um the final intent of what they'd like to remain on the property
>> and then what they're removing, what they're intending to remove, what they desire to remove, and then what they're obligated to remove the eastern area that's on the property. >> Okay. >> So, I think you know the balance of what
you would then vote on is the coverage and other considerations and those need to be quantified into the record. I think we can all understand that concept what they're what they're looking to achieve through the dialogue and then we can craft the
approval accordingly. Um but then it would it would all fall to a asel survey of the condition. >> Um >> most notably I think that's the the pool, >> right? >> Right. Because the pool it the pool
overlaps into that encroachment area >> and that yellow area is the encroachment area. >> Yeah. There's a there's a e well there's a full easement through >> that area that's that for what I understand is is conservation restriction. Okay. >> Okay. So, why why don't we get some
testimony on the record before we have this? Uh, >> yeah. I just wanted to get a a back. >> Okay. Um, who wants to start as far as telling us what now is on the property and what you guys are going to remove or leave there
or change? Who's best to say that? >> If I could ask her first. Mhm. Okay. Let the translator. >> You have to let the interpreter ask the question. She said that um whatever you told her to remove, she will proceed to do that
and she only wants to understand when she already c can you ask her just to clarify uh so that fence in that location was existing when they moved into the property?
>> Yeah. That's the one that's over here. >> That's over the property line. Is that over the property line? Is that the neighbor's property? >> Yeah, >> this fence. I'm just want to keep >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the notes on your survey
um say that you're going to move the fence. Now, I think what I just heard through the interpreter was a request to leave the fence. So just I want to clarify that that she understands that the fence will be removed and it also says here that the stone driveway will be removed for
encroachment to lot 24. >> So it's the driveway and the fence. >> So the one that she's >> I'm sorry sir the question was to this witness. Well you can answer that again but she she just asked a request so I want to make sure that she understands
what her survey says. Is there going to be an answer? Is there going to be an answer? >> Yes. Sorry. So, she says that um yeah, she put an application, but she would like to keep the fence in the back and right next to the neighbor because having problems uh
>> uh you you uh please explain to her that the fact that she can have a fence is not a problem. It's the fact of where the fence is. >> It's not on her property. >> You can't you can't put a fence on someone else's property and we can't condone that. We can't even give a variance for that. She wants >> you don't have the authorization to
approve that. Right. >> Period. >> If she wants to move if she feel if she wants a fence, she has to be moved onto her property line or into her property. >> Okay. Do we have another witness who's willing to testify in this regard? already.
>> Fine. Anything that is encroaching onto someone else's property from yours has to be removed. Whether it's the fence, whether it's the stone drive, whether it's any type of ground covering that's from your pro the her property onto someone else's has to be pushed back.
Okay. Um, who ask her? I see evidence. It says Stone Drive. Then it says Stone. Uh, and then it in the yellow it says who where was who put that stone in on the right hand side there next to the
fence? When was that stone put in? Okay. Yeah. >> No, I understand that. But >> she did. >> Yeah, she did. Okay. So, it looks like the stone is also onto someone else's property. Is that true? Is that correct? No.
Okay. Well, that okay, we still have the issue of ground coverage. I mean, whether she takes that in off of her property, off of the next door neighbor property. There's still 46% ground coverage. Explain that to her.
>> There's 46% of the ground coverage is impervious coverage. Stones, black top, building, decks. We have to get that lowered somehow. >> Oneif of your land has to be uncovered from what you have.
What is >> No. that she would take care of it. >> Now, I'm not just talking about what's over someone else's property. Talking about what's even on her property. >> Um, you know,
or whatever. >> All right. the the ordin ordinances say 25% of your property only 25% can be covered by impervious coverage meaning things that don't absorb water. Right now you have 46%. That's almost double what you're
allowed. So all the stone along the driveway on the right hand side should be replaced with grass in order to get it lower. Uh, also you have the encroachment on the easement which has to be removed which is the pool and part of your your wood deck.
>> You got to go slow because the interpreter has moment. >> That's it. I'm sorry. You're right. You should know that. >> Um, Yes, I told her that. >> A permit to remove it or a permit to >> just remove it. >> No. If we if we make that as a
condition. No, you just that that's us telling you to do it. Telling her. >> I I have a question. Is Is that where the cars go on? Does anything go on those stones? Like do you drive anything across it or >> so? Yeah. She said that that's where she
Joe if I have a question. >> So if a car drives over that's it. It's not impervious or it is. >> Oh no. Of course it is. >> It is. >> Yeah. Doesn't matter what >> I mean if you just have stone and nothing's on it. So for the purpose of the 25% discussion bulk standards >> lock coverage is all improved area right
>> so partially impervious gravel compared to pavement is the same thing >> for instance just landscaping I have trees and I have my gravel around it nobody walks on nobody on it >> loose gravel in a landscape area is >> this doesn't qualify >> an exception
>> okay this doesn't qualify >> right >> ornamental stone in your landscape area is different than what you compact with your vehicle >> car. Okay, I understand. Yeah, >> very good. >> And although this is um going to be removed, they should check our town ordinances. You can't you're not allowed
to park cars on the grass, >> right? >> So when this is removed, it won't be a driveway. >> Well, they have how many cars fit on the driveway? Ask >> you >> on the No. How many cars would fit on what's paved now? That's actually the driveway. Not on the stone, but just on
the what it says here, McAdam Drive. Okay. So, yeah, she's saying that right now. >> Okay. >> What is ask her what is this circle that is below the pool? What is that? >> That's
Fire pit. >> I see fire. >> Oh, it says fire pit. Okay. >> Um, that's considered impervious, right, Joe? The fire pit. Okay. >> So, yeah, the fire pit, the pavers, the wall, >> all of it. I mean, I think it's
accurately depicted here as 7,13.7 square feet. >> Okay. What if could you calculate what if we take away the stone next to the house, the stone by the shed, the pool, and the walkway to the and and the the wooden
deck and the walkway to the deck, but leave the little bit of stone next to the driveway. How much would we get down to? >> Well, start with >> 25% of the 15,000, >> right, is 3,750.
>> Okay. So if you start on the on the compliant plan then you have 1343.2 is the house and garage
47.9 is the covered porch. the Macadam driveway and then the concrete walk. So,
and let's say the frame shed. So, that leaves us about 1122 to play with. So >> did you also factor in the paper >> say that the house so on the asbuilt
calculation the first one two three >> and then the fifth being the concrete and then down to the frame shed.
And you're going to need the paper >> 62.8 of the porch and steps. >> It gives us 960 square ft to work with. 952
is the pavers. So that would leave you with a stone the entirety of stone driveway, the wood deck, the pool, and the fire pit
would all need need to be removed to get to a fully compliant >> 25% >> plan. >> Right. you could to get to 25%. So, >> can you say that again? Which which would have to be removed? >> So, the the stone driveway
>> that the 2647 >> 2647, the wood deck, the pool, the fire pit. >> Okay. >> And and that would leave you with so
items Joe, sorry to interrupt, but any of that um pa path going alongside the pool to the wood deck? >> That would come out too. >> Yeah, but I don't know if that's in the calculation if they're going to lose it where they get credit for it. >> There's a little path.
>> Oh, yeah. Joe. >> Joe, I have you and I'm I'm sorry. If you can raise your right hand, do you swear that the testimony that you have given and that you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Does it count? All right.
>> Does it count if I'm a lefty? >> Yeah. No. Yeah. >> Everything I do as a lefty is sinister, right? >> That's okay. Yeah. >> That's right. >> As a fellow lefty, you're fine. >> Um, >> so it's that's all part of pavers, not pavers terrace. Is that what that is? Is that why in there?
>> I think pavers and paver terrace as they're listed on the plan is the same fully combined 952.8. >> Okay. Now, were you Joe, were you also taking out the stone next to the academy here? >> Ed, before we do that, can I just finish
with this? Just I'm sorry. >> Just make sure that they're not losing pavers and pavers terrace, right? They're not losing 952 feet on that, are they? >> No. What? So, that was the last thing I was backing to. So,
>> so items the house items one, two, and three. House covered porch madam driveway. >> They stay. >> Four stone drive removed. Five concrete stays. >> Six and seven wood deck and pool
removed. Frame shed stays. Porch and step stays. The pavers then can stay and that leaves us eight square feet to be fully compliant. And the fire pit and the fire
pit and stone removes. So now we can discuss items four, six, seven, and 11, which is Stone Drive. >> Before we go on, I just want to make sure I know what's going on. Before we go on, the little path there that so far is staying.
>> No, the path to the wood deck is goes, you know, have the path to go to. >> Stays. >> But we haven't removed that yet. >> No, he said the wood deck goes. >> Let Joe answer the question, please. I'm confused. >> Do Joe, do you see what I'm asking? the area wrapping around the pool.
>> Yes, >> I consider that as all part of the pavers in the calculation. >> All part of the >> So the the paver terrace and then the slightly grayer pavers that then wraps the pool. Yes. >> I believe is complete >> all part of the 950.
>> Yes. To >> if the pool goes then you don't need that thing that wraps around the pool in the wood deck. >> You still need to pay for terrace behind the house. >> Right. But for >> Yeah. >> Okay. So the way I understand >> simplistic terms of looking at whole items in this chart. >> No, I understand that.
>> To get us to 25% compliant, >> then we can discuss the variance relief to increase to leave anything else. >> I understand that. But I just want to make sure that you're not that if you subtract this little walkway here and the wood deck
will get get more impervious more pvious to possibly add something else in is what I'm So that that's kind of what the question that I'm asking and he's almost there I think is with >> everything is included pavers paver terrace and path which is not labeled
but yet we're calling it that anyway. >> Yeah >> that's all part of the 952.8 on the chart labeled pavers but he hasn't removed all that yet. He's going to work on on Right. Isn't that what you're going to do? You're going to work on pavers hasn't come out yet. Is that
correct? The pavers in total can stay and be >> for now >> with eight square feet remaining to get to 25% compliance. >> So that's in. >> I I still want to clarify something, Jerry.
>> This little walkway that starts back here and goes to the wood deck. Are you taking that out or leaving it in? >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. >> I I look at the >> So, okay, first things first. The green area that's an encroachment into the neighbor's property.
>> Well, that's on your deck. We don't see that >> right there. >> Oh, the green area. Oh, the green area. I'm sorry. Green of the encroachment of the fence and the stone into the neighbor's property, >> right? >> Is not within the jurisdiction of this board to consider remaining. >> Right. Exactly. That has to come out.
>> It has to come out or they need to get the an easement from the neighbor. Something right in. >> It's easier to move it. >> Right. So, that green area is removed. But you can't even consider that as coverage because it's not part of their property. >> I don't believe it's in the >> She agreed to that before you got
>> in the calculation. Right. Okay. >> Right. >> Then to observe the conservation easement without a copy of the deed in front of us, we must assume that it must be wholly in conservation. >> Right. >> Right. Which means restoring any improvements from that area.
>> Right. >> The stone, the wood deck. >> Right. There's a little bit of an overlap of that pavers underneath the steps of the wood deck. >> I think that's dimminimous. The pool itself would have to slightly shift forward out of that area. >> Right. Or be taken out.
>> Or be taken out and hole. >> Okay. >> Right. The 256 of the pool I currently have coming out. >> Okay. >> And that could be part of the variance relief for the increase in impervious coverage over 25%.
>> All right. If if we if we set a threshold on all the areas to go in over the 25% at a,000 square feet that maintains
storm water mitigation exemption for them. So we can go up a thousand square feet over that value and that 1,00
that's 6.7% increase. So roughly 31% 312% >> of impervious lock coverage if we settle in at I'm not recommending. >> No, I understand. If we if that
threshold is kept under, there's no dry wells, there's no storm water mitigation for them to pursue. >> Fine. >> So, our goal is for their sake and their uh cost effectiveness and and just not having to put more things on their property, we want to keep it 31 or
under. >> Well, we should communicate this to them. Let >> Yeah, we will. But I wanted to get that straight. Yeah. So the my recommendation to the applicant would be to prioritize the stone driveway areas that you need
to fit for the the cars that the home the family needs on the property. >> So let me ask you a question before we communicate that. That would pro approximately be this little area here then next to the Macam. the little area next to the Mac.
>> This it's a rectangle right next to the Mac. >> Yeah. The 41. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. She said not next to the house. >> 400. >> Not next to the house. Just a little bit right here. >> Yeah. She said all her cars fit in the driveway. So, they probably just need a little pulloff area so they don't block
you. >> Well, that's what I That's why I said this right here. >> Yeah. That's probably all they need. >> 500 square feet. >> Yes. It's a roughly 400 to 500 square feet right there. That's half. >> Okay. All right. >> Right. The the fire pit and the pool
would get you close to the other 500 square f feet. That would leave everything of the stone driveway rear of the chain link fence line in the front. The front right the corner of the house to be removed.
>> Right. Exactly. From the corner of the house back. But how could you move that pool? >> You really can't move the pool from there. >> It's above ground pool, right? >> It is above ground pool. >> Yeah, but you've got pavers right next to it, though. >> You can ask the contractor.
>> You got to move the pavers. Um, >> you're going to I mean, you're going to you're going to pull out the pavers and set this thing forward outside of a confirmed a confirmed stake out of the limit of the >> Now, would you explain to her that we've
been talking to our engineer and we've tried to determine to get as low amount of ground coverage as we can without going over a specific number, which is 31%. Okay. Now, tell her that that would
entail removing the stone next to the house and the stone behind the house around the shed all the way to the wood fence area. No, we calculated. >> Yeah. Well, I'll get to that.
>> Okay. Now, we've also calculated that in order to she has a choice. She either can take the pool out entirely. If she leaves the pool, we still have to take out the wood deck and the walkway
all the way going to the wood deck. That's around the pool. >> Yeah, I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get there. with the pool. >> Okay. But even if the pool stays, the wood deck in the walkway to it has has to be taken out.
>> Yes. >> And she has to move the pool. >> I'm getting I'm getting to that. Taking it one step at a time. If she wants to keep the pool, the pool has to be moved further closer toward the house toward Union Street, which means some of the pavers has to come out and the pool has to be moved. How many feet would you say
that is, Joe? How many feet does that pull encroach? It's about five feet. >> All right. The pole has to be moved five feet toward the house, >> toward Union Street. Basically, >> you can put anywhere you want
here. Okay. >> Okay. That's her choice. >> She said she's going to remove the pool. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh because explain to her that both the pool and that wooden deck encroach on an easement area and you can't do that.
>> Go ahead. >> Just please let her know that the pool can go anywhere on her property that's not that's not constricted by doesn't have to be two feet forward. It could be the other side of the yard if they want. It could be anywhere on her property. >> Okay. But I mean, okay, just tell her that the right now the pool and the wood
deck encroach on the uh on the easement area and I and we can't allow that. Okay. Tell her that >> I'm taking it slow. I know. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Now, as one of my fellow board members just said, the pool can theoretically be moved to the opposite
side of that wood of the uh PA terrace if you want to move it to the, you know, >> anywhere else on your property >> or or anywhere else, but it well actually there's not really anywhere else. >> It can't be close. It can't be in the easement. So theoretically, you can move the pool to the other side of that paper
and keep it out of the easement if that if she chose to. >> And you can't put it around depending. >> Well, it probably is way over here. So it is put there and what they put around >> something about so basically she wanted to keep the pool
for one more year >> and so she don't think she would like to pay for somebody to move it. >> Okay. Then then take it then the best thing is to take it out. to take it out >> because it doesn't pay to move it 5T if you're going to take it out in a year. >> I mean, >> uh, >> yeah,
>> and you understand what our position is. We have we we're hands our hands are tied. You can't be in an easement. You can't >> understand >> can't do that. Um, so, uh, with all that, what would we have as far as ground coverage
if we took out the stone, everything south, uh, north of the corner of the house, the pool, that wood deck, the walkway to it? Um, what would we have then? >> It's easier to go.
>> Okay, you figured out anyway. Either go the opposite way. Um it so if they're removing the pool then all I'm adding back in is still the fire pit and >> 410 square ft of the stone next that
>> next to the Mac Drive. Okay. >> So how much percentage do we have there? >> 27. >> That's a lot lower. >> Well, it's only 15,000 square feet. So every square foot really >> makes a difference,
>> right? >> Sure. Can I can I ask a question? >> How long have you lived at this house? >> So, she moved in in 2021. >> Okay, >> they got us at 287. So under the 25 then >> under 28 >> 28
>> 28 I'm sorry I thought you said 20. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. 28 >> 28.87. >> Okay. So that's a lot closer to 25. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um >> still within our storm water exemption, >> right? Okay. Um All right. Does any other board members
have questions? I know I've been I've been I didn't mean to monopolize this and and I I haven't dealt with the position of the shed yet, but as far as ground coverage goes. Are there any other opinions on it or any other uh you know thoughts about it? You know, okay, you heard what Joe said,
you heard what we did. Does that sound good as far as any other suggestions about ground coverage, >> Jerry? >> Um I I guess um We're very close, Joe, to storm water
mitigation requirements. How how how close are we to that? >> Anything over 31? >> 31. >> Anything over the 31 30 31 and a half%. >> So, we're we're down to 28. So, >> good. All right. >> Um, now,
>> so I'm just curious why they built this even after they were issued a denial. That's a whole >> thing in itself. Like, can you ask her why it was >> Yeah. What inspired all this construction on the property?
>> Even after there was a denial from the construction permit and more construction after that. She said that she only Okay. So to answer your question, she said that she started construction
it was already there. Even though the town told her the town >> approved construction. Okay. Okay. >> So, in 2020, you were told no. But in 22 and 24, you added a pool, a deck, and a
shed, and a driveway, knowing that you were already denied. >> Let's not find that. Um the shed that's there sheds have to be 10 ft for the property line. John >> sheds are 10 ft. Yeah, the 10 10
>> and how many feet is it now? >> Two two and a quarter. >> Two and a half. >> Okay. Can that What does that shed sit on? >> It's just uh cinder block. It can be moved. >> It can be moved. Okay. That shed needs to be moved at least 10 ft, minimum 10 ft from the property line. So, you have
to move it. >> Okay. >> You can't move it into the easement zone. You can only move it to its left as you're looking at it. >> Um, >> what's kept in the shed? Oh, okay. Fine. No lawnmowers, things like that.
>> All right. Um, >> yeah, there's no uh >> everything's covered. >> Um, good point. Um, so just ask her again to confirm she's agreed and we're not saying that
this is something where this is something that we know that she's just agreed to whether it's our decision or not, but um she's agreed to remove the pool, the wood deck, the walkway to the wood deck, all the stone from from the
corner of the house to the rear. >> Correct. Is that is that Yeah. Just confirm that again with her moving. >> Yeah. And also move that fence line back onto her property. And that's that's another reason why you have to move the shed because you want move room to put
that fence in there between the fence and the property line. Um so she said she understand >> what is the height of the fence right now? >> Uh what is the ordinance as far as fences in front of the front line of the house? You know it's not supposed to be
over what? Two feet. >> No. Anything over six feet requires a construction permit. >> Oh. Anything over six feet? Six. Yes. >> So, six feet or less, you're okay. >> Six feet is okay as long as it doesn't go in the front yard. >> Right. But this fence is going in the front line.
>> It's at at the corner and rear. >> Yeah. >> Oh, there's no fence beyond that. Oh, I'm sorry. I saw a dotted line at that point. >> Yeah. No, it stops to the corner. >> My mistake. I I didn't see there was no circles there. >> Yeah. As long as it doesn't break the front plane of the house. >> Okay. So, there's no fence in the front line. That's fine. Okay. >> So, they'll go with the fences then.
Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, anything over six feet, we need a permit, >> right? But it is only six feet, right? Okay. >> You need anything over six feet, you need a construction and the zoning >> you have to obviously when you're removing the stone >> two permits. Yeah.
>> Would you explain to her that even though we're so at this point we've discussed it and anything that's going beyond the property line that's next to the mechanum driveway is if it's stone has to be pulled off of that property. That little green strip right here, the little green strip that's part of this
has to be taken off. Ed, if I could just throw her out there, would it be a good idea to just block everything out and just show it to her? Like what's got to come out? >> Just block everything out. >> Well, that Yeah, >> I know we explained it, but just to show her this way to cover us. Is that a good idea or not? I'm just throwing it out there.
>> Um Okay. I don't know how we'll do that, but uh >> black magic mark just >> Well, I think that once that a resolution is written and you find the direction, then Joe >> Yeah, the resolution will give the direction. Joe and I will be the ones on the flip side to make sure that everything is going to be Yes.
>> I think we've sufficiently explained it. >> Okay. I just want to throw it out because I understand through two or three translations sometimes something gets missing. >> No, no. I I I appreciate that, but I think we've we've isolated everything that we wanted removed. >> And um Okay.
What is your opinion? I know you >> can you live with that? >> Yeah, I'm going to have to. >> No, you don't have to do anything. I'm just asking. Um, >> and that the wood fence in the back has to move to the easement line. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. It has to be
>> Well, okay. Can you put that fence in the easement or not? Is that is that allowable? Is a fence allowed to go through the easement or not? >> Yes. >> Without a we have to assume the conservation easement has to be maintained in natural state. >> Right. >> Right. But is a fence considered
non-natural state or because a fence line goes I mean I what I'm saying is it is enough of an intrusion on the easement that it has to not be in the easement >> or does it have to be on the line the end the bottom >> right does it have to be on the bottom of the of the easement line
>> it should be so that its location doesn't encourage continued disturbance in the >> area okay >> you don't need a fence but if the fence was to be on the property it should be at the boundary of the conservation e
>> okay well That's another thing we have to explain. Thank you. And I just caught that because >> would you explain to her that the fence line that's be behind this yellow here has to come in front of the yellow line. Has to go where the pool is now and
across the line there. >> Okay. Because as our engineer just said, explained to her that it's because the fence encroached into an easement. We can't allow that. It felt that they only have 10,000 square feet of this property.
>> Third of the property is an easement. >> The yellow section here is a conservation easement. >> So no, nothing unnatural can be in that area. A fence is considered man-made. >> So, you have to take the fence and move
it in front of the easement line, not into it. >> If you want the fence, >> if you want the fence, right? >> Okay. It sounds to me like she's she wants a fence. >> Yes, she does.
>> No, I won't. >> Okay. Um >> All right. Now, um we just went over moving the shed, moving the fence, removing the stone, removing the pool, removing the wood
deck, removing the walkway to the wood deck. >> Is that all that we're removing? moving the fence off the property line. Oh, back onto the property line. >> Does that sum it up, Joe, about what we talked about? >> I'm just double checking. >> Okay, double check.
>> So, I have that doesn't track. I had the only things rem I had everything remaining with the removal of the wood deck and the pool complete.
>> And then the stone driveway, 410 square ft remaining. So about 2200 square ft being removed, >> right? >> Everything >> from the house >> from the corner of the house back is removed
>> with a chain link with that chain link fence >> that's being pushed back onto their property. >> It's like 29% Yeah. So, I have us at 4,000 330.7 square ft to remain, which is
approximate 28.87%. >> That's what I got. >> So, it's a 3.87% increase. >> That's unbelievable. We got it down that much. >> Well, that's a lot of stuff coming out. >> Yeah.
>> If it's 28.87, can we say 29 just to make >> We can call it 29. Yeah, call it 29. Yeah. Round it up. >> If you want to add something, there's a really tiny stone wall towards the front on the left. >> You could throw that in for the dimminimus. I mean it could be 29 30. >> Okay.
>> I think at that >> 29 is good. >> Yeah. >> 29 is good. Okay. >> So what we what our engineer just figured out that by the time we eliminate everything we've eliminated and leave everything you're going to leave and modify everything you're going
to modify. It's going to be 29% where where 25 is allowed. So that's only a 4% increase over the 25. So, we're getting back down to a number that is more realistic on ground coverage. Could you explain that to her?
>> Lost a fortune. >> She understands that. Okay. All right. >> Now, you do understand that all of my board members have to vote for that. So, this is just something that is a discussion. I can't speak for anyone here, but this is something we've gotten
a give and take. So, uh you know, we'll vote on it and if it votes, if it it passes, then that's what she has to do. Okay. Um >> where are we? If it doesn't still all the things that were done on permit, right?
>> Yes. Everything has to go back down to 25%. >> Yes. Confirmed. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um All right. Does anyone have any questions at this time of our expert, our engineer, or of the applicant
concerning any aspect of this application? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody? Members of the public. >> Members. Yes, I will. Are there any members of the public that have any uh questions of the applicant or our
engineer at this time? >> Yes. Come on up. State your name. Give them the microphone. >> Gentlemen, >> name address. >> And I'm going to let you ask a question
and then I'm going to ask you to you can comment also. Is there anyone else out there that wants to ask a question or comment besides this individual? So that we've got you up here. Ask your questions and I swear you in. You can ask a question, but swear him in. So
>> for now, we're just asking question. >> Just ask question. >> Just asking questions now. Yes. >> Well, talking to the mic. >> Can you please I don't know if this is a question or not. Your name for the record. >> Okay. My name is Carl Sunberg. I'm on Main Avenue. I also have the adjoining property on Union Street,
>> which is what side? That'll be on the left as you're looking at the house from >> on the left. Not the one that has the fence on it. >> No. >> Okay. >> No, that's the um guy that owns the cascade. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh the question >> you're on the left. >> Yes, >> I'm on the left. >> Facing on the left. So, you're the wooded lot next to it,
>> right? >> On the left. You're facing the car. Okay. >> Now, the question I would have is the fact that nothing has been mentioned about the fact that the property height was raised about four feet. Mhm.
>> Now, I did question it with the DP because they had application in 2010 when that property was rebuilt by Joe Bard's relative and um all the things were approved that were done to that
property was with DP D standards. After they moved in, the property on the left side, if you're looking at it, where that small stone wall is, was bulkheaded with large boulders and about 10 truckloads of dirt back filled it to
level it off. >> You're talking about this property, >> that property, >> the property that we're discussing. So, your question is, >> how was that allowed? Okay. >> And what year was that done? >> That would be the year they moved in.
>> Okay. Okay. So, >> you're saying that there's illegal fill on that property? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The D also backed me up on that when I called them and talked to them about it. >> Okay. That part I'm going to swear you in after they answer this question and you'll state that on the record again. >> Okay.
>> U we'd like to know what you learned from the DP. Um but that that's the question to the applicant >> about just ask her about the filter that was brought in. Are you okay? So, she does not have an answer for that
question. No. >> Did she pay to have someone bring dirt into the property? >> No. >> Or did anybody in her family do that? What? >> Would you swear in? >> Yeah. Sir, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the
testimony you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth to help you God? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you, sir. Um, >> okay. Would you explain to us when approximately the filter as you know it went in on went on? >> Did you witness?
>> Yes. Yes. My yard adjoined and then it also goes out to Main Avenue. >> Okay. >> And I did see and I would hear this rumbling and trucks were bringing in huge boulders. Now everybody's most welcome to come out to Union Street and
see all the boulders on the property. And then it was backfilled. That property was leveled off when Menz'ses owned the house. And this is way back before Joe Bart a lot's cousin bought the house. The property had a slope to it. But now it is leveled off which
>> And that happened when on in >> right after they bought the house. >> Okay. So >> do you recall any markings or labels on the trucks that were >> No. No. Because I was looking through the woods at it, but you could hear it happening and I watched it and I
figured, so what? you know, but now it is backfilled and if you come over to my lot, you'll see it's about four feet higher. There is a wall and then the fence goes from there and then the pool goes from there and then the deck goes from there and then there's a per
pergola on top which puts it up to about the second floor. So all of this was backfilled and I watched it. What are you talking the whole length of the property or just the front >> in that back corner as you're looking at the property where that fence is that
you see there's a strip of fence across the front? >> Yeah. >> From about that part to the left. >> The front of the property here or the back? The front. >> All the way down the line. >> All the way down the line. >> All the way down the line to the back. >> So to the left side of the house. Yes. >> Not the house. The house itself
obviously >> the house. The house. Yeah. They put in new foundation. They left it on the same footprint. That was a requirement that they could only put it on the same footprint. The other requirement was that they were not allowed to have a garage. When the applicant applied with
the town for a garage, they told him he could trade off the garage for a deck. So, he took the deck off and put up a garage. He also wanted the driveway paved and they told him no, he could not do that because of the impervious
coverage. >> But the driveway has since been paved. Where's the garage? >> With the garage. >> Oh, okay. >> Wait, there's a garage. >> I don't see a garage. >> Oh, yeah. There's a garage >> at the corner in the house.
>> The attached garage. >> Yeah. He wanted a twocar and they told him absolutely not. >> Oh, so he's so he didn't change it from a onecar. >> No, no, he wanted when when they rebuilt the house on the same footprint, >> right? He wanted a twocar garage and they said no, but he could have a one if
he took down the deck in the rear. >> And you also said >> they wait, they being D or they being the township, >> the people that bought the house uh before then. >> You also said something about the driveway that it was not to be paved, but it was correct. Paved after the
fact, >> right? >> When was it paved? >> Oh, about a year or two after they moved in. It was stone. So, >> need a soil fill permit. >> So, yeah. So,
I'm going to offer a little bit of testimony. >> Mhm. >> And then we can confirm what I'm looking up with exhibits is necessary to put them on record. >> Okay. U
I'm looking at njpropyfax.com >> source for tax card information. >> Yes, >> I have the seller Menz to Horovat on September 3rd 20 2008
and then I have the sale from Horvot to the applicant on September 23rd 2019. >> Okay. Now, in aerial imagery
from nearmap.com, there is an October 2nd, 2019 aerial image that shows a truck in the driveway that was stone at the time. what appears to be fully
loaded dump truck of fill material on the right side of the property. >> Okay. >> On the driveway side. >> On the driveway side in what was a stone driveway where the McAdam driveway is. >> Okay.
And then February 2020 imagery shows the full width of the driveway area of the property line and then what appears to be the fence as we understand
it to currently exist on the survey. >> And that fence wasn't there in 2019? >> Um, >> how can you tell? In 2019, it was not present. >> Okay.
>> So, it was installed after the applicant >> after the after the purchase of the property. >> Um, >> contrary to I can't from the aerial imagery. It's not clear how much of the the lot in October 2019
because there's there's tree coverage as well. >> How much of the lot was perhaps disturbed and filled. Mhm. >> Um, but the February 23, 2020 imagery shows
uh areas of the yard that appear to either be dead grass or straw over them to be to be germinating. So, it would appear that much of the the front left around the left side to the rear,
>> okay, >> was receded. >> Was receded. which would >> which would >> lumicate the >> consistent with >> what he observed >> disturbance patterns right that he that he testified to >> do you notice any effect what you're
saying what you're telling us about the rate rising level of that land do you notice any negative effect to the property that you have on the left >> I have the lowest piece of property on Main Avenue and yes but can I blame him
for it oops I'm sorry because this has been happening everywhere, you know. >> The water is now 3 ft deep when it was about 6 in deep, >> you know, but >> every flood starts with one drop and
that's another drop. >> Yeah, I understand that. That's what I was asking if you noticed any significant change Yeah. >> between what was existing fire. >> Well, we haven't had Yes. We the last flood was very deep. It was up to my waist. So, that was >> in that area of your property.
>> Right. Now, I had thought and someone suggested because in the back of my building I have marks on the wall with every date on it from 95 showing you the depth of the water. And someone said, "Well, why don't you take a picture of that?" And I thought, you know, even
Matlock would blow that out of the water and say, "Hey, somebody did that yesterday." >> So, >> but it's your testimony that we've >> um >> and that also there's the little stream that goes along that property too, right? So essentially what they did was
they built a barrier, a repairarian barrier to prevent water from coming on their property. Exactly. >> So that's going to go somewhere else. >> The overflow goes somewhere else and it pushes it off to the rear. >> Right. >> Which is another kind of >> So your building flood?
>> Oh yeah. >> What is that? A house or >> this the store? It's on ground level. >> Oh. >> So uh and and the property it's built on the property. It's the old Metsler property and it drops off. in the back and you'll maybe have about 12 inches in
the front of the building where it meets the street. >> It's the stream that goes from Somerset across Maine, right to behind this property. Yeah. That's where he >> And it only floods when it backwashes. When the river backs up, then it comes up. You can watch it come up. And
>> there's a certain part where I know that, okay, now we're in trouble. So to align with that testimony, the FEMA maps
show the area to be in zone AE part of the flood plan. >> Okay. >> The entirety of the property, the entirety of the roadway. >> Okay. which means that any improvements since the time of D
permits to reconstruct the home are subject to D's >> flood hazarded >> area rules which means anything that is to remain on the property would require >> DP's approval
>> yes >> or their indication of a a lack of interest >> in it >> to permit it under the regulatory program. >> Okay. >> So the less impervious coverage, the less likely the D. >> So to the extent of anything that this
board considers >> to allow to remain, it still is subject to D as an outside agency before >> as is >> before CO can be issued for it to to remain because there's nothing to construct again, >> right? It's deconstruction, >> right? >> Yep. Well, I everything we do is subject
to somebody's uh approval, >> but it is comprehensive to the entirety of the lot. So, it is any of the contemplated improvements. There's no benefit to leaving certain things and not others that might be outside that flood line. >> Well, where does our authority begin and end with regard to Phil?
>> We don't have where does that lie? >> That that we have a local lock rating permit. >> Yes. right, which considers that that fill. But
to the extent that our review would be relatively cursory to the D's review of what they would know as an existing condition at the time they issued a prior permit and then a complete survey of the property too wise now. So from
their file records, they would deduce what that fill was on the property >> and what >> and then address it. Whether they choose to address it as an enforcement issue or a land use permitting issue is the discretion of D. >> Right. But we have no authority to allow
or disallow Phil. We we we can't allow Phil. We our flood plane ordinance is an NFIP coordinated ordinance. So it mimics the intent of FEMA as well as D for these
standards. So that's why I say it would be relatively a cursory review because uh the technical analysis and the punitive side of that enforcement would be D's jurisdiction that we would we
would acquies. >> Can we or should we deny an application until we know that they have all of that documentation from the D >> from as a from a land use perspective? >> I don't know >> as an engineer and not playing >> Yeah. Why don't we ask our >> attorney? I I would say there is a
balance of what we consider subject to outside agencies. >> We we we've approved applications before subject to D. >> Yes. >> So that's not unusual, >> right? We're staying within the bounds of our land use bulk regulations >> part of the conditions of approval. They have D approval.
>> It would be would have to be >> for for any fill or anything else, >> anything that was done on that property. >> Yes. And what the the >> show that to somebody for a CO before they get a CO they have to show that certificate. >> My point exactly. Okay. In that that that's the township's jurisdiction that the township will not issue a
certificate of occupancy to permit all of this to stay if the uh outside agency approvals or letter of no interest is not obtained from the D. And uh that'll be Joe and Deb that are going to be
monitoring that. So whether whether DP chooses to deal with it as a permit application and an approval with conditions that then are satisfied or they choose to deal with it simply as an enforcement issue with corrective action is their discretion. >> Right. >> And then we would
>> Thank you. I as the township engineer, not as your board's engineer, would basically echo that decision in our lock rating permit so that I could provide confirmation that the CO
could be issued because all everything is lawfully existing under all other agencies that that reported back to us >> after we after whatever variance we do we will grant or not grant but whatever we do here is always subject to that D approval. or whatever other approval
that be needed. Okay. >> All right. Um would you explain that translator? Excuse me. Miss uh would you explain that to to her that whether whatever we do here tonight has to be the D is going to have to look at her
property and give her an approval. >> That's the Department of Environmental Protection. They are a state agency. >> So if you can explain that Oh, I have to ask Joe. Did she understand that? >> Okay. And that's not that's the same as
any applicant. It's just D has to get involved in anything. That's She wanted to bring >> Well, let me explain. Neighbors testifying is they're not experts. What we're telling you about the D wouldn't matter who
testified because basically the D has to approve whatever is still on that property because it is in considered a flood zone. If this was not a flood zone, it wouldn't be subject to that. But D gets involved in any flood zone area. Anything we do, doesn't matter
what testimony is given, has to be subject to the D. >> Ask her if her neighbor has any expertise in any of these fields. I mean, >> is the neighbor an expert in anything? >> Just to make sure. >> Yeah, ask her. Yeah, >> it's hard to say.
That's probably she might have known that anybody show up >> anyone. Oh, you're talking about her neighbor, the the person giving testimony right now. >> Yeah. So, she that's why she said that she didn't know that she could bring more people to
>> you had to be. This is a public meeting and they all received notice and they could have shown up. This is open to the public. >> Everybody within 200 feet of that property, >> they received letters. >> So, they could they were free to come. This gentleman chose to come and and testify and and explain what he
observed. But no matter what he explained or didn't explain, the D still it the D approval did not we're not basing that on his testimony. That's just fact. >> I mean we we've had many applications in it before is that the D has to step in
and then say okay what you did is fine and what you did isn't fine. you have to answer to a higher uh >> okay >> for for example to the board's understanding we recently had had addressed >> the
>> the bull restaurant with a site plan approval and that included an ongoing D violation in the rear D addressed that as an enforcement issue and did not take required permitting action
this my experience with D and in these kind of situations. One, the improvements around the home that are incidental to, you know, outdoor use of patio, pools, etc. are uh permittable.
A permit can be obtained. And because of that, they tend to deal with these issues as an enforcement issue as opposed to a permitting issue because it's less punitive, cost generative to deal with the restoration and removal. Um the most significant concern they
will have is to the extent of volume displacement by fill placed in the flood plane. >> Right. Right. >> Um >> and just to be clear and just something that Mr. Rono brought up before. Um the reason why the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this and not necessarily the township. The township does have a grading permit and a fill permit that people have to obtain before they bring in fill or take fill out of their properties, but we're talking about a flood a flood area here. So,
this isn't just the township. there is there is a higher authority over the township if this uh >> especially in repairarian zones which this is because >> if this property were in an you know a general ordinary zone that had nothing
to do with flooding or riparian issues this would be a township permit but this is not a township permit because we're in this is a different circumstance. Would you ask a Somebody just pulled up a U. There's some gravel next to the to
the left of the pool beyond the uh the uh fire pit. Uh that has to come out too if the pool comes out. See the gra there's a gravel next to the pool to the left of the pool. >> Stone gravel.
Yes. Okay. >> What? >> As long as nobody goes on that landscape. >> No, that that's that's impervious coverage right there. >> Where where are you speaking to? >> To the left. There's a there's a pool. There's the pool. To the left of the pool. Next to the fence, there's all
stone cover. You know, it's it's it's basically purpose coverage. >> Yeah. To the left side. >> To the left of the pool and the fence. >> That has to come out when the pool comes out. That has to be put back to grass. >> Is that considered decorative landscaping? And that's if I'm not
>> I'm not following it. It's not hatched. >> Yeah. Come over here. >> You can see it on the photo. >> Understood. >> Yeah. That has to come out if the pool comes out. That has to be put back to grass. >> Yes. To the The board is working with conditions as
of 71125 on the survey of record >> part of the application. >> Any other improvements that were done since then >> will need to be removed. >> Right. >> As they're not part of our calculation, >> right? >> Right. >> And hence the condition of consideration
for an asbel survey. >> Right. That confirms 29% which is 4,350. >> Yeah. No more than 25 29% >> which is no more than 4,350 square feet. >> Okay. All right. Would you explain to
her that once everything is if this is approved once everything would be removed they need to have a survey to show us that and it has to as he said has to be under n under 4 what? >> 4350 square feet. 4350 ft which is
approximately 29% ground coverage. Okay, >> she she understands that. >> Okay. >> Um, okay. As of a month ago, April 9th, aerial imagery is consistent
with the survey in front of us. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. >> So, in that perspective that you're looking at, perhaps that's actually what's called out as the pavers between the pit and the pool. >> Fine. That's fine. But I mean,
removing that is part of removing the pool. the least of our >> concerns globally as to getting to that number. >> Yes. >> So the 4350 square ft is what is above the 25% that's >> that will be that will be the total
amount of impervious coverage for 29% lock coverage >> right that is the entire ground >> for everything. >> So that the same calculation done by the same or a different surveyor as the asbuilt lock coverage would then return that as the total. >> Okay. Is there anything else you'd like
to >> No, that's all. >> Well, thank you for advising us for that. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Is there any other member of the public that wants to comment or ask questions or say anything about this application? If no. >> Okay. Hearing none, I'll close it to the
public. Um, okay. This we've done a lot here and we've gotten a lot of different um things that we've explained to her. Uh, is there any other questions or or concerns of board members that we have? >> Okay. I just want to make sure that
we're hitting all these topics because there's a lot to take in. Um, okay. Um, Jerry, would you like to give us uh your deliberation? >> Sure. Um, first I would like to thank our engineer and our attorney, Joe. He
did a great job once again in favor of the And not I don't mean that uh you're leaning towards them as far as passing an application. I mean that you're you're going above and beyond to I think help them understand what they need to do to be in compliance. So thank you very much for that.
>> Thank you. >> And the rest of the board did a good job doing that also I think. Um here we are again. Um once again we're dealing with cleaning up the past and this case is a little different. Um the original testimony was that um it was somebody else, the prior owner, but as we can see
from the documentation, it was the applicant themselves that knowingly I think did this and you know contrary to the instructions they received from our town. So it doesn't start off in a good spot. Um but um since they have no
choice, they they have um agreed to move all of the improvements off of the neighboring properties. um that that they don't have authority to put on other properties. So, that's a big step. And with the help of our engineer, they
came up with a workable plan to uh to come to a reasonable uh amount of lot coverage that's still over our ordinance and still requires a variance, but I think it's acceptable to me. So I I would I would be in favor of that this
application if they were agreeable to all of conditions, especially like we said, it's even above and beyond our authority. The D approval for the for the fill that is there. It's obvious obviously there's Phil there. I've seen aerial photos myself and it's I could
see that there's Phil on that property. So >> I I would be in favor of it with with Yes. >> Uh Alex, >> um I echo Jerry's comments. My my one concern is is that the applicant isn't
here. Um and there's been a lot of discussion and and a lot of interpretation and understanding and I'm just concerned that once we once we put this forth that the applicant totally understands what what he's up against here because there's an awful lot that needs to be addressed and I'm just I'm
concerned that >> something might get lost. >> It's a lawyer point. What happens with that? It's the applicant's choice not not to be here to send uh witnesses to testify. And this young lady is is 50% of the
applicant. She's married to the gentleman. >> Okay. >> That is your husband. Francisco is your husband. >> Yes. Yes. >> This is her home. So, she is the applicant. >> Are you done now? >> Okay. Um, Jonathan,
>> yeah, I think that um it's unfortunate some of the things that happened here. Um, and I think that the applicant has stated that she's willing to adhere to our requirements. Um, and I think we've
been pretty judicious in terms of um allowing for some certain things that we feel are necessary. And I think that certain of these things would be allowable to enable them to have an existing. It's a pretty undersized lot, particularly with the easement in the back that kind of compresses where they
can put things. So, I think that we've come to a pretty good um agreement on these things and I would be amendable to approving this pending on those uh >> conditions that we have.
>> Um Paul, >> yes. uh pretty much uh piggy back off what Alex and uh I was concerned what Alex had brought up uh but you clarified. Thank you. I was worried about you know two three different translations and things like that and they would be unsure and then come back
and say you know hey I thought we were generally taking out the fence and not this and not the pool but as long as we're covered you know I feel >> that's all going to be done in the resolution. Okay, good. And uh again, engineer, the engineer Joe, he did great job. Uh like you said, Jerry, way above
and beyond. And uh we try to help out people who come here the best we can and our hands are tied with a lot of things. But um you know, this board, I speak for us, we we do our best for everybody that comes in front of us. And uh I' I'd be in favor of this. Uh of course, pending the uh D and the other block ratings.
>> All approval only goes so far. >> Yeah. But I'm I'm in favor. Yes. Thank you, Tom. >> Um, well, I wish that the applicant who signed the form was here. Uh, because what's happening on this property since 2019 isn't good. You You can't And it's
not that you didn't know about it. You knew about it. You You got a note from our our board secretary, um, one of the hats you were wearing at the time, >> zoning officer. >> Zoning officer. Thank you. That you were denied. And you went on and you did more.
You you you it's not that you tried to fix the problem that we were denied for. You put a pool, a deck, a shed after a denial for a construction permit. This is wrong. This is wrong. However, you're here now and this is what we have to look at.
Um basing the resolutions as my what my vote would be. I I will more than likely still holding uh be in approval of this with all the changes and the D first actually the changes need to be done regardless of the D
>> right D is the next level. >> Yes. Um, I uh I'm also troubled by what was done on this property, but at the same time, you came before us. We're here to try to fix it. We try to uh make
it a make it better than it was as far as the uh the impervious coverage. Uh you you do understand and we explain to you that whether this board grants it or not, and if this board does grant it, you still have the D hurdle. The D is
the ultimate people that can say this has to come out, that has to change or or not. That's that's their purview. Uh and that's not you're just your property. We've had a lot of properties that that's had to happen. So um this is
just the first step. And um I do concur with my board members that I think that with all the changes that you've agreed to, the shed, the fence, the the stone, the pool coming out, that we've gotten you down to a number that's more
manageable and less less uh engagious on the neighbors. Um, so I I would I would definitely be in favor of it, but it it's it's one of those things where I would have rather not had to do it because I would have not rather not have
it gotten to that point, but uh I would be in favor of it. So, um All right. Um would you give us a rendition? >> Yes. Uh so from the board's discussion, my understanding that the motion um and
the requ the relief that will be granted is um only the impervious coverage variance that's been requested and that's only up to 29% or 4,350 square feet total. And that's up to not
exceeding. Both sideyard setback variances are denied from my understanding from the board's uh discussion and the conditions uh that will be applied to any approval of that
impervious coverage uh coverage variance is that first any improvements made after July 11th 2025 which do not appear on the survey provided to the board must be removed. The pool and the wood deck will be removed
>> along with all of the stone and the walkway leading to the pool and wood deck. Uh all of the stone will re be removed uh from the stone driveway from the chain link fence into the rear of
the property. The rear fence will be moved so as not to encroach into the conservation easement beyond it. Uh the side fence will be removed and placed on the property line and the applicant will remove any crushed stone
from the neighboring property. Uh >> and the sideyard has the side fence can't encroach either. >> I'm sorry. >> The side fence has to be brought back also out of the ement. >> I I Yes. So yes, um there will be no fence in the
conservation easement whether on the side or in the rear. uh the applicant will need to provide an asbuilt when all is said and done at the very end once everything is completed everything's removed and that's only after the
applicant applies for and obtains approval um from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. uh that must be obtained uh before an asbelt is provided and before any certificate of
occupancy will issue. If any of these measures are not um are not obtained then this will be a violation at some point. We we'll get you a resolution in writing so that you can explain to her because
right now this is just the board voting just the board deliberating. If you want to stay after I can talk to you but um right now this board deliberating >> put anything we do will be put in writing and that writing will thoroughly explain what what has to be done and what steps have to be taken after what
was done. >> Joe is there anything else? >> Is there anything else? >> That's it. >> That's it. And oh, you might mention we're allowing this the crush stone from the property line to the Macadam drive. >> Well, we're not removing it. So, it's >> what they it was described was removal behind the chain.
>> Yes. Right. Right. Okay. That's consistent remain the other remainder stay. >> You you'd mentioned we're denying the sideyard setbacks. You said plural. I assume there was more than just the shed. >> Uh the pool required a sideyard setback. It's being
>> it's being removed. >> It's being removed. But thank you for reminding me that shed will need to be moved out of the out of the 10 foot. I did >> agree that. >> Yes. Out of the 10 foot. Well, regardless the the sideyard setback is being denied. Therefore, they have to remove the shed. So, >> well, move relocate the shed to another
point on the property beyond the 10 foot setback. That's all. >> Yes. >> So, that that would be the motion chairman. Okay. based on the discussion that the board's had. If the if any board member has anything to add or subtract, >> does that comport with everybody's uh
>> She did a good job of our lawyer did a good job of capturing. >> She always does. >> Thank you. >> Uh do I hear a motion to approve based on the uh what the Okay. Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Rosenberg? >> Yes.
>> And Mr. White? >> Yes. >> Mr. Romeo? >> Yes. Mr. Zidrosny, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff, >> reluctantly yes. >> Chairman correct? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> So we we have now approved it on our
level and the resolution will be done, but you have to follow what's in the resolution and D has to be uh involved. >> Reminder, the resolution is the written document. >> Yeah. Is the written document >> of what they're allowing you to do. >> It memorializes everything we said tonight.
>> So thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay, good luck. >> Good night. >> Good luck. >> Good luck. >> Take care. >> Excuse me, miss. >> Does the board want to take a quick recess? >> Just a Yeah, quick fivem minute recess. We're back at uh Okay, we're back.
>> 9:20. >> All right, the next application is a bulk variance block 13509, lot 2, zone R-20, previously R4, 83
Gates Avenue, application number 25-29Z. Jessica Sage, applicant is requesting relief for impervious coverage. >> It's actually actually not Sage. It's how do you say it? S >> S I'm sorry. >> Yeah, it's a Q. >> It's Oh, I didn't see that. I'm sorry.
My eyesight. >> I know. I know. >> Yes. Um All right. So, does she want to sit over here so she can see us? You don't You don't >> The back of your head's very nice, but >> I know. Sorry. We don't have great
microphones, so it's a little loosely. >> Don't get your phone. >> Fun to navigate. >> Yep. Use Augie. Use the microphone. >> Grab the table. Maybe. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> How about that? Yeah, that's better. August Santo Jr. on behalf of the
applicant. And we have Mr. William Hollows here from Murphy and Hollowos Engineering and he will be our first witness. >> This is a lot coverage varies. >> Hang on, Mr. Hollow. >> I'm sorry. >> Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this
application would be the truth? So help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. And you're going are you going to qualum qualify? Okay. >> Uh Mr. Hollowos, can you just take us through your CV and um indicate the current status of your license? >> Well, my license was just renewed, so it's in good standing.
>> That's great. >> I am a licensed professional engineer, land surveyor, and planner in the state of New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> And you you've testified here once or twice. >> Yeah, once or twice. >> All right. Um can you take us through >> just for the record, we deem you as an
expert. >> All right. Thank you. Um, Mr. Hollis, can you take us through the existing conditions, please? >> Yeah. And I have a a handout that uh >> and we have not received that prior.
>> It's colorized. It's colorized and it's just reduced. >> So, we'll mark this as exhibit a >> A1 and with the date, please. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> The drawing that I passed out is is a colorized version. Really just the detail area of of the subject property. Just thought uh 11 by7 be a little easier for you to read than trying to look at the 24 by 36
drawing here. But the property is known as 83 Gates Avenue. It's on the southerntherly side of Gates Avenue, 62 feet from Torbert Road. And this is a part of Torbert Road that is not improved across the street. It does go out to Long Hill Road.
The property is I said 83 Gates Road lot 2 block 13509. It's 60 ft wide by 150 ft deep which has 9,000 square feet lot area. It is in the
R20 zone was the R4 zone which requires 20,000 square feet of lot area. So, we're we're here for coverage variances and we're already deficient because our lot area is 9,000 square feet. And I'd say if you looked at the area map on your drawings, you can see that most of
the lots in this area don't meet that R20 requirement of 20,000 square feet. The property's improved with a two-story frame dwelling with a onecar attached garage. It has a
driveway that has a width of 20 feet. Um to the rear of the property there is a a deck off the back of the house and there's a shed um off the back of the house which is in violation but
uh we would we would move that to 10 ft off to make it conforming. And then the back third of the property is really not something that's usable. Um, it's pretty steep there and it's a wooded area.
And this house, which is probably pretty important to this application on the front of the house is on grade and the back of the house, it's a walkout basement. So essentially you're saying that's a very decent change in pitch.
>> Yeah, there's a pretty good size slope, but it even gets steeper in that area. I said is really not usable for uh for outdoor living. Um we're here we because of the lot coverage and just
want to get those numbers for you. >> We're allowed 25%. We're at 30.3 technically, but we're but there is a provision in the ordinance that if we put 6 in of gravel under the deck and we put six
inches of gravel under the shed that we bring can bring that number down by 50% as far as the lock coverage for the the deck and the shed which gets us down to 28.6. So, Mr. Hollows,
>> Mr. Hollows, is on. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Now it's on. >> There we go. Mr. Hollows, you had a kind of an interesting uh history with this property. Correct. >> Yes. I I have been engaged with this property a couple of times previous to
this engagement tonight. >> So, when I reached out for you about it, you're like, "Hey, I worked on this." Correct. That's correct. >> All right. So, specifically, what is important about your prior understanding, and can you walk us through what kind of when you first got engaged with the property, what you
remember it to be, the plans you drafted, and just kind of walk the board through a little bit about the evolution of how we got here? >> In 2009, Murphy and Hollows prepared a plan, a lot grading plan for the existing house with an addition. Another addition was
really on the easterly side of the of the property and it was um also a little entrance way or a little bump out on the westerly side of the property. As I recall the plans were by Bob Coleman,
local architect and at that time that application when we did that plan we did the the full grading plan with zoning etc. There was no deck on the house or no proposed deck for the house
at that time. Fast forward, well, not really fast forward too far because uh the people that we did the work for in 2009 sold the property 2014 >> 2014 and they also gave the applicant
the architectural plans for that addition. >> Had the addition been built at that time? No, the addition was not built. >> Okay. >> In 2019, I was engaged to prepare a storm water management plan.
Storm water management plan only. At that time, the architect did the whole zoning criteria um for that for the house. But subsequent to that time, sometime
between 2009 20ou 2014, a deck was constructed on the back of the property. So I did a storm water management plan which really is that came out to be a a dry well six feet deep in a 10 x10
gravel pit and that more than covered the area of new impervious coverage at that time for the for the addition only more again more than covered I needed a little over three feet of volume in the in a drywall the drywall six feet deep.
So I still had some volume left left over there. >> So fast forward a moment to where we are now. Is it your not that you specifically testified to it, but can you explain
about the existing drywall and how it deals with the current conditions and coverage that's on the property? Does it satisfy those criteria? >> It does actually. the drywall sizing, the six foot or the additional volume that's left in the drywall would take
care of the additional impervious coverage for that 3.6% of of additional runoff that um from the addition here. >> Okay. And I I think that's the important
thing here is that really the the uh additional impervious coverage from the addition to the house um or should I say the coverage over and above which I think really is the deck
was never accounted for. I think that's and you know looking at the architectural plans and kind of looking at the numbers of what the deck is that seems to be where we're deficient and it it more than covers for that uh the increase in previous coverage or the the variance that we're looking for that
3.6%. >> What is that material to the left of the deck there? >> It's gravel. >> It's a gravel area. >> And what is that for? >> Just >> is it can be used for a patio or what is it for?
Yes. >> Do you swear? Right. Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth so help you God? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Please state your name for the record. >> Jessica Sache. >> Thank you. >> Could you explain what that area is next to the deck there?
>> Right now it's just all gravel and there's four um Green Giant evergreens right there. So >> it's a landscaped area. >> Yeah. You just walk through sideways. >> Okay. I I was just curious because I know that uh Mr. Hollow said that you're
going to have gravel under the deck, but that is not what you're talking about where that where that material is and there's evergreens there, right? >> Well, there there's already gravel >> under the deck. >> There is gravel under the deck. It's just that we have to bring it up to six inches.
>> Okay. But is that a continuation of the same gravel that's alongside the deck there, or is that different? >> I think it's the same. >> Same. Okay. Did you put that there? >> What was the reason for putting that gravel there as opposed to grass? >> Um, it's pretty.
>> So, it's landscaping. >> Landscaping. Okay. And does that is that factored into the impervious, Joe? >> I can I can answer that. No. >> No, it isn't. >> No, because it's landscaping. >> Okay. >> As a feature. Yeah. It's not >> Okay. >> Like the previous application, when you
drive over it, it becomes like pavement. >> Fine. This is >> So, in other words, taking it out would reduce anything. >> No. >> Okay. >> You drive over it, you use it as a patio area and you're tracking your feet and compacting it over time. >> That's fine. Okay. >> But if it's just ornamental, >> it's loose, it still provides
infiltration. Water drains. >> I'm just clarifying that because >> is also consistent with Mr. Hollis recalls for our code. There is a consideration for a 50% reduction of the impervious coverage of
a deck if it's built with the proper slotting to allow drainage underneath and then stone with what would be a depth of 6 in total underneath it. >> Sounds good. >> So there's some lenency there for that deck area of the impervious coverage on record.
>> Okay, good. So, how did we get >> two feet beyond the plan on the house? >> And I was just going to jump in and say, let me tackle that because I think that's the elephant in the room. >> So, Miss Sache, can you just take us
through the evolution on how that particular how you were alerted to the issue and and kind of what was explained to you to bring it to that point. The contractor just >> You can move the mic down so you can see. >> The contractor just told me that he
accidentally measured two feet too far and then he said that he took out a little bit of the Well, he took out the front closet that I was supposed to have in the house and he said that it >> Oh, so that little bump out to the left was made smaller. >> Yeah. And then he said that would be fine. >> Okay.
>> Obviously using >> it's not just that. I think that Mr. can kind of it's a it's a variety of things but some of it has to do with the deck >> correct yeah much >> yes much
>> miss Sache just on that point the deck was existing home correct >> yes >> okay >> so I want to I want the board to just clearly understand the evolution of this she inherited a house with a deck the
only thing she did with the deck was there was a small piece and is that correct? Like that area right there with that line. I know. >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't know if you can see the next to the word where it says deck and steps. >> Oh yeah. >> See where it says deck and steps? See
where the amperand is? >> Yeah. >> You see the black solid line to the right of the amperand? >> Yeah. >> That black solid line is an area of the deck that she added to tie to the house. Correct. >> Okay. So that's the only thing that she did with the deck. But the deck was already up and then everything else was really
just that issue. >> Correct. >> So what was there to the right? There was no deck there. In other words, >> it was just free floating. >> Oh, okay. >> I don't know why they didn't anchor it didn't make any sense. She kind of
finished it because I think it was okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. All right. Um, any more testimony for Mr. Holland? >> Unless there's a question. >> Well, yeah, I was gonna I was going to have the questions. Go ahead. >> Um, so the existing dry well that was
was that a condition of a variance for the original? >> No, I don't believe there was any variance. I I as I recall and I I looked at the the architectural plans when they went in for the building permit for the addition had it in compliance. Um,
>> so those voluntarily constructed I think the uh in order to get the building permit they wanted a some sort of storm water manage >> disturbance requirement or something like that. >> It's more like this they wanted storm water management for the additional impervious coverage. Okay, >> that's why
>> so and but just so I I'm pretty sure I understand it. Just to be clear, all of the improvements, whether they were part of the plan or not, or you know, made in addition to what the contractor was supposed to do, all of that you're in your expert testimony here, you're
saying that that drywall is sufficient to cover the requirements for all of that extra stuff that was built. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> If I could. So, there was an additional addition. Initially, there was an
addition on by the prior owners. >> They didn't. They didn't build it. >> Okay. So, they had all the paperwork and everything and they had the permits all ready to go and then Miss Sasha went with the building. >> I don't know if they had the permits. I know that we had done a plan form, but I don't know if they went and went for
building permit or not. >> Could you ask your client to Did you get the permits? >> Can you explain that the time because there's a time gap here. So, can you just walk through that? So, I when I bought the house, the blueprints came with it and I was under >> 2014 and I believe they they said that
they was it was already approved. Um then >> uh 2019. >> So, you were the one that went to the construction board uh office and got the permit. >> The construction um my contractor came to get the
>> So, but you initiated that >> with the contractor. Yeah. Did you have anything to do with going to get the permits or the contractor took care of everything you just paid? >> I just paid. >> You just You just paid and didn't know you had two feet on. >> Okay. >> And what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong, Mache, but
>> the plan never showed the two feet. He just built it wrong. Correct. >> He He said he measured wrong. >> Measure twice, cut once. >> That's right. That's the thing we say, right? >> Dig once. >> That's right. Well, you got a bigger house, but you're missing a closet.
>> Exactly. Bad, right? Closets are important. >> The good news is you got two feet. The bad news is we took out your closet. But I think that just so the board is a little bit aware of this really none of this came to Miss to your attention, Mace. Correct. Until such point in time as you went to get your CO.
>> Okay. So CO triggered the Okay. >> Question. Go ahead. >> So when when was the CO? >> Good question. I don't have a co. >> Well, when did you first go to get it? Were you this came to your attention?
>> So, in 2019, the contractor told me that he applied for a temporary CO and that it was approved, which is why I moved in. >> Okay. Then when I needed um the mortgage wanted a survey, I asked Deborah um what else I
needed and she said I needed the final as >> as bills, right? >> And then when I got that to her, she then told me that I was over. >> So this has been going on for five years then. Is that >> more than five years? >> Two that I two that I contacted her
maybe. >> Okay. Yeah. So, >> so I was unaware cuz I thought I had a temporary co the whole >> I understand. So, when you went to finalize it, you were aware when you made when you finally had the asbuilts done, which is we have here, it showed the discrepancy and at that point you
went ahead and got your ducks together and got the Okay. >> Y I get to be the bearer of bad news. >> Yes. >> I guess my question because it seemed like a long >> Yes. >> Yeah. It seemed like a long period of time in between the construction and today that's why I was wondering what
was the impetus of this coming before us but it's all been a slow roll I guess to that >> a bit you have co all the way mixed in there as well and then additionally >> you know I had given her a retainer proposal she had to retain Mr. Hollows so she had to start >> I understand >> understood I just I was trying to figure
out the timing because honestly I was kind of like oh why are you even here now but I guess it's because it's just taken a long time. >> Any other questions? Mhm. Okay. >> You did what you had to do. >> I I just want to clear it up if I could. So, just so I'm not on the same thing. So, all the plans, everything was
supposed to be built by the previous owners. Okay. Mrs. Sashe, am I saying it right? Sashe ended up going through and building this and unknown to her, the builder actually overbuilt the property, the the foot by two feet. >> That's okay.
>> That's definitely half of it. And the other half of it is that the prior owner put a deck on >> that wasn't approved. >> That wasn't approved. >> Right. Right. contributed to the coverage. So you're having the the oversized house with the you know slightly bigger house but the deck is really a big contributing number and Mr.
Hollow's just directly come off. It's really the nature of the other size lot and how the other size is that really triggers the change in percentage >> correct >> significant the percentage is by two feet plus a modest deck. >> And the shed was pre-existing when you
built bought the house. The shed was there. Um, there was a huge shed there and they told me it was too close to the line. So, I put the tiny one there and I went based off of my neighbor who told me where the line was. >> Okay. >> So, I thought and still
>> according to him it's 10 ft. But I know >> it isn't. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, that happens. >> It would appear to be about 10 feet from the edge of his fence. So, >> right. But his fence is 2 feet into his property, which you didn't realize. Yeah. Okay. >> Can I ask a question? Yes.
>> I know you're not asking for it, but could we give a variance for the for the shed so that she wouldn't have to move the shed or >> Well, well, at this point, no one asked for that. >> I know. That's what I'm wondering. I mean, >> covered by the notice,
>> you know. And obviously, >> yeah, >> I mean, would it only >> would you be so inclined to ask the board for >> a variance? It's just less burden ready
existing position. >> May I please have a variance for my >> Now now you got it. >> That's a good idea in the crowd to go against it. >> The prior shed was close to three times the size of the shed you see now. >> Wow.
>> Really? And it it was removed in late 2020 to early 2021 >> and replaced by the shed you see now >> in the same footprint but left oriented on the plan. >> Right.
>> So further away from the property line. It looks like it probably was >> on the property line and then inward with zero foot set back previously from the prior. >> So it's a big improvement. >> Yes. Okay. >> Sure.
>> I have two little girls. They need they need room. >> No, of course. And you know, just not only for this application, but just for the public's edification. Yes, I understand that uh the um the
catchall is in the notice and and because this is existing and anyone looking at this property knows that this shed is there. >> Um we're not requesting an approval for something that doesn't exist. But just for everyone else's edification that you know that catchall cannot be used simply
for asking for more variances once you get to the board because that becomes a very slippery slope. I will buy that for this application because this it's there. Everyone can see it. >> It's on the plan. >> It's on the plan. Anyone >> it's not to be built. It's there.
>> Yes. Any any neighbor is looking at it and anyone coming to the zoning officer to look at these plans can see that it's there. So, I'll accept that this time. >> My dad and I built that together. >> Oh, nice. >> That's so nice. >> What did your neighbor say while you
were building it? Was there any commentary on it? The location or anything? Um >> I think she mentioned she said >> he said it was that was 10 ft. He said he was like this is my line. I was like okay. >> So he he doesn't know where his line is. >> So this problem is your neighbor and builder's fault actually. It's not
nothing to do with >> I just live there. >> You just live there and pay the bills. >> That's funny. >> Okay. >> So So the sideyard setback that we're talking about, >> how much?
8 8.5 1.5 foot 1.5 deviation. Okay. >> To remain as it exists >> as existing. >> Um >> okay. So it's we'll call it an existing condition >> just like your front yard setback which is what 39.1 ft where 50 is required but
it's a pre-existing condition because that the addition went on the back not the front. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um do we have any other questions for Mr. hollows or the applicant at this time. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there any public here
that wants to ask questions of the applicant or their expert? >> Okay. Um, hearing none. I'll close. >> Oh, I didn't see them. Where did they go? Okay, you're behind the board there. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, come on up. Tell us
your name and address. And it's only question >> before we do that. Before we do that, >> the addition was to the side of the home, but it's not at a 50-ft setback. So, we
should provide the variance now >> for the additional >> for the addition because the zoning permit approval by the prior zoning officer missed the front yard setback >> from it was re it was rear of the 392, but it was inside the 50.
>> Okay. The addition was >> the addition went sideways and is at what appears to be 41 and change. >> But they but they obtained the zoning permit. >> They obtained the zoning permit but the zoning permit was issued with the failure of recognizing the front.
>> Then then we'll ratify. >> So we'll ratify that today so that that's clean for them moving forward. Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. No, good idea. >> Okay. Do you have a question of their expert or the applicant? I just want to make sure that you're not doing anything else. You're just trying
to rectify what was done in the past. >> That's my question. >> That's it. >> Wish they were all like that. That's great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can you please state your name? >> I'm Selene Penn and I'm at 90 Gates Avenue across the street and one over. >> So,
>> you're not doing anything else because the house is gorgeous. >> Thank you. But no, I'm I'm I'm over it. >> Over it. >> It was that much fun. >> Oh, man. She stole >> best time ever. >> All right, great. >> I tell everybody blood, sweat, and tears. >> Yeah, >> mostly tears.
>> Um, any other questions in the board? >> Are there any members of the public that want to comment on this application besides questions? Any comments? >> No. Okay. I I don't see. >> Nope. >> Okay. All right. Closing it for
comments. Okay. Um, do you want to give us a summation? requested. >> 28.6% >> 286 >> 28.6 >> so 28.6 >> yard.
>> Okay. What are the negative and positive aspects of this? >> I think that you know you have a house that ended up being there for the public. It's a beautiful addition. It's a modest home on
given the fact issues. So the deck is a logical component of that given the fact that is already topographically obviously it's below 50% of the
>> and no ability to increase the improvements based upon >> and it fits in with the neighborhood. certainly does my understanding >> the rest of that >> across the street >> the remaining houses are approximately the same setbacks and >> I mean from what Mr. indicated he felt
that the lot size obviously distribution. >> So we have similar lot sizes, similar positioning of housing and it doesn't doesn't impact negatively on it. All
right. Um would you Paul, would you like to start the deliberation? >> Sure. Sure. Um, again, I live in this neighborhood and I'm very familiar with the lot sizes and we actually speak about this quite frequently. Um, the
undersized uh the lot coverage issues in this neighborhood. I've actually had to go through it myself, so my heart goes out to you. Um, and uh I appreciate that you actually improve the property because there's a lot of people that will not go through this. they won't go through it and the houses are basically
falling apart in my neighborhood and it's a shame because people just are now renting them out and not doing anything with them because they don't want to go through all this process and you're going through it and I thank you for that. And um again, your lot's supposed to have 20,000 square foot for a buildable lot. You're half of that. There's really nothing else you could
do. And I do kind of remember I lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. I pass your house every day and it is a very nice house. Um, I think it used to be like a pretty much a garage shape uh years ago if I if I kind of remember. And uh the improvements you made is unbelievable. It's it's I wish everybody would do that to their their properties
in the neighborhood. You did a good job. So, I'd be in favor of this application. I would pass it. >> Jerry, >> um I think Paul did a good job of playing out the neighborhood. I I grew up in that neighborhood myself. I know uh that the lots are undized. They're
challenged with the slope and and many other things. Um, I I think you did a good job of, you know, keeping with the character of the neighborhood when you did the addition. I know the house myself. I drive by there often. I I think it looks great. I think it's an improvement. I I think you're here um
for paperwork reasons. Somehow this got caught up and you know, like we you didn't do this deliberately, right? This happened by accident as a result of something you were trying to do. So, um there's no nothing punitive I think we should assess to you. And my big constraint here as always is the water.
Like I have a problem with water running downhill and affecting a neighbor or like the person that spoke in the last application. I mean, he's affected by everything somebody builds. But, you know, your engineer testified, our engineer concurred that the uh the dry well is sufficient to handle every improvement on your property. So, given
that, I'm in favor of the application. >> Alex, >> um I drive by it occasionally treat the others. I don't I up on Hickory Tavern. Um, but you know, based upon comments from from your neighbor, you've done a
great job with it. So, I'm sorry you have to go through this this big paperwork hassle, but I would be in favor of it. >> Jonathan, >> yeah, I I don't drive by your house. I'm sorry. >> Sounds like a place to drive by. >> It sounds like It sounds like, oddly enough, it's drive
>> main part of Homestead Park. I'll go through there. Um but it sounds as if yeah you got kind of um a bad some something perhaps that uh you can take care of otherwise in in some other format here. But I think that because of
the nature of the size of the property and some of the ge top topographical um issues you have on the property, I don't see any reason not to approve this and I think um again sorry that you had to go through this.
>> Um >> I will be driving past your house on my way home tonight. I'll wave. >> We'll start daytime. >> I have to go home tonight. My wife opens me. Thank you. >> It looks uh it looks like this is a
great application. Let's get it done. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I feel the same way. Uh it it's too bad that in two cases, one neither people could use a tape measure and the other person doesn't know where his property line is. But um you know, I I
think you're making the best of the bad situation. you came before us. We're rectifying it by way of variances and you know what you've done with the property enhances the neighborhood and it's a positive effect on it. So I would be in favor of it. So uh
>> okay so the motion based on the board's discussion is to grant the lot coverage variance uh for 28.6% 6% where 25% is allowed. Also
to ratify uh two existing deviations. One the front yard setback uh at 39.1 ft uh which was ratified by a zoning
permit but the board will ratify it again uh where 50 ft is required. And another issue that was brought up by the board uh is the deviation uh from the sideyard setback for the accessory
structure. 10 feet is required, 8.5 feet is existing and proposed and um that will be the approval and the only condition that I can think of is the applicant must satisfy any outside
agency approval which includes uh completing the building permit process, obtaining the certificate of occupancy and paying any permit fees that are outstanding. >> Thank you. >> Do I hear a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> Okay. Roll call.
>> Okay. Uh, that was Mr. Groskoff. I mean, Vice Chairman, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff? >> Yes. >> Mr. White? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rooney? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zadrosny? >> Yes. >> Chairman correct? >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Good luck. >> You can take your poster with you. >> Enjoy your property. >> That's our exhibit. Technically for coffee. >> That's exhibit A. >> You can kick the poster board.
>> Good luck with everything. >> Say one. >> I think that's the next one. >> You didn't get No, that's the next one. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay. >> Where? Which one? >> Inwood.
>> In Fanwood. Oh, wow. >> In where? >> In Fanwood. Oh, I've never been there. >> Okay. Well, next time I'm up there. >> Oh, that's amazing. >> I think that that may be there. That's what ours over there. >> Bill, did you bring a
black? Yeah, we won't drive by the restroom. >> We normally put them on the outside so the public can see it if there is any. >> Yeah, right there would be good. Now, a little further back so that the wall doesn't doesn't block it.
>> Yeah, that's good. Okay. >> Yeah, that's good. >> What's the uh what's the cuisine in the restaurant? >> Italian French. >> Oh, okay. Oh, lovely. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Northern or southern?
>> Neapolitan. >> That's southern. >> Okay. >> I am building. >> Thank you. >> All righty.
>> Yeah. build. >> What about the cost to do it? >> Yeah, but he took away the closet. >> So, the wood for that went to take the closet.
>> All right. Um, guys, let's go. Ready? >> Uh, now we're going to continue with uh the bulk variance block 140 I'm sorry 14101 lot 29 zone C 866 Miles Road application
number 2601Z applicant Matthew and Ida Davenin applicant proposes an addition to a single family residence applicant is present >> correct >> and uh you have who uh testif
And okay, but who is your who's your witness >> or your expert? >> Uh, should I get sworn in now? >> Yes. >> Uh, full names Anthony Michael Tedesco, uh, registered architect in the state of New Jersey with an active license.
>> Okay. Can raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth? So, I help you, God. >> I do. And would you swear in the applicant? >> Yes. Do you swear that the that the testimony you're going to give with regard to this application will be the truth so help you God path? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> And Mr. Tedesco, when were you licensed? >> Uh I was licensed maybe three years ago I think now. >> And it's currently up to date. >> Okay. Uh >> and have you testified before us before? >> Yes. This is my third time in >> That's true. Okay. You're an expert.
Okay. >> We have to formally do that. Yep. 100%. Uh, I'll let Matt begin. >> So, my wife and I are here with the application first on the right side of our house, which
>> okay would be existing living. >> Okay. >> The existing living room is roughly 13 by 15. It shows 17 by 15 because there's a really small
bedroom by 16, you know. main issue is, you know, our our bathroom to the master bedroom is across from the eating kitchen. You know, you know, you have to walk across the dining room.
So, it's like got very You know that that's kind of the front room. We would be removing the chimney which exhausts the existing HVAC.
So putting a direct vent system and hot water heater which that's goingirectly So, there's a few things that were going on. You know, the bathroom not able to have proper parties in the house.
I feel we have the two set So, they're going to be around for a while. I'm also a remoder house. It's prop. So, the property is located in the
conservation district uh with the current and proposed uh use of the R5 single family residential. Um, right now it's shaped on a fairly irregular lot where very long, but up
where the house is located and that front yard setback, it actually kind of creates this kind of regular shape in proportion to where the existing house is located. So, we do have an existing non-conforming front yard setback which
is shown in that red dash line which does pretty much basically go through the entire existing house. Um, one of the as far as the layout and proposed location of the new addition is
the existing master bedroom is located on that east side. So, what are what we're doing is looking to essentially enlarge that with the bathroom walk-in closets um in this area as well as creating a
new family room adjacent to the existing front living room over here. Um we are so it's a proposed one-story 537 ft addition. Uh, as Matt said, master
bedroom suite, family room with a gas fireplace, and with uh this addition, we're also gaining uh 2 feet in the dining room. Um, we are requesting a bulk variance for
the front and sideyard setback. The in the conservation district, the front yard setback, the required frontear setback is 75 ft. Uh we have an existing non-conforming setback of 58.9
and we are proposing a decrease of 7.9 ft with a new setback of 51 ft. Um one thing is the adjacent lots are
uh basically the R is it R4 And then again with the sideyard setback uh right now we have a conforming uh sideyard setback but we are proposing uh a setback of 21.3 feet where 25 ft is
required. Uh the proposed addition will comply with the remaining uh yard setbacks and lot coverage. Um, we are bringing the house 4 feet forward to match um on the east side
basically to match uh the existing uh existing den we're calling it. Uh and again that goes back with roof lines. Uh we have on the second floor we have an existing bedroom here with
two windows. One of our main goal was to do a gable roof basically running all the way through the new addition in order to keep these two windows. Uh that was one reason why bringing the new addition forward.
Um, and so the the exterior we're looking to match the uh vinyl siding uh and asphalt roofing and as well as the window scheme.
There's no change to the second floor then. >> Correct. That's going to remain. >> Okay. >> Is the front of the house going to look the same? >> No, it's going to have >> No. So, this basically this is the this area is the new addition. What we're doing with our
>> making it look symmetrical. >> Exactly. >> So, you have peak peak. >> Yeah, I see the peak on. Yeah, you don't have that now. I got you. Uh any questions for their expert? >> Uh just there there was no other people sitting behind there their Okay. Wait a
question. Just I have something on my mind. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. Um, so what you're the only variances you're asking for then are um you're actually diminishing an existing non-conforming use that was provided by variance reducing the
intensity on that one and you're asking for a sideyard setback. Other than that, >> correct? >> So the project is completely conformed. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> Any other questions for his expert? Any
questions for the applicant? >> Yes. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, how far away is your neighbor's house from the property line? >> On the side of the >> side that you're building on. >> Yeah.
>> Sassifrass that >> No, that's the other side. >> The other side. Okay. right away right away that goes to a house in the back but to the I might ask that to the edge of the gravel uh to
where the new addition would be 19. >> Okay. So that gravel road is between your houses. >> Oh the property line. Okay. But I would say house to house new house. >> Okay. Thank you. Quite a test. So there's a there's there's a rightaway
there by filed map >> that's serving it as as a >> that is not accepted by the municipality. >> Okay. >> So it is correctly shown on the survey that it's part of his lot.
>> So the neighbors private driveway is within a paper street um and has no purpose as a right away anymore. It is an area that could vacate and the private access would be between the
neighbor and the >> right question. >> I was just getting an idea for the distance between the actual structures. So it's the other pretty significant. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure. >> So your neighbor I guess your neighbor to the south I guess is there is it
>> the house is >> I guess because where where the road kind of curves right is there I guess I figured it was the south but I guess it's to the east >> well that right away if that's going parallel to the uh eastern side of my
house there's no >> no I'm saying on Myersville cuz my house curves up >> right over here. So here's the curve of Marsville Road. >> So there's a house on the curve, right? That's very close to the road, right? >> Oh, on the other side of Linda's house. Yeah.
>> Yeah. A little >> Yeah, they're very close, right? >> Lot 30. >> Yeah. >> Oh, no. You're right. 30. >> Okay. That's one right up. >> Yeah. Okay. So there is >> goes right behind. So, so there are other houses in your
neighborhood that are even closer to the road than where you are. >> Okay. >> Could you speak closer to the mic? >> And and just to clarify, I guess a question um from a couple seconds ago. So, you're not looking to improve on any of your setbacks. You're actually going
into the setback further on both the side. >> Correct. It's a Yes. >> You are decreas Okay. You're increasing the >> We're asking for more relief for the setback. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Any more questions for his expert or the applicant?
>> I have Go ahead. >> I mean, you have huge lot. There's no problems with water runoff or anything like that that we're going to end up going to your neighbors or anything like that. >> I got all piped >> going out to the back. You have a huge lot.
It's there's 250 ft of depth on both sides. >> Right. Right. And the addition when you put your leaders, I'm sure you go right out the back. You have plenty of room. >> Exactly. Just so I know where I'm at. Are you the house with the tennis court that was there or is that the one next door? >> That was that was Frank's house that was further down Sassifr.
>> Okay. I was just trying to figure out where Okay. >> Yeah, >> I was mixing up. Okay, I got you. >> He's one of the SAS addresses. He's actually or was 33. >> So, he's two doors down from >> Yeah, I see him. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Courts are still there. >> They're still there. Okay. >> Y >> good. All right. I don't have anything else. Any other questions for his expert or the applicant? Uh I don't see any uh uh audience any so I will close it to the audience.
Um okay any other testimony? >> Do you have any other testimony? >> Oh no. I'm sorry. >> Okay. No, I just wanted to know uh if you wanted to sum up your reasons for the uh addition or say uh that you know any other
>> reasons why we should grant it. >> Um I don't think I said enough. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Dasco, would you just go over the fact of any negative or positive impacts on the neighborhood that you see?
Uh, I mean, as far as negativewise, I mean, we are right up against the, uh, property lines and everything, hence why we're here for asking for the relief. >> Um, you know, as far as location of the new addition, he does have an existing
tiered deck in the back. Um, the way the house is set up with the kitchen and everything, it all made sense proportionally. And as far as programwise for the placement on the east side, >> um positivewise, I mean, we're, you
know, we're keeping true to the existing kind of footprint and design of the house. Um, you know, we're not building anything monstrous and, >> you know, >> so it's keeping with the neighborhood. Uh, >> correct.
>> Yep. >> Uh, Paul, you want to start deliberation? >> Sure. Um, I I I don't think there was much you were really asking for other than set uh the side setbacks, which is it's actually good that you come here. We finally have somebody who has the proper
lot coverage and everything else, especially in that neighborhood. It's like >> I almost don't even know how to answer right now because, you know, you I'm like a broken record. You're undersized. The lot's undersized and you come here, you have a lot, you know, 20 times the size of everybody else. >> You have a builder that measures, right? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. I guess you'll be getting most of >> it. A big mistake. >> Yeah, I'm I'm in favor of it. I don't have any problems, >> Jerry. >> Well, thank you for getting approval before you actually build your house. >> That's unique. >> But but seriously, it's it's this is
dimminimous. I think you're 3.6 feet or something from the >> from the requirement and it's you have plenty of space between you. It doesn't it doesn't affect our zoning plan or our ordinance in any way that I believe. There's no negative impact at all. As a matter of fact, I think it's going to be
a positive impact. You're going to improve that property. You're going to have a beautiful house there. So, I'm in favor of that. >> Alex, >> nothing but an asset to the to the area. Really nice design and plan. Really well thought out and well done. I appreciate it. I appreciate the due diligence. I
definitely be in pos in favor of it. >> Jonathan. >> Yeah. I just, you know, it's 10:15. And I agree with everybody >> and but just to say I do >> I do drive by your house a little more than the other house. >> Okay. >> I drive by your house a lot.
>> I agree. It's 10:15. Um >> and yes, >> Nick. >> Yes. I I concur with my fellow board members. I I think that you're making your house more usable. Obviously having the bathroom where you don't have to run out of your room and go across the the
whole house and uh making the house more utilizing and making it nicer to look at from the street and and improving the neighborhood. So we do appreciate that. It does upgrade the whole area. So I would be in favor of it. Thank you. >> Okay. Would you go over?
>> Sure. The approval being sought front yard setback 75 ft is required. However, 58.9 ft is existing while 51 ft is proposed. So, this is a variance uh for the front yard setback which is actually
being decreased. >> Um the sideyard setback what is required is 25 ft. What's existing is 38.1. Also, it's decreasing down to 21.3 requiring that variance. Um and there is
no impervious coverage variance necessary for this. Uh the only condition for this is uh for the applicant to apply and obtain the proper permits and the certificates of occupancy, pay for all proper permits and uh obtain any outside agency
approval that might be required for building. >> Do I hear a motion? >> Hold on. So just >> because of the way it's shown on our tax map. >> Okay. and that we're providing a setback
variance on that easterly side of the property. We're providing a setback on record to the property line in the center of the paper street. Right. It would be prudent that we
recommend the applicant seek the vacation >> right away from the governing body. which I can then duly support because there is no there is no planned development of a roadway that would
benefit access to other properties off of that paper street. >> Okay. So, is this a a recommendation or a condition? >> I think it's a recommendation. >> Okay. >> And the reason being that the variance we're providing for setback is to that
center line. So we may want to just reflect the distance. It was 29 16 ft, right? It was 29. What was the set back there? 20 sorry 20 21.5 >> 21.3
>> 21.58 to the other location. Yes. 21.3. >> Um >> Joe, are you recommending that we do that? say they deny the >> my concern my concern is that my concern is that the corner of that
house is at or in the paper street. >> So that matter should be >> the corner of this house >> corner of the addition being proposed. >> Okay. actually in the paper street is I mean the measurements showing
213 on the plan to the rightway line or to the center of the paper street the center of the titled area so that I would assume that's 25 ft into the property which means that the corner of the house is in the paper street there's no purpose
to that paper street >> right >> you can't approve that then Uh >> so it's effectively vacated by the development pattern in the area >> and the town doesn't recognize that didn't recognize. >> Right. So but the town the whole town
holds rights to it >> if it was to be constructed and dedicated to us which it will never be. >> So in lie of that vacation the alternative is a license agreement in the township. >> Okay. So that would be a condition that
he would Right. So the setback typically we take our setback to the rightway line, >> right? >> Not to the property line of the title paper street. >> Okay. >> If we're providing variance relief, we're basically providing variance rel to what would appear to be zero foot set back in the paper street.
>> Okay. >> We can clarify it the dimension into the to the center line and to the paper street right away. And we just recommend you go to the governing body and ask get that cleared up. >> Okay. So then the sideyard setback that
we're actually that's actually being proposed as you say is is >> I think we should quantify it as both. It's 21.3. >> Yes. >> To the center line >> to the to the to the property line by title >> the meets and bounds description.
>> Okay. >> And then it doesn't appear to be the true center line of the 50 foot right away. So that would have to be measured off of the survey. Really? How How far is
>> I can I say something? >> Yeah. >> I just had the survey done redone. >> You did? Yeah. Yeah. >> Even though I wasn't gonna I asked Debbie said, "Do I need to do I had to because um I just figured we had time
play it safe. It's over 10 years, right? I thought it might have discrepancies going down SAS France, right? I want to see if I had any rights. I do title search. I wanted to check SAS, but obviously because the size of the lot, but I have no egress there anyway building.
Yeah. >> Make a long story short, when they did the when they shot it, it was in the middle of that gravel, which I know isn't beneficial for me. saying that by the direction you're going with this and I know on this survey shows that the
paper street or the gravel has meandered onto the other side. So my property line is on on the side of it, not in the middle of it, but it's not correct. >> When I was with the guys when we did the survey and I have the pin still in the
road. Yeah, there's a there's a there's a pin in the gravel to through the 50 foot rightway right at the bottom and that's basically the far edge of the improvement area. >> But what you're saying is since it's a 50 foot right away then
>> in theory would be 25 ft towards you which would mean that the corner of your home is proposed in the paper street. I mean 21 to 25 you have my full support and endorsement to get vacation with the governing body
>> but if we if the they don't vacate it then we need a condition that he gets a license agreement for it. >> Okay. >> Unfortunately. >> Okay. >> It has to be one or the other. Yeah. >> What is a licensing agreement? A license agreement is the
>> town allowing you to build in an area where they hold restriction rights over the title which is the paper street. >> So the town owns holds the right reserved right >> to develop >> except to accept the road if developed
by a private party and dedicated to up to standard. >> Okay. And so and because that will never occur because of the properties to the rear unless further subdivision to then need the access instead of the planning variant from MLU.
>> It's effectively already addressed that most of our community has paper streets that we don't have to vacate because they've already been developed or constrained out from needing to be vacated. >> Okay. >> In this condition, your your corner of your house is probably in that paper
street. So, our condition would be to get at the TC a license agreement from the TC. >> Okay. So, >> or have them be. >> It's not a recommendation. It's a condition. >> I think it has to be a condition. >> It has to be a condition >> because we're not confident that he's outside of that paper street,
>> right? >> Until your final survey, >> unless you can unless you can demonstrate that you're outside of the paper street. Is that >> uh the survey that you said you just updated? >> No, the one we have is dated 2012.
>> Yeah, the one >> by the time the resolution is adopted. >> Y >> I think we can coordinate this to know the answer to that condition. >> Yes. Yeah, I I referenced the 2026 survey. >> Okay.
>> You're working off the cat from >> Did you ever email him? >> Y not scale. >> No, no, not he originally it was scaled and then it was the cat. >> So you guys have the right one. >> Oh, >> I didn't want to pay to have
>> Joe. This is have this one. This is the the latest one. >> So that shows the >> doesn't show the addition. >> Your prior survey they located the gravel road.
>> Yeah, they located the gravel road incorrectly. >> Okay. So they Okay, I had the wrong electronic one then. Yeah, this makes more sense because >> your plan matches >> matches this one >> matches the current 2026 CAD file.
>> We don't have that one. >> We don't even have that. Even better. >> Even better because then that gives us from the existing corner of the house 38.1 ft >> to the property line which is not the
center of the right. >> Okay. So that's even better. >> So it's a non-issue. So the 38 So the 38 381 and then how far are you going out to the foundation
>> to >> how far is the addition going out? >> Uh in width >> the 21 the 218 >> 17T 10. Okay. So, >> oh, I'm sorry. 16 ft and then with the
fireplace 17T. >> Yeah. So, he's he is outside of the paper. >> Okay. So, we don't have to condition. >> We don't have to condition anything. >> Okay. >> I recommend you talk to the TC and ask them to vacate it. >> Is is it the government that owns that
rights to that street or the township? >> The township. >> The township holds reserved right to accept the road if it was to be developed. Unless they >> the drive. We can't accept the driveway if it's improved. It has to be a full municipal with roadway inspected and
accepted. >> So that will frankly never occur. >> So the 20 >> 21.3 foot set back >> that we're giving variance relief for,
>> we can parenthetical that to the paper street right away and get your dimensions. >> Okay. >> Before we finalize the resolution. Okay. Okay. So, it's gonna be roughly like a foot. >> A foot. >> Yeah. >> So, our relief should give that to him in case somehow something happens and
subdivides those other lands and necessitates the road being constructed >> and you're going to have a house on the corner of >> Yeah. Or you can see it here. This is the right away. So, it just it makes it
>> Yeah. That little dimension there is probably about a foot. >> Yep. foot and a half to two feet. >> Okay. >> Okay. If you if you can do No, that would be great. Okay. So then then the relief that's being granted for the sideyard is 21.3
>> to the paper street >> to the property line >> to the property line. Now to the paper street right ofway it's about one or one or two feet less than two feet. >> Less than two feet is what is what the board would be approving. >> Okay. And again, the only conditions because
we're not going to condition it on um vacation. >> You're good. >> Because we're good with that. But um still the condition for obtaining all of the proper permitting for this. >> Sure. >> And certificate of occupancy. >> Yeah.
>> 10:15 was too early. >> Hey, we're still under the under the >> Do I hear a motion? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Mr. Rosenberg. >> Yes. Vice Chairman Grosk, >> yes. >> Mr. Ronio, >> yes. >> Mr. Zadosnney,
>> yes. >> Mr. White, >> yes. >> And Chairman Grant, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. Yours was the easiest one. >> Despite this other little >> Yeah, that's not >> wouldn't be a board meeting.
>> Okay, we are journed at 10:30. >> Do we have a motion? Motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Crap.