Okay, we're on the air. All righty. I call the zoning board of adjustment to order the May 20th, 2025 uh meeting at 7:34. All right. Call to order an statement of
compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting/her hearering has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting/hering dates on the municipal bulletin board by sending a copy to the echo sentinel and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Any meeting standard board procedures any
meeting/hering conducted by the board is a quaso judicial proceeding. Okay. Um any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial
meeting/her hearering must be maintained at all times. Meeting cutoff announcement is made that is a matter of procedure. It is the intention of the zoning board of adjustment not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or special meeting/hering of
the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting/hering to a slater specified cutoff time. Electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any or any other electro electronic devices as do not
interrupt the proceeding. Pledge of allegiance. Tom, would you lead us please? Gladly. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Uh, roll call. Yes. Mr. Aronio is currently absent. Mr. Geonautis is currently absent. Mr. Rosenberg here. Mr. Watts is excused this evening. Mr. Zadraznik here. Mr.
White here. Vice Chairman Groskoff here. Chairman Gre here. Chairman, we have a court. And just to for the record, Gary said he'd be here tonight, so I hope nothing went wrong, but he should be coming in pretty soon hopefully.
Okay. The first matter of business is an extension request for block 11606, lot 17 and 18, zone B-15, the address of 224-230 Main Avenue, application number
21-03Z. It's 224230 Main Street LLC. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Frederick Zelli Postpolic on behalf of the applicant. As you know, we still have a sewer moratorum in the township and have since the approval has been granted. Uh for
that reason, nothing has been done physically on the site. Therefore, by the nature and the wording of the resolution, we would be expired as to our variances. Uh pursuant to section 21 of the MLUL. However, uh since there is a legal action having been taken by the township, specifically the moratorium
itself, uh that uh expiration has been told. Uh but what we're requesting this evening is just really as a precaution seeking an extension from the board to formalize it. But we will reserve our right to argue tolling if at some point the final deadline is uh something we
can't handle. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, the uh Mr. Zeli could correct me if I'm wrong, but the uh the date of the notice of adoption of the resolution was February 24, 2022.
Uh so therefore one year later February 2423 would have been the expiration of the one-year period to commence construction. Uh the uh section 21 provides for up to three one-year extensions all of which can be requested
and granted at once and all of which uh or each of which could be a requested nonp prunk after the fact. In other words, after the one year first or second year expires not outside the third year. Exactly. So, I take it Mr. Zeli is requesting on behalf of his
client with that reservation of rights uh a effectively a threeyear 3 one-year extensions bringing the uh deadline for commencing construction under section 21 at least uh to be February 2020 I'm
sorry, February 24, 2026. Uh would that be correct? That is correct. Thank you. Yeah, I just got lucky and guessed that. the the um the uh so then that would be before the board and certainly the standard is if it's if the applicant I'm paraphrasing
because I'm not looking anymore because this I've been doing this a day or two now they the they the um is barred uh direct directly or indirectly by basically out things outside the control of the applicant uh third party agencies
etc. uh and the sewer moratorum the board can certainly find that that fits within that uh uh uh category. Um so the board does certainly has the jurisdiction to grant that those three one-year extensions.
So it's still working though. Leave it to the board. Still working. All right. Um does anybody have any questions of Mr. Zelli pertaining to this extension before we vote? Okay. Uh just to bring up your speed, uh
the application number 21-03Z, which was the main street across the street from uh town hall, they're asking for three three one-year extensions to put it out to 2026, February 2026. When you say across the street from town, it's no from Stony
Hotel. Oh, okay. You know that those two buildings that we're going to knock down and build one. I'm familiar with them. Yeah. Yeah. And they uh they need an extension because they can't build with the sore van. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, which is one of the board attorney's favorite phrases along with prudence dictates, uh the the the uh
since we already had five board members, uh it may be uh preferable uh for board member Janakus not to vote on this one extension, certainly glad you're here for the other two. The other two I can There's three extensions. All at once. He's doing it all. It's a
it's a it's a all in one. A three in one, as they say. All right. Um I I don't see the problem, but that's okay. Um it's not like we heard that much information. Um all right. With no questions being heard, do I have I do have one question. You do. Go ahead. Are there any plans in place now or
contemplated that you know of uh to make any uh design changes to what was already previously? No, not that I've heard of. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, that's a good question. All right. Um Okay, hearing no other questions. Do I hear a motion to grant the extension?
So move. Do I hear? Okay. Roll call. That who made the motion? Mr. Rosenberg. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. Vice Sherman Groskoff. Yes. Mr. Sedra. Yes. Mr. White. Yes. And Chairman D. Yes.
Motion carries. All righty. Thank you all. Thank you. Now you put your other hat on. Yeah, it's coming. It's still flashing red. It is here. Cheap batteries. Not even flashing. It draws a lot. The light's supposed to be green
though, right? Maybe they put old batteries in the lazy mic and old batteries. I'll have to set up what you guys should be a rock and roll. Recharge one. Yeah.
Next one that plugs in. No. No. Actually, this this is better than the wireless one is much better. We should have all wireless because we we usually we should have two because sometimes there's uh audience asking a question and the other guy has to answer it. They have to give the mic back and
forth, right? These are good mics if they're powered correctly. It's actually a good idea. Mr. Zel, you again? It would appear. Seems like you're always here. Ed, you want to save that comment for the annual report, please?
[Music] Why is there a knot in this thing? It's just making it less. Is that bothering you? No, but it's making less less long. Yeah, you need every inch you can get with that. Yes. You'll see.
our engineer and fix her upper. All right. No, I I All right. The uh the next matter that we have is a bulk variance block 101- 0106 lot 17 zone R2 known as 23 Poppy
Place application number 25-03Z. Applicant is Brian Oliveria. Applicant is proposing to install an ingground pool in the rear yard of the property. Is both the applicant and his representative here? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. And I see you have
a witness. I do. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of the Can we swear everybody in first? Do that first. Let's swear everybody in. If everybody will raise their right hand who's going to testify, including our board professionals, do all do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. I do. I do. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, while I'm hot, uh, if I may, the the I did have an opportunity to review the notice. Found the content to be sufficient. Found it to be timely served. Certified mail on April 30, publication on May 1, both at least 10
days prior to this evening's hearing date. So the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application. You are welcome back to you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm also making an observation at this time that there is no public out there. So unless somebody wanders in from the public,
there is no need to have ask the public for questions because there is no public at this time. So continue. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, board professionals, Frederick Zelli, Postpollock on behalf of the applicants, Brian and Allison Olivera. Uh, I believe the application only lists
Brian, but in deference and uh, in fairness to Allison, we'll add her on. She's one of the property owners as well. Uh, subject lot is located on the bulb of Poppy Place, a culde-sac. It is severely undized at 25,145 square ft. U, uh, where your R2
zone requires 45 square,000 ft. Uh, for the record, this is 23 Poppy Place, tax block 106, 106, lot 17. It's located in your R2 zone. The applicants are seeking to construct an 860q ft inground swimming
pool. That measurement includes the coping uh in the rear yard. Project will require a variance for excessive impervious coverage. The installation of the proposed pool, including its coping and equipment pad, will increase the existing imperous coverage on the property from
6,112 ft or 24.3% to 6,972 ft or 27.2%. 2% uh I'm sorry 7% uh of which the surface area as you know is storm water neutral and we'll discuss that later on. Uh if the applicant slot
were compliant in area at 45,000 square ft which is what's required in the 40 in the R2 zone the existing imperous coverage would only constitute 13.6% and the proposed impervious coverage would only constitute 15.5. Uh so the hardship of having such a small
lot uh really shows its head in this particular case. I have two witnesses this evening. Brian Alivera, one of the applicants already sworn in and Michael Cannon, our engineer, also already sworn in. So unless the board has any questions for me,
seeing none. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Alivera. Hello. Twist this so you can catch it. Just for the record, where do you and Allison presently reside? at 23 Poppy Place in Millington. Okay. And do you have any children? Yes, we have three. We have two boys, aged four and
eight, and a daughter who is six years old. Okay. And when did you purchase the property? Approximately in January of 2019. Okay. Uh Mr. Cannon will give us a technical description of the property, but just for now, in your words, would you tell the board where the property is located, what kind of street it's on,
what kind of improvements are located on the property already? Sure. The home is located in the Clover Hill neighborhood. Um it is a single family residence. It has a attached garage and a covered porch as well. Any other swing set or anything like that? Uh, you know, playground. Yes, for the kids. Is there
any fencing on the property currently? There is fencing. Correct. Okay. Where's that located presently? Uh, around the perimeter of the backyard. And does it come all the way around attached to the house or opening? It does. Yeah. Do you know how tall it is? 5T. And what type of fencing is that? It's a combination
of aluminum on three sides and chain uh chain link fence on the back side. Uh, when you filed the application, you submitted a packet of photographs. You have those in front of you. First, I'm going to ask you who took the photographs. I took the
photographs. And we have two different seasons reflected in them. So, if you recall, do you remember the different times that you took them approximately? Probably over the last 18 months or so. Are they the black and white versions we have? These should be the same versions that you have. Might be in a different
order that I'm not sure about besides that. And Brian, I'm going to ask you to go through each one and tell the board what it shows. Confirm that it's still accurate subject to seasonal differences. Uh, and since they may have it in a different order, each time you show a picture, just hold it up so they can make sure they're looking at the
same picture you are. Sure. So, this first photo, um, just sharing right here is a photo of the backyard facing the driveway. Uh, this would be the area where the construction equipment would be entering and exiting the property for the pool installation. Uh the next photo here is this one over
here. This is facing south from the from the backyard. Um the area that is parallel to the covered porch is where the pool would be uh installed. Uh next photo is just a closer version of the same photo facing
south. The next photo on this packet is facing the house of showing the covered porch. I'm going to ask you a question. It appears to my eyes that the porches in these two pictures or the porch in these two pictures differs in appearance. Did you do something? Yes, we did actually. What did you do just so
it's clear? Uh we did uh screen in the porch about a year ago, a little over a year ago at this point and replace the deck. Okay, so the one photo is pre-deck construction. The second one is current. That's correct. Okay. Uh the next photo here is also facing south. Uh this really just shows the
grade of the backyard, how it kind of slopes toward the back of the the property. Uh this next photo here is the is facing the house. Uh this big green bush over here is approximately where the pool equipment would be installed. Uh this next photo here is of
the is a different angle from the same location just showing the neighbors property and house. Uh this next photo is facing north uh from the same backyard. Uh again the proximity of the pool would be in this general vicinity over here.
Again, another photo, different season of uh the north facing uh location. And then lastly in my packet is the the last photo here which is facing the the gravel drive in the back of our
property which is a utility easements. Okay. And just to be clear and Mr. Cannon will give us this information as well, but the pool equipment is to be on the southern side of the house. Correct. That corner. Okay. And obviously you're here tonight because you'd like to install a swimming
pool. Yes. And I'm guessing having three young children has something to do with that. It does. It absolutely does. You know, the kids really enjoy swimming. Uh they're home for the summer. Um they're at an age now where they're very active and it's it's safer for them to have a swimming pool on the property. Um and that's why we're here today to get this
variance. Okay. Uh any tree removal proposed as part of this? No tree removal. And will you stipulate if uh the board's inclined to grant your application that any lighting will be downward facing uh will be your typical swimming pool either underwater
or at least downward facing and low voltage type of That's correct. Yes. So you understand the concern there is to not light up the neighborhood that the neighbors wouldn't want. Understandable. Okay. And I have nothing further for Mr. Olive at the moment. Okay. Do our experts have any questions for the
applicant? No. No. Oh, that's a new one. Board members, any any questions for the applicant himself? I do. Um I'm looking at your the lot lines and the gradation. That's the survey. Yeah. Of your survey.
Yes. Thank you. Um and one side of your property I see is at uh 221 and it runs to the other side of the property which is about 221. But if you go towards the back it's again 221 ft. graphic images, but as it goes towards
where those bushes are, you could see that there's a dramatic drop off there. I'm wondering, and I don't know if you've had a chance to check check this out, has this area where you're looking to put the pool, has has that already been filled, is there going to be any settling there? And my question for you
also is, um, Mr. Vice Chairman Lee, would it be better to ask this the engineer if I'm seeing where you're going? I I was just wondering if if if he's taken any thought about any any other arrangements of where he wants to put that pool just to just just to be out of just based upon the topography.
Just just the topography. That's it. We haven't contemplated a different area for the pool. Nor would I but I'm going to ask you just it's a question just for your own safety actually. But we will ask Mr. Canon that question for sure. And I thank
you. Any other questions with the applicant himself? No. What? I'll go. Go ahead. Just to your east there behind your house there's that's nobody lives there's no properties back there. Correct. Okay. It's only you only have neighbors to the south and north or I
guess uh just to the south. Okay. Is it you don't have neighbor to the north because of the it's just woods to the north and then northwest there would be another house. I see. So because of the circle. Yeah. It's on a culde-sac. Yeah. And the house to the northwest would not be able to see the pool for the most part. Your house would block it. Yes.
Okay. Actually, now I do have a question. Um, so I had noted in my letter about the fence being onto the adjacent lot 16. So is that who owns that adjacent lot 16? Fence is coming
like that. It's encroaching on this thing. I'm not sure who owns that property. I believe it's either state land or county land. Did you install the fence? We did install the fence. The fence was installed on the the the line that was left to for us by the previous owners.
Okay. So, so there was grass and then there was a flower bed and we just put the the fence where where it ended. We didn't realize it was over the property line when we installed it. How far over the property line? Can you ask Mr. Cannon to scale that off? Maybe he's reaching for a scale.
Should I speak before being sworn in or anything? Well, you've already been sworn in. Why don't we qualify very quickly and go, if you please take us through the uh your educational professional background. Sure. Uh Mike Cannon, the Cannon Group
PC. I think that mic's working. There he is. There he is. Okay. speaking to him. Michael, pick it off that moment. No, Michael Cannon. Uh, the Cannon Group PC brick, New Jersey. Uh, I'm a licensed professional engineer, planner, and
surveyor in the state of New Jersey. I received a bachelor of science degree in uh civil engineering from Georgia Tech back in the 80s. And then I uh pursued engineering, surveying, and planning uh with various firms and incorporating my own firm in
1992. I've been practicing those three disciplines ever since and I've testified before numerous boards throughout uh New Jersey. You're an expert. Okay. Thank you. Just clarificing him to be accepted in all three in all three disciplines. Yes.
Okay. Trifecta. No. Um Mr. kind of first if you could possibly scale off that encroachment area. Sure. I'm uh scaling approximately 13 ft in the front or the back. It looks in the front different and
then approximately 16 ft in the back off the property off the property line into lot 16 or Mr. Oliver has every has anyone ever raised that the adjacent property owner or the government anyone uh raised a problem with that? No, not whatsoever. Okay. Would you accept as a
condition of approval to move it if requested by the property owner? Sure. Unless there's any We're talking about this fence here. Okay. Understand? Yeah. Just so just so I'm clear, we're talking about the fence
over in this area here, right? Correct. Yes. Okay. And can I ask a question? Okay. Are we saying that um the board's not suggesting that the fence be placed in the proper location and instead we're going to put it on a property owner to
request it? That's how I worded it. That was the request. That's what I thought I heard you say because I don't think the board should uh be making decisions for the property owner uh if a fence is on their property. No, we would be making the decision. We have the option of
telling them to move it or leave it where it is unless somebody complains. what's currently in that area. Any any approval contemplated by this board tonight would not endorse the encroachment to remain. It would just simply defer it for their request to
being addressed as a private matter. I understand the words that you're using. However, sorry, what? However, when the board gives its approval for something, then somebody turns around and said the board said the fence could be there. Well, that's what I'm saying. We are not saying no that
would be I know that's what you're saying what we're not saying but I if we I'm just looking at the resolution that get used the words that you just used won't be used out in the rest of the world. Yeah Gary if if in fact we deem to allow the fence to stay there in its current form and make it a private
issue. The resolution would state so it would specifically say that we do not endorse the location of that fence nor do we approve it. If the property owner is made to move it by uh any other entity, he has to move it. The resolution is the document that's written and stuffed in a file somewhere,
right? But it but it would be used by anybody to say, okay, the board didn't give you permission. It just said that if you if somebody makes you move it, you have to move it or you could tell them to move it. Can I just I just want to interject real quick. is that just based on the tax record online, it's
owned by the Clover Heights Homeowners Association, which may or may not actually be a good thing because um it's not a pri a private prop. It's not somebody's house, you know. So, um it's this whole association, right? The
association owns the association is part of, right? The association owns the fence. Yeah. Right. There are wetlands. Well, the these were zero lot line properties so they could conserve the density. That's why his property is not
conforming to the size. That's actually another question I had. If I can unless you were in the middle of something. No. Okay. So, I heard testimony about the lot is severely undersized and I just wonder how that got approved. But, you
know, someone gave the approval for that. The board the board said it was okay to do that. No, the the governing body allowed the the um the the builder to do zero lot line cluster uh building which gives more open space. Somewhere
along the line, somebody decided to make it non-conforming by saying every lot had to be 45,000 square feet. That's maybe the issue that we have. And instead of making making what's their conforming, they changed it and made it bigger. knowing full well they allow
somebody to do it smaller. So, it's kind of putting the homeowner in a position where, okay, you told the builder he could build it. Now, you're telling me I'm not conforming because you make the conforming bigger than what's there. Uh, basically, and that's one of our in our
report, we've said that, you know, it's kind of a catch 22 for the poor homeowner because they allowed it to be built that way, but yet it's not conforming. The applicant rests. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what I'm saying is that's what we've seen a lot in town. And when
that approval happened, do you think they said and you can't go putting pools on there? Oh, no. Nobody said that. Okay. Just want to make sure someone looked at that. Yeah. I I don't know what they were thinking at the time, but I mean, you know, I'd rather see something that was especially there's a new This is a fairly new in my mind a
fairly new development in the sense that got an old mind. Yeah. In sense that it was it was done in recent history. It isn't something built in the 50s where there was no zoning or there really didn't matter. Here there was a general consensus to build it this way. They
sorry I just want to interject in the or the our ordinance allows density modification subdivisions which I think is what this is which is you basically have smaller lots and then you have uh a a much larger conservation lot
environmental. Yeah. Exactly. so that things are clustered and and it's consider it was the big thing when I was in planning school that because it was seen as more sustainable because you're um by clustering all the homes together you're allowing for more contiguous open
space. Yeah. To let the uh fauna and animals run, right? But then at the same time you're making $45,000 $45,000 ft the norm which makes everybody non-conforming. So they'll fake it. Can I Yes. I'm sorry. Perhaps um just in
terms of our experts and to Gary's point um to I mean I'm sure we'll write this in such a way whether we decide not to or to to do it in the way that um was laid out. But the question I have is can we as a board even tell him the owner to
move the fence? That I don't is that really part of the the like zoning or is that is that an issue with something else? Well, it it's a uh you can have the applicant stipulate or if without a
stipulation, you can impose conditions that relate to mitigating a damage that would be associated with the variance relief at issue. So, uh, to the extent that moving the
fence, uh, on the property line, you know, or eliminate requiring the elimination of the encroachment to the extent that would tie in to a detriment associated with a lot coverage deviation or a accessory structure, if I recall
correctly, setback deviation and I'll, you know, it may Yeah. uh then you can do that. Okay. It's a little different and I apologize for getting a little off the topic, but but there are certain things that we don't have the jurisdiction to do. For example, uh uh
uh to require someone to uh grant an easement or eliminate an easement, things like that. That that may be an approval. If it were an approval that's conditioned uh on somebody
resolving a uh say a necessity for an easement or an easement dispute uh that would have to be handled by a court of law or private parties contractually. But here it's we potentially in my opinion have the authority to impose
such a condition to the extent it has a nexus a relationship to a detriment associated uh with from a variance and i.e would mitigate it to some degree. I think and that's the the Lord saying the Lord is saying I'm right. No but Steve
Steve also if I'm not mistaken when you build a pool Yeah. You're you must have a fence around it. Absolutely. Is a part and poly. He happens to have a fence. If he did not have a fence, we could not condone him putting it on someone else's property. No, you'd have to require him to have a fence on his property.
Compliance, etc. Yes. Puts the fence in play. That that has to have sufficient uh uh heights, etc. Yeah. I mean, I don't 5t is fine. I guess what I what I was getting at is yes. In your legal opinion, you believe we have some nexus with the the the variance they're asking
for and the fence, but you also think that we may not. No, no, no, no. I would I would I would simply say it's no, it it's a it is neither a must nor a must not. It is a can.
But you're saying the board can do it. Can do it. Is not required to do it, I don't believe, and is not uh uh uh prohibited. The only Yes. The only reason I would ask and I don't want to tell discretionary and I don't know that you would object or whatever necessarily but if we said yes one of the conditions
is you have to move your fence back regardless would would the you know applicant have a case to say well this wasn't something they were allowed to even I mean I guess they could have a case to do anything. We have other experts here planner and an engineer as well we want to I guess I
have a question for the applicant. Are you proposing any other fencing around your pool aside from this fence that you have? We haven't contemplated it, but we're certainly open to the idea of having like a mesh fence around the pool for safety purposes. I mean, because you know, a pool is a a fence is a
requirement. And so we've often just if somebody has an enclosed backyard kind of allowed that to be so that's technically the compliance that's obligated with the rear yard enclosure for the pool is to have an an audible
alarm on the sliding door that enters into the backyard from the home. So that's the only thing that you're not currently compliant on for and perhaps a self latching gate. I don't know if you self closing the self on the existing fence. Right. Correct. Right. And one
with the you can't easily get the unlatch unlatch thing. It has to be high enough. So a little 2-year-old can't come up. So, so at a minimum I would imagine the applicant stipulating to a pool compliant fence and it's up to the board to decide whether the they're going to ask the applicant to take a
stip further stipulation or impose or not uh uh uh the relocation of the encroaching portion of the fence. Right. And also a alarm on the back door. Well, the alarm all those things are part of the pool compliant fence. Okay. Um
Okay. So, I'll throw out one other thing. Yes, go ahead. Since we're just talking about the fence, in my experience as a professional realtor, um when u you might sell this house at some point and the buyer looks at the property and says, "Oh, look at this. I
own all of that over there, too." Um you may find yourself uh in some trouble having your fence not on your property because the buyer thinks he's buying that extra property. I've even heard of as a title issue um of pools
being on other people's property. You've probably seen some things like this. So, it happens. If it's only 8:00, it's only 8:00 now. So, if we want to go on much further with this, I'm sure you guys can weigh in a little bit more. And we
haven't heard enough from you yet. Can we just put it out there? Do you think maybe putting the fence on the property? That's what I'm going to do. Yeah. Oh, you do. this this fence issue is a separate thing and I believe wholeheartedly that since a fence has to be around a pool and it is part and parcel of the application since it is a
fence around the pool uh that we do have the ability to say that we do not want it or we don't care that it's on someone else's property. Um we normally don't uh we normally don't really want to have an application with fencing on someone
else's property. In this case, it happens not to be a private party. So, so you don't have mom and pop out there, you know, yelling at you for putting a fence on their property. Happens to be a jointly owned, however that is, ownership of it by everyone.
Um, so, you know, I I would like to take a poll of the board because I think it's important to the applicant to know if he's moving the fence or not. Um, do we want to do that now, Mr. Chair? We want to do that now before continue. Paul, how would you feel about it? Can I just ask one quick question? Mr. Olive, um,
how long has the fence been there? You said you put it in. Uh, right when we moved in, so probably 2019 we installed it. 2019. Any complaints? Any people that have to walk in that lot or anything like that? No, not at all. Never. Nobody. Next door neighbor doesn't apply. No. Okay. I don't see a
problem. Woods and some wetlands back there. Okay. Very good. Yeah. Go ahead, Joe. The applicant had offered to address the matter when approached essentially by the neighbor neighboring lot is owned by the association if it might make the board more
comfortable that the stipulation be that they approach the association to address the matter proactively as opposed to reactively. Fine uh question. Let them handle amongst themselves. Yeah, it is a private matter between them and their association essentially of that encroachment. Are you part of
the association? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I was going my question to to that point was do we know that the assoc association still exists because some of these are are put up and then it's a major development. It better exist. Somebody has to deal with the storm water. They have that. They have that
park and everything. There are annual meetings. There is a board. Sure. When I meant was are you on the board? Are you like the president or something like that? So it's okay. Wherever the fence goes become president, right? For the record, Alison, he might be.
With that in mind, what would you suggest he do, Paul? If there hasn't been any complaints, there hasn't been any problems. I I I just leave it. It hasn't bothered anybody all these years. Okay. I would let it go. Gary, what do you what is your opinion on it? I'm inclined to say it should be on his
property line instead of past it. Okay. Um, I like to stick to the rules, but since nobody's bothering you on this, I would I would be willing to turn a blind eye to it at this point. Or allow the
association to deal with it and let the association deal with it. And this gives you no rights of ownership. It's it's it's there. You put it there and if they have a problem within the next 20 years, they can give you a call. Jonathan. Yeah, I don't have a problem with uh
allowing this to be a private matter between himself and the association. Alex, yeah, the engineer stole my question about going to the association. So, that that would have been my recommendation. Let the association deal deal with it. I Okay, look, I say for clarification if that's where we're
headed though, uh is it is the applicant going to be required to affirmatively approach the association or I don't think we said the other way around. I don't think we said that. I think it's I'm hearing mixed with different people. There's three different options that are floating. Okay. Are we saying we should
affirmatively go to the association and ask them do they want the fence moved? Or are we saying that if they don't come to him, leave it alone? Is that what we're saying? I would say just leave it alone. That's fine with me. Again, there's hundreds of place that have a fence 6 in 8 in over the line. Alex,
leave it alone. Leave it alone. Okay. Now we have a majority. Fine. I I would I would be inclined. I mean, as much as I don't appreciate fences being on other people's property, this property seems to be common ownership, there's no individual that owns it. There's no house there. You're not encroaching on
someone else's uh backyard. Uh so, I would say if the association doesn't notice it, but I would say if they do, you have to deal with that. You have to deal with the association and just be ready to say, you know, because somebody might notice you're building the pool. that might cause some you know suspicion
or some inquiry and it might be a topic. So but other than that I would say just leave it the way it is. Okay. And those of course are that's a condition uh uh and would you stipulate to that condition? Correct. You would? Okay. And of course that's if there's an grant of
an approval. We haven't got quite gotten there yet. We still have to hear from the engineer. But I wanted to get that issue cleared up eventually because that is you know usually nine times out of 10 it's on someone's private property and it's got to be moved and there would have been a complaint before this. So
all right continue sorry Mr. Cannon uh would you start please by taking us through uh the current condition of the property and please also give us some insight about the wetlands and the flood water. Certainly the uh as was already stated, the property is designated as
lot 17 in block 106 in Long Hill Township. It's also known as 23 Poppy Place. It's a triangular shaped lot with dimensions approximately 100 ft wide by 220 ft deep and the area of the property is
25,145 square ft where 45,000 square feet is required. So, it is undersized in the area for what is required in the zone. The site is currently developed with a two-story single family dwelling, PA driveway, PA patio, and wood deck in
the rear of the property. And per the web soil survey getting into drainage. Uh the soils on site are what's called whippony silt lom which is defined as a hydraulic group C as far as drainage purposes which is a low
infiltration rate uh soil. So water would tend to run off more in in this type of soil. The uh property is also uh located in a flood zone in the southeasterly portion of the uh
southeasterly corner of the the property. It's only a small percentage of the area. The rest of it is located in zone X which is no minimal flood. Now the site is served by uh municipal water and sewer and uh the site has
existing variance conditions uh for I thought there were three but apparently there are some more uh there's lot area uh minimum front yard setback minimum sideyard setback and a maximum
lot coverage. So for the and for the proposed development, uh the property is located in the R2 zone where single family dwellings are a permitted use as well as private inground swimming pools for an accessory use. Uh the applicant
plans to construct a uh 14 by 34 inground pool with concrete walk and patio around the pool. Uh the rear yard is essentially all lawn area and we would propose to maintain that that ground
cover and the uh the drainage uh will remain the same. The drainage patterns will remain the same in the rear yard. Now the the rear yard is sloped uh from the house to the uh rear property line. There is a a rather steep slope as you get towards the uh the southeast corner
of the property. We will maintain those uh drainage patterns and there is a drainage ditch actually located along the rear property line. So any runoff will go to those to that drainage ditch and not affect the adjacent property
lines. The impervious area on site will be increased uh minimally by the uh the addition of the pool and the concrete. However, the uh we don't we don't usually count the pool water towards the uh the impervious uh towards the runoff
coefficient for the pool because Long does. Yeah. So the uh but the the additional runoff will be minimal due to the minimal amount of impervious area that we are uh proposing to the property and again the drainage patterns will
remain the same. Now, for the uh as far as the wetlands, I spoke with um the environmentalist uh on this project and they are applying for a uh transition area waiver uh
clause D permit from DP since the wetlands are somewhat in in the rear of the property, but they're mostly off the property, but they are considered extraordinary or exceptional wetlands,
and they have a 150 50 foot buffer associated with them. So that's uh where we ran into the uh problem with the D. We had to apply for a transition area waiver permit to construct a pool within that that buffer area.
Can you obtain that? Uh it it is still in the works. I spoke with the uh the environmentalist today. They they submitted everything and they're they're just waiting on the D. They are backlogged. You do understand that any any approval we would give you is
subject obviously to that. Yes, certainly they uh they expect an approval. They actually stated that the D told them to to do this particular permit application. So they're expecting an approval on the uh on the project. And Mr. Ken, just for the record, we do
have kind of stage one of this, we do have the freshwater wetlands letter of interpretation and line verification dated May 2nd of this year. Correct. Yes, that is correct. that that defined wetlands areas and the uh buffers associated with them. And then we had to go back to the D for a transition area
waiver to construct within those buffer areas. We are not proposing um new specific storm water management design, drywalls, anything of that nature. Is that correct? No, we're not proposing any any new drainage structures. uh as I
mentioned before we the pvious area uh improvements are minimal and uh it's going to generate minimal additional runoff and there is a a drainage ditch in the rear of the property and everything slopes down towards that ditch and we propose to maintain those
drainage patterns so we will not be affecting adjacent properties and that drainage ditch was particularly put there to drain any drainage from the neighbors I would say so yes so that was that was put prepared to mitigate and and and deal with any water went off for
the properties. Yes. Uh and getting into the all the discussions about how this was created, the uh on the survey the the uh there's a note that this subdivision was uh filed back in 1993. So that's how all this came about. And I guess they must have had
clustering back then. So, but that's that's what generated this this lot size and this drainage ditch in the rear of the property. Mr. Ken, have you had opportunity to speak with the board engineer and to review his report? Uh, yes, I did. Did
those conversations or the report raise any issues with which we cannot uh comply or otherwise address? No, we can comply with uh with any conditions the engineer states. Uh we are again there is a dimminimous uh
increase in water uh runoff and uh we are obtaining a freshwater wetlands permit a transition area waiver permit as far as soil erosion and sediment control. Uh we we can make application we will make application if needed. Uh
but approx right now we are only disturbing approximately 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. We are under the 5,000 square foot threshold for soil erosion. And before I ask you about Ms. Lanny's
report, Mr. Buchch, did you have any uh comment or question? Just comment uh for the board's understanding. Our minor development app definition in our code is by either
total disturbance or impervious surface. the the disturbance is usually triggered by most applications that we see. That's the 1500 square feet. The threshold on imperous coverage is a thousand. So if you were if you were at, you know, if you're
at a thousand if you're in that gap between the two, you you could you're really more substantially impacting with the creation of runoff um than the total disturbance. But we also in our code have a lock rating
permit requirement that triggers at the same 1500 square ft of disturbance or 400 square f feet of impervious. And I use that impervious coverage threshold of 400 as um recognition of the minimum impact for
storm water runoff. It's comparable to the larger sheds that obtain permits and and are put in with just zoning approval without locker rating permit triggers. So it it's complementaryary to uh everything else we do consistently in the engineers's office. Um and so that
in combination is being under 400 square ft for the the patio around the pool. Um and then as their engineer noted, the soils in the area and the presence of wetlands are not conducive to infiltration. So it would be uh quite
literally a money pit in the ground that they'd be excavating and putting in just to to hold water and not infiltrate it. So we're we are better off shedding to the rear and allowing and allowing the existing drainage ditch to do its job. Okay. Thank
you. Any other Mr. Canon? Did you also have a chance to review Miss Laney's planning report? Uh, yes I did. Any issues there that we need to address that you haven't addressed already? Uh, no. I uh as noted, we have uh
several uh existing non-conformities uh that we will uh not be impacting. We will not be exacerbating. Uh we we do have the additional lot coverage of the 860 ft which is what we are seeking a
variance for and the variances required for this application are the existing bulk variances and then for the uh the improved uh maximum lot coverage for the special reasons for the
variances the uh the existing Mr. Before you get to the uh reasons for that variance, can we just confirm whether or not there are one or two additional deviations, the generator setback and the pool equipment, if it's an accessory structure, it might have a setback issue
as well. Technically, is it a generator or are we talking about the pool equipment? We might have both. Let me ask maybe Liz could jump in because she I'm stealing from her report. The generator shows on the survey which tells me it already
exists. Correct. Okay. Um Mr. Kenny, can you give us Can you scale the measurement on the generator survey? This is something that we're going to talk about on our zoning report. Yes, I know. How? Yeah.
Uh the generator is approximately 10 ft off the property line off from the building. No, from the from the building. Dwelling. From the dwelling. Uh no, it's 3 ft. 3 ft. Okay.
Okay. And that was that pre-existing? No, we installed that. You installed that? Yeah, that's going to be moved. Then we hereby amend our application uh to include a variance for that nonconformity and it's within the catch all language in the notice of the
board's jurisdiction. Okay. So you're asking to allow it to remain where it is, which is approximately 3 ft from the house. Correct. And 10 ft from the property line. Yes. So if you moved it away from the house, you'd need a setback variance. Either way, that that is true. Why we'll be addressing it
later. Yeah, I know. And then the I guess the question also is is the pool equipment in a structure correct, Liz, that is a question. Yes. What do you mean in a structure? Is it how is it being stored? There's something that says pool equipment. So I guess the question is is it a
are we enclo are we shielding it or housing it? You enclosing it normally for we can screen it uh with with plantings if that's what is required. It was more do we constitute that as an accessory structure because that also
looks to be you know within normally pool equipment is not enclosed and it usually isn't a structure. Okay, that's fine. It normally doesn't even sit on cement. You just put it on blocks. But if it I guess the question is if it was enclosed then it might be then it might
be an accessory structure. Normally you don't enclose it. It's not being proposed to be enclosed. No, we're not proposing to enclose it. And it's not an accessory structure setback issue. Um, but is the applicant agreeing to landscape or proposing the landscape and
screen it? If the uh board requires uh if the ordinance requires uh screening around the pool equipment when we will does it for the photos that you showed earlier. Yeah, there are bushes in the area. So we do plan on putting it behind the
bushes to kind of block it from view. Would it be that top photo there? Exactly. Right. So your neighbors can't see it anyway. So yeah. So behind that that shrub is your existing AC and other equipment. So you you'll just cut the bush back and put it there. Correct. Are you going to have a heater and all that
other stuff? Yeah. Filter, a heater, all that stuff. Okay. So that's that's about I mean that's about well 5 by five at least. Yeah. Roughly. Yeah. Can I can I question on this? The
existing non-conformity on the minimum sideyard. It says west and east. Yeah. Aren't there aren't your sideyards north and south or Yes. Yes. So, yeah. Okay. I just wondering just
west and east is your front. Um to be honest, I didn't know this was a a density uh whatever subdivision plus modification or modifications. The required permitted standards are actually
incorrect because it's for the R2 zone. I looked they still need they still are existing non non existing nonconformities except for the minimum front yard. Um, and it's 50 and it's
permitted to be 50. Oh, okay. All right. So, that's uh Yeah. So, that's existing and that's conforming. It's conforming. Um, the others are off, but the degree to which they're off is not as extensive as it would be if it was just the R2
zoning. Okay. Yeah. So, it's R2 with a with a asterisk with an asterisk. And I guess I don't know how we would know that looking at an application, but that's okay. Yeah. Yeah. on this. This is just my report. I mean, you bring a
note. Yeah. The the two V uh the two variances cited are both still required and they're both the correct magnitude of deviation. Correct. Exactly. Yes. Where where is the 7.22 on the house? I guess
I don't see I don't see them. Is that to the generator or where's the 7.2 measurement? That's the sideyard. So 7.2 to the east. I don't see I see 13.6. We have 13.6 on the survey. Um I'm not sure what a 7.2, but it is still a variance. Yeah. No, I I I just don't
know if we need to put the exact number. We don't this my letter is not. So we don't have the non the existing nonconformities that are not being exacerbated in any way, shape, or form do not need to uh there's no relief required. They they really don't even
need to be in the resolution. Okay. I have two questions. Fine by me. All right. Let's don't talk over. All right. Go ahead, Tom. You have two questions. I have a couple questions having to do with u Well, first we'll do the uh the existing non-conforming on the sideyard,
the generator. It's 3 feet from the house. Um are there any windows on that side of the house? I didn't see any in the packet that we had. One thing we don't have a picture of, I think. Are there are there windows on south side of the house where the generator's going to be? Yes, that's why I want I want to
concur. While we're here, first floor, second floor, what what windows are on that side of the house? Uh, both first and second floor. Okay, so there are windows. Okay, that's going to be that's a problem. Where? That generator doesn't conform to Was it when the generator was
installed? Was it was a permit taken out and approved by the construction department? Yeah. And that would be on the electrical sub code, not at this board. Right. Okay. Don't worry about it. Okay. And uh I would like to uh also speak to the fact that when we were looking at the lines before for the
property set for the property lines, I was looking at the um the original and not the proposed with the pool. I didn't notice that quite such a a chunk was taken out by uh that that additional
notch. I I thought we were talking about the straight line going back and that maybe that was off by a few inches. This here when you're looking at this is the pool. Yeah. This is the additional property taken. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's
the uh Yeah. I'm I'm seeing that now. And I'm saying that I now side with Gary that that's uh that that's a considerable amount of property to just assume you could take. Okay. It's still majority saying uh maybe somebody else
will change their mind. Anyone else misread the uh the survey? I mean I I'm not saying go one way or the other. I'm just asking if there's any change of mind uh because I I don't want to confuse the
poor applicant as to what he has to do. Is that area of the yard uh used for anything besides being in the back of the swing set, which like gives it a nice buffer that the swing set isn't right on the fence? I I could see uh there's a flower bed and some burning bushes um along the fence line there.
Just just uh nature, right? Yeah. Okay. No structure of any kind. No structure. There's not like a kennel or you know botchi court basketball and flower bed. rocket launchers. I don't know. You're
actually maintaining that and cutting the grass. All right. You'll stipulate to no further encroachments, right? Yes. Okay. No more moving fence. And we would stipulate to not installing any structures in that area, right? Don't Yeah. Don't install any structures. Yes.
Keep it natural. Okay. All right. Um Okay. Any other comments from our experts? Oh, I sorry. That's why I asked. No, the only thing I'll just note is the 7.2 is in the original survey that was done in 2019. I I don't know
why it but that's where it comes from. Okay. Yeah. Just before I forget, Mr. Warner, if if there's an approval, the variance for the generator, could we word it in such a way that the existing Yeah. the board is approving the existing location
because it does seem that whatever measurements we have, both of them may be off. If we we might be an inch or so and 10 even. It's not it's so close that we don't want to rely on allowing the existence of the existing location of the generator is what you're saying. Is
it would it be approximately 3 ft? I think we could say approximately three and approximately 10. The three is definitely non-conforming. The 10, if it's really 9.9, we've got a problem. If it's really 10.1, we don't know for the generator. generator set back to the property line.
Oh, the set back to the line property. I got which currently it's compliant at 10, right? If it's in fact 10, but we're just scaling it off and we don't know for sure. So, the abundance of caution too close to the house, too close to the line, or somewhere above.
What was that? It's either too close to the house, too close to the line, or somewhere in the middle. Well, it's going to be too close to the house for quite a bit of Well, no question. If if the corner of the house is really 13.6 six from the property line and that generator is at least 15. So
Oh, actually that's uh I would I would trust the leaper survey. The uh leaper. Okay. The leaper line land. Wait, is that the 2019 one? That's the Yeah, the no the 2024 leaper land
group survey. No, I'm looking for the name on which is in the in part because it's also part of the record of DP on the wetlands another includes boundary. So we back to just approximately 3 ft from the existing location approximately
3 ft from the dwelling. Correct. I would ignore the Brunswick survey. Okay. For that potential variance. All right, that's fine. Miss Laney, were you about to ask Mr. kind of questions or I'll take him into I have some level of planning.
Any other questions? No. Um I think we were going to get the uh basis from his the planner as to for the uh variance relief, right? Now that we've established the two items. Okay. So, we're not going with any of the existing nonconformities. They're
already granted. So, it's just the uh Yep. Not exactly the impervious coverage increase. just imperator set back from dwelling. Well, is that an existing nonconformity since it's already built or is that Well, we don't Yeah, but it's not a uh it's a
never had approval from the board. It was not not approved. Yeah. Okay. The lot area, the lot with that that uh you're not knocking down and rebuilding on on the dwelling. So, it's not considered vacant uh excuse on the lot. So, it's not considered vacant land. You don't have to get those variances.
Again, this one has to be gotten and it never was. So we will be seeking uh variance relief uh for the impervious coverage increase uh for the pool and the uh the coping and we will be seeking variance relief for the uh the generator being uh 3 ft
off the uh principal structure where 10t is required and for the special reasons for the variances I can speak to the uh for the pool uh again the uh the existing lot is undersized And this causes a hardship limiting the
uh the available uh yard area limit the overall lot area uh for improvements. And we are over uh on lot coverage uh to begin with and this is just increasing uh the lot coverage. So we have a uh a
hardship uh with the lot area. Uh the pool meets the sideyard and rear yard requirements. Uh so there is enough room uh we're not we're not seeking any variances for that. Uh for the positive
criteria uh granting these variances allows the applicant to develop their property without affecting adjacent lots. It provides light air and open space. Uh since it's an ingground pool, we don't have any structures above ground and there will be no encroachments into any required yard
areas or or easements in the rear yard. It provides sufficient space in appropriate locations for accessory use. A pool is permitted accessory use in the zone. And it promotes a desirable visual element by developing the rear the rear
property. For the negative criteria, I find no substantial detriment to the public good. The variances are to the subject property. The applicant will not be will not impact adjacent properties. Again, since all the setbacks are maintained, the site will not have a
negative drainage impact since drainage patterns will be maintained and uh there is a drainage ditch in the rear of the property. So, I find no substantial impairment to the zone plan or the zoning ordinance and developed uh usable rear yards with with pools on
undersized lots are are very common in this area in this zone. And therefore I find the de deviations from the ordinance bulk standards provide benefits that outweigh the detriments. And for the negative criteria he said negative. If I could ask a question
though for you were dealing only with the pool which is basically the lot coverage deviation. You're saying you're saying both the alternative bases C1 and C2 under hardship and the benefit substantially outweighted detriments because you mix the two of them up.
Yes. No, I didn't. I heard I heard A and I heard I desirable visual environment. He testified as both C1 and then went into C2. Yeah. Well, I don't I when I say mix them up, you did them both. I want to make for clarification purposes, your your your your opinion is that the
lock coverage deviation is satisfied by both the C1 undue hardship as well as the alternative basis C2 benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. Negative negative criteria on both. Yes. Okay. And then how about the generators uh setback? uh from the dwelling uh the
the generator set back from the dwelling uh is an existing condition uh but if we let me ask you this if we treat it as a non-existing condition since we in fact uh had it installed albeit with the permission of the construction department we didn't have a
variance from this board uh would you agree from a planning perspective uh that keeping it away from the sideyard and we do have a resident on that side of the property uh the benefit of maintaining that compliance as opposed to the compliance next to the house would be paramount.
Leaving the generation the generator where it is is a a better alternative uh in planning wise than than moving it. Would I be correct? If the the lot width is such and it's a it's a de it's a irregularly shaped lot and the lot width
is less than uh it's 97.5 and it's 150 minimum required. uh that that puts you might might contribute to the position of if you are 10 feet away from the dwelling, you're less than 10 feet away from the property line and vice versa. That's correct. Yes. Isn't it five feet
from the house the dwelling? Can we call that? Do you know what is the exact generators? It's 10 10 ft. It it's be it it treats it as any other accessory structure. It doesn't differentiate generators from other accessory
structures. So, while it may make sense for a shed, it doesn't really make sense for a generator, but that's what the ordinance says. Really? I thought I honestly thought it was like 5t from the house. Okay. Isn't uh Aren't there requirements in the ordinance about how
close it can be to a window? No. That does not do the ordinance. Okay. And we don't and we're not responsible for that whatsoever. Wherever it goes, it goes. All right. That's more to do with induction of CL. Oh, yeah. I know it's worn, but I didn't know if we if we didn't uh and we don't know how far the
window is from the generator. I mean, if the window on that side of the house is five the window itself could be 5 ft away from generator, right? We don't know that. Well, it could be higher up. Could correct. So, since you put the generator in, I'm just kind of curious since we're talking about it. Why wasn't
it put further back towards the the corner of the house and it would have been farther away from the property line because of the pie shape of the lot? Yeah, we hired a professional to install the generator. They selected that location. They pulled all the permits. We kind of relied on their expertise. We weren't aware of the issue with the I
mean, you you probably don't use that side of the yard too much. So, it didn't matter if it was here or No. Yeah, exactly. It's in between the two houses then. It's not really used that much. And uh any questions of the board of the expert for either his planning or
whatever else he testified to? Any other testimony? I have nothing further. Any other follow questions from our expert? You like to make a statement? The non-existing public continues to not
require questioning your comments. There has been no public speaking in so there is no public to ask. The the advantage of having actual planning testimony is that I don't need to recap it because you just heard it. Uh so we thank you for bearing with us this evening, for hearing us, and we would appreciate a
positive vote. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I could tee it up if you'd like. Sure. The uh as I understand it, the uh variance relief saw as lock coverage proposed 27.7% versus existing 24.3% versus maximum permitted
20%. Uh and the second variance is for the generator setback from the dwelling. uh approximately three feet in the existing location as opposed to a 10- foot minimum required. Uh you heard
testimony with respect to C1 and C2. Either one would do uh if you're persuaded uh for each of those two variances. The conditions are the items set forth and stipulated to buy or on behalf of the applicant in both the
engineers report of moments ago, no May 20th, today's date, and the planner's report of May 19th. Uh and uh as well as the additional conditions uh stipulated to by the applicant. Any lighting would be downward facing, no light spillage.
Um, the fence will be relocated if requested to be so on the subject property if requested by the owner of lot 16 who currently is a homeowners association. Uh, the fencing will be
fully pool compliant pursuant to our ordinances including but not limited to self latching gate and audible alarm on the fence. And uh the applicant's required of course to get have all agency approvals
including but not limited to the transition area waiver sought from DP. Uh the applicant has also uh agreed to landscape screen the pool equipment to the extent it's not already
sufficiently landscape screened and to have no further encroachments on any adjacent property and to no uh to uh install no or place no structures in the
area of the existing fencing encroachment. And I believe those are all the conditions stipulated to by the applicant such that if it is a motion to grant, I'll assume unless I'm told otherwise, it's with all those conditions. If it's a motion to not
deny, I'll assume it's unconditional. Um, and affirmative vote of a majority, three, four, five, six, uh, four out of six for passage. Okay. Jonathan, would you like to go the deliberation? Sure.
Uh thank you for coming tonight and thank you for uh the proposal that you put together. I I think that um you've shown that the size and the shape as well of the property has uh C1 variance for for hardship. I definitely think
relating to the um size for the lot coverage um you know this doesn't allow for any new uh construction on your site without being you know already existing uh non-conformity so even further
non-conformity so I think that uh you've shown that the size and in terms of the shape obviously we're related to the generator I don't see any other way you could have probably put that unless you put it much further back and so I think in terms to the generator. I don't I see that's kind of as well. Um I think
you've shown that the benefits of the of the uh what you know your plan has outweighs the detriments. I don't think there you know there's no one here who is claiming that that this pool would harm them in any way and I don't think from just knowing what you know what you're putting there it doesn't seem
like it would be in any detriment. Um and I don't think there's any substantial detriment to the public good. So, I'd be uh in favor of this application. Thank you, Tom. Well, then [Music] um all in all, I'm I'm not against your
application, and you may have thought from my comments that perhaps I was, but a lot of them are out out of caution for you. Um you need to know that if there's a problem with the generator, don't open your window. and uh course you know you know you've got property in the back
there that somebody may someday um take a look and say hey how come that's jagged like that but you're going to be okay with that uh looking at what you're doing with this property I I see that you've satisfied both positive and the negative and taking a a
a not um regular shaped rectangle property and you've taken your pizza slice and you're you're going to do a great thing with it and for the Um, for that I'm going to be in favor of your application, Gary. Um, I think you have a very small
lot. Challenging uh to kind of want to enjoy that backyard at all. And so I kind of get why the swing set has some extra space behind it. And I think it's a great spot for a pool. And you know, you only have people coming through the gravel easement. They're not going to be
over there. There's going to be nobody. You're going to have so much privacy there. I think it's I'll be in favor of this application. Alex, u agree with all the board's uh comments. Appreciate you coming this evening. Um I personally don't have any any issue in looking at the neighbor
neighboring areas. Looks like you're joining the club. Seems like all the other houses have a pool in it as well. So it just That is correct. Seems to fit pretty nicely. Uh you know, enjoy it with your family. Paul, um I actually stopped by uh your property this morning and the house is
very wellkept and uh I think it's a great idea where you're putting the pool and it's really not going to encroach on your neighbors or bother them. They're pretty much in your backyard. I kind of looked and they're pretty far from your house. So, I'm in favor of uh granting granting the pool for Mr. Oliver. Thank
you. I also uh maybe uh follow along with my uh fellow board members. I think this is a good use to your property. enjoy your pool. Uh, I think your generator is fine. I I think we have to address that 10 foot issue. They don't make you put an AC unit 10T from your
house, which I think the generator is more like an AC unit than a structure. But that's something we have to bring up with the planning board, have them look at that ordinance because if you, you know, most of the time you put a tent from a house, all those lines go into it. It's it's ridiculous. I mean, it's
really ridiculous to have that 10 ft from the house, but you know, go figure. Um, so I would I would definitely be in favor of it. I think you have a great piece of property here and uh you're doing the best you can with it with, you know, a a cluster zoning type thing that
we have going on in that neighborhood. But u you have lots of privacy, you know, you don't your neighbors aren't on top of you. So I would be in favor of it. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve this? Motion to approve. I have a
second. Second. Roll call. Mr. Gianakis, yes. Mr. Rosenberg, yes. Mr. Zadzy, yes. Mr. White, yes. Vice Chairman Groskoff, yes. Chairman Gret, yes. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Have a wonderful story question.
When's the party? Yeah. At the transition area, we never We never really show up. Nobody really invites us. [Music] Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, does anybody need a five-minute
break before we go into the uh Couldn't hurt. annual report. Yeah, let's take a five minute bathroom break and then we'll we'll discuss the annual report. 9. That's not good. 856. 85 856. Sorry. 5 hour guys. Uh we're talking about the
um cool should go quicker zoning board of adjustment annual reporting 2022 to 2024. Thank you for compiling this. Now, we as far as the uh it looks that
it's a repeat of what we said in 2021 up until there's a couple of new ones. And I will in the beginning of the report I noted that the the very beginning the second paragraph I noted
additionally board planner Lehaney and board engineer BH have been working with the ordinance review committee of the planning board to review any and all land use ordinances now that the master plan has been adopted. Okay, great. So I wanted to put that note in there because there is ongoing work. Good. tonight.
Um I think our same concern I just on setbacks three I'm not sure. I feel like there's words missing um in the beginning of this. Yeah, the Yes, it should be last year should come out. Oh. Mhm. And it should and so should the
common so should two and it should start capital T the ordinance and then this remains an issue should be struck. Okay. Oh. So all right so I'm starting the sentence to the ordinance the or is not clear on how to measure building
setbacks and then you want me to mean this remains an issue. You can take that out. Wouldn't that would continue to remain an issue? Well, no no it's it's because it's from an old report where there was other language. So then on corner lots there's the last sentence as
well that says this remains an issue. We should take that out. Okay. Any other changes? I have a general question. Uh it comes when I was looking at sheds and it says that we we think
that the 100 square feet should be permitted to greater uh square footage and I'm looking at you've got an R4. Maybe that's true on an R2. Is that really true? Um and greater is unlimited.
No, greater is never unlimited. Well, no, no, but but but he's saying that there is no limits in this. We don't we're not writing the zoning. No, no, but you know, so maybe we should tell them that they should be 200 feet or 15. Well, and and interesting you say that
because the UCCC code basically this is outdated because what we go by if somebody is as a zoning officer, if somebody is submitting for a shed application, anything over 200 square feet by UCCC code, you requires construction permits in addition to a zoning permit. So the one even if it's a
pre-made shed that says put there correct. So the 100 square foot was originally in there for older purposes of the UCCC code which has been changed. Now what is the UCCC code now? 200 foot 200 feet by 20 bigger than 200 foot. 200
square feet. 200 foot 200 sorry 200 feet. Yeah. Requires construction permits in addition. So we could really put this 190 square feet and it would comply. I mean it would come under that. it would fall where you don't need the construction permit up to 199. No, I'm
saying if we're putting if we want to put it under the construction uh so they don't need a construction permit, then we would put it under the 200 square ft. We would recommend that they go anything under 200 ft as permitted. Uh okay.
Yeah. Because you don't want to make somebody get a construction permit if they don't need to be. No, but that's their choice. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm just saying there's I think it's stupid to begin with because if it's a pre-made shed, it's not a problem. Majority of majority sheds are under 200
f feet, but there are people who have Yeah. bigger sheds, right? And how does that relate to pole barns? That's different. Totally different. Totally different issue. They're You could call it a pole barn and you're fine. It's a zebra and a horse. They look similar, but they're different. There's another
threshold, too, right? Sheds 400 or greater require foundation or not from zoning? No, there's another UCCC threshold above the 200. There could be. Yeah, I'm not aware of. But so the the point of this was is that the 100 was
incorporated into our ordinances and it appears to be of the same age as when 100 used to be the UCCC. Right. So maybe we should has made it safe to have up to 200. So maybe we should say that the
number should comply with the UCCC number of 200 to permit a greater square footage. And quite honestly, keep in mind that impervious coverage is still an issue. Oh, sure. So if somebody comes to us and says they want to put a 500 square foot shed,
well, if they have the impervious coverage, we're going to let them do it. If they don't, they're coming to the board. Oh, of course. That's always that's always a consideration. Same with a pole barn. It's always ground covered door detached garage. Yes. But I I think our suggestion would be that they conform to the UCCC and make it 200 ft
allowable. So that way people don't have to jump through hoops on a bigger shed. And if it's square foot, if it's prop if it's lock coverage, that's a different issue. If it isn't, they're fine, right? Or we say something to the effect of anything larger than 200 square feet
requires construction permits in addition to in compliance with the way that I mean I think that would be a good suggestion. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Liz and Joe and Deb, uh are any of these items that the board
is considering making recommendations already are any of them already being considered by the planning board? Yes. Oh, good. That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I recognize you happen to attend planning board meetings tomorrow morning. Well,
for the record, he won the the the I'm sorry, when was that memo [Laughter] distri point of discussion, right? You're an engineer. I'm I'm an attorney, right? But I mean, it doesn't
hurt for us to express all. Yeah. No, you can. I just didn't know if you wanted to be have a the benefit of the other professionals advising as to where the planning board may be in the process. Of course, I do. When we go down, when we go to these sections like undersized lots, what has been the I
mean, I see and I and I agree with what's here about making something a wish list but never happening and then some poor land owner like this gentleman here gets stuck with a undersized lot when that's the way it was constructed. That's the way it was permitted to be
constructed and now you're telling them, "Sorry, your lot's too small." you know, and so I mean there is there's a section in the ordinance that addresses right um con the ability to get a zoning permit for improvements on
yard modification the yard modification section. Yeah. So perhaps maybe that's what we're getting at with the undersized lots is revisiting the yard modification section to see if there's additional exceptions that can be
especially for subdivision modification. Yes. So there some reflection yeah of the cluster developments. So what what would an example of like decks and pools? I mean, well, there's there's probably about six different developments that I can think of on the
top of my head that that zoning or in the land use they're referred to in this town as subdivision modifications, right? Wherein they say they're they took certain things. This is a perfect example. They said, "Okay, this is going to be following the R2 zone for such and
such. It's going to we put but because it's a modification we're going to allow a 50 yard 50 foot setback in the front yard instead of a 75 foot and the reason why that becomes I mean it's a modification the impervious doesn't
change so whether you're building a deck a shed a pool or whatever in those particular developments if you go over that impervious number regardless you're coming to the board oh I know that but I mean what are we suggesting then no I would say Instead of making something
simple like a shed, instead of making the lot as normal at 45,000 feet, look at what's actually there and average what's there and make that the normal because what's the sense of telling people that they should have a 45,000
foot lot, but they'll never have a 45,000 foot lot. That's absolutely impossible. So, you're making it impossible to begin with. Why not average the average lot size? figure, okay, if it's 25,000, if it's 30,000 or whatever it is, and say, "Okay, this is
going to be the average for the for this development." And so when people come for density, they're not over it if they're not doing something too large. So you're looking to try and relieve the incumbrance that the green acres pro
from the 80s put on them. Well, no, that as we get to the encumbrance because at that time the township allowed it, but then somewhere down the line they said R2 is 45,000. Not considering what was there. Same thing with downtown Sterling. Okay, your lot should be X by
XX, but it never will be unless you buy three houses, knock them all down, and build a house. We don't see that happening, as you say. But it's forward planning. That's the tough forward planning that will never happen, right? I mean, I I think it's a it it floods there. No one's gonna do that. Now, I I
think that and we say this here is that there was maybe uh encouragement for lot consolidation so people would be large be able excuse me build larger homes or do reinvestment. I've seen that not happen but it doesn't happen and so people are coming in with their one lot
and and 50 by 100 lot that says you should have a 200 by you should have 100 by a 200 lot. Can I exc Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. If we raise the lot coverage, that would be so helpful. I know. Especially lower. You mean lower the lot coverage? Raise the amount of lock raise
the max lot. I'm saying a lot of Yeah, raise it. I'm I'm familiar in my neighborhood, Homestead Park, Gillette area, and it's you can't expand your driveway 2 feet without having to go to the board. It's 25% coverage. And those
lots are already so undersized. Yeah. You can't put a shed. You can't do anything. I mean, I know one of my neighbors has a deck where they have to go and get a variance and he just keeps putting rocks under the front deck cuz he doesn't want to come because it cost, you know, 10 grand by the time you're done with planning and paying everything then and they're like that's why a lot
of houses look not so good in that neighborhood. Um so maybe you know would would the suggest would the would a proposed remedy be uh raising the lot coverage number or lowering the size of the lot to reflect what's actually there? Which one would I think the
master plan actually recommends a lot of these uh be put in different zones that some so making a zone especially lowering the amount either making a zone that's more to match to match the well that's what I'm making on the ground condition. Yeah. so
that people aren't finding themselves I mean this is a different situation though because he was in a subdivision that was intentionally undersized and it was newer I mean somewhat somewhat somewhat in the 19th century I mean it's newer you know it's
not a 1920s house or house when there really was no right guidance basically so but I think that is something not I think that this recommendation should stay in but the planning board is aware of it. And because it was also in the master, I'm glad they're aware of it
because as much as I like the business, I I hate when these people come in and say, you know, I got a posted size lot. Yeah. And I'm already not conforming at every aspect. Yeah. And I want a generator on my second floor. Yeah. I mean, that's why I because I live
in that farm. Ridiculous, right? is um I mean the issue we're seeing is that people are being encumbered to come to the board for complimentary improvements that are
incidental to a single family home. Right. Right. Right. And so if you can craft room for them to be able to obtain a zoning permit approval on certain dimminimous aspects of increase. Then
you can you can address that issue without without reconfiguring your zoning bulk standards or creating new zones to represent the cluster development that's in place etc etc. It's not as comprehensive of a zoning
change but you know there are certain yard modifications that that we're permitting for essentially what predates zoning. some of the small lots that predate zoning, but to have some other consideration for some of the undersized lot. But what
what and what inspired someone in the past to make a 45,000 square foot lot the norm in what was already in what was a cluster zone which everyone knew was permitted as a cluster zone. What inspired them to make 45,000
the norm? That's what I don't understand. Well, I I I think that maybe there should be additional standards if something is in a density cluster subdivision. There should be because I was looking through it while we're here. They should have some scaling of
imperous coverage, right? Because it's not fair that you're allowed to have a smaller lot. You're allowed to have a narrower lot. You're allowed to have shallower yards, but you have to adhere to the same percentage of lot cover. It It just doesn't seem to make sense. Well, it doesn't make sense that later
on somebody said, "Okay, that neighborhood should be 45,000 ft." Yeah. So, are you suggesting that anything that cuz anything that was a cluster subdivision essentially should be somehow notated noted on the zoning?
Sure. Yeah. Because the I mean, the builder built it in compliance with what the town told him to do, right? Yeah. If it was up to him, he would have used the entire piece of property. But somebody in their wisdom said, "We want that to be environmentally protected." And which is
fine, but now you're settling the poor homeowner. Wait a minute. I have 45,000 ft. Nobody in this neighborhood has 45,000 square feet. We need to be careful not to give anybody cart blanch as to make blanket coverages about, well, you're in that neighborhood, so
we're going to forgive any kind of abnormality on your property. That's that's the problem with subdivisions in general. Right. Right. So there what I do on storm water management. Right. Subdivisions are a problem because of the way the storm water management rules
are written and it's similar to what's happened from cluster development. So, correct me if I'm wrong about cluster developments, but what the cluster development is agreed to in the bulk standards essentially as an averaging of all of the lots in that subdivision for
the overall impact for that density modification, the clustering. Yes. So, the problem with what we're talking about is that each home as shown on the filed plat, each lot is part of that
averaging. So lot A and lot B don't get the same benefit of a bulk standard consistent to that. We're not create when the cluster is done, it's not creating a bulk standard that's applied to each lot. It's it's a cluster standard that's applied to the entirety
of the subdivision, right? And so what what happens currently in modern zoning with a subdivision, it triggers major development. stormwater management rules apply and the developer builds a spec
home with minimal improvements, no rear patio, etc., etc. And one way I've addressed it in other municipalities is we require the storm water management to be built to um a lot impervious coverage
that's normal. Yeah. So like if every lot as shown is going to be 13% we we ask them to round up to 20% so that each property owner is already accommodated for future patios etc amenities because
if we if I don't do that the way the stormwater rules are written every person that comes in for a patio needs to find a way to enlarge the rain garden that's on common property and go to the it's impossible. Yeah. Right. Exactly. We should be careful of
trying to create a standard based on like there is no bulk standard from that cluster development. That cluster development was a negotiation assess essentially to get to an approval. No, no, there are standards. So they establish like they may establish setbacks but the lock coverage is shown
on the on the on the subdivision plat for each one is going to be an average of the total impervious to the whole right. The impervious is the issue like impervious. Yeah. The other bulk stand the impervious bulk coverage is
aggregated across all that conservation that you're you're creating. Right. So so really anything that they want to do extra is appropriately coming to a board. It's just coming in with a for you know a a current standard as opposed to some acknowledgement of a prior
standard. So Joe, when you and forgive me because I don't remember exactly the terminology used, but when you were saying perhaps you want to like piggyback I guess off on existing type of off the yeah yard modification yard modification. So you meant picking specific types of improvements and
saying those are allowable and do not have to come to the board because they're they're within that yard modification thing. So we would put like a we have a section that says that. Yeah. And so we just expand that but we'd expand it with additional things like a shed or Yeah. or like like a shed
a shed 200 square feet or less a patio of and set a a dimminimous threshold on certain items. Got that can be incorporated onto a property and given to the flexibility of the zoning officer to without having to come through a
formal board meeting. That's okay. All right. Have we killed that one to death? corner lots. I always like the first Yeah. Some ordinances require one of the yard to be a rear yard. The reason Yeah, that's always been a problem. Yes. Because you have two front lawns, you
have two whatever. Depending on how your house is situated on the corner, you could have three something. I don't know. It just Have they are they addressing that? it. I will say this, they are taking on the master plan and the master plan
specifically says that the issues that are raised in the annual zoning reports should be looked at as you know for something to consider to live. It's like oh I want to pull put a pole in my backyard, my front lawn, my sideyard. Where am I putting it? What do
you call this this section of my house? Yeah, it's normally the backyard of my house, but now it's the front yard because it's a corner or I got another street behind me, you know, and we've seen that happen many times. Uh, and it's not fair to the homeowner because, you know, that's where the house was
built. Yeah. Um, not everybody borders somebody else's property. Um, you know, it's like I I I personally think that they should designate you should let the homeowner say, "All right, this is my rear yard. This is my front lawn. This is my side yard." And that's the way it's designated. Doesn't matter where
the street is, you know, that's you designate it and that's where it stays until the neighbor has a complaint with that because now your rear yard is in my front yard and I don't want to be looking at your kids playing your pool. Well, that's my front yard.
Yeah, I'm coming up with a bad I'm going over the bad. Well, because first of all, his rear yard is a front yard, so it's wouldn't be in someone else's yard. I'm just just I'm just saying we don't we're silent on it now. Okay. So, I think that's something that needs to be really looked at. Well, it has to. Yeah.
Because uh you know, we've had far too many people come before us and say, "Well, what is that section of my property being called?" Yeah. Is it my sideyard? Is it my front yard lot? Is it my side? Is it my rear yard? It's at the rear of my house, but it's the sideard. Well, only an issue when you have two roads, or a a circle road where you're
sitting. The rear yard would never be in the front of your house. And vice Well, the rear yard could be considered a front yard because there's there's our code is clear. what the two front yards are. It doesn't I'm saying it would right now
the two fronts the one front that we wanted no longer front would only be a side. It would never be a rear. Yeah, it could be if there's a if there's a state I guess if your house is part of the code says for people it
does then say if you choose we had that with N's property on the sub. Yeah. I mean the other we've also recently gotten some applications for triangle lots right and that's that's
where you know what is that is that a front and two sides or is there any rear you know I'll see your two sides and raise you in really um situation setbacks all right this has been a problem you do
it from the step you do it from the top step the bottom step the I mean where do you start measuring from you Is that is that being discussed? Well, to the extent that they're um discussing u whatever's in the zoning
reports. Yeah. Okay. But not explicitly. But that is an issue, right? Because sometimes people have overhangs too in their roofs, right? I mean, should it be only what's on the ground or should it be what in the air, right? Um you know, my opinion should be what's on the ground. Yeah. because that's really what
is where where it it's it's you know up here really doesn't make any difference you know I mean it's as far as setbacks go but you know I I don't know it just seems to me that these people that have weird configured property or weird
houses and we've seen a lot of them you know they have uh you know you know if you take it from my wall I'm 50 feet you take it to my base of my step I'm 10 feet you Okay. What do you think of that? But um um at least we're starting this
conversation and if they want to meet with us at some other point to go over the the fine tune the the nitpick the nitpicky things. You guys know what what what applications dealt with and you know how we sat here and kind of struggle with that. Mhm. Um all right
generators this is before you do that the uh the first sentence you have here here are issues from blank that I have not identified formally before so from from what the that's exactly right take out from from the from from take out
from something okay take out from what did you say on the out from the you can take off that whole sentence I don't know well but we never we haven't talked about Janet no I That was okay. That was sort of an informal because
what we were talking about is in the past we've talked about um different things in our last reports and those weren't discussed. So um All right. So generators, we were just discussing that tonight. So something that Deb has
pointed out um is that it's it's probably the 10 feet from the principal building may not apply to a generator but we have been applying it to people and I think one thing that we would say well we've been applying it here but not
from zoning right I've never seen I've walked around most of this township I've never seen a generator 10T from I know why would you want that I've seen them two feet three feet at the most never 10 feet but I think our were a little bit uh lean in the generator section of the
ordinance and it should probably be a little bit clearer. A little bit clearer and it I think it should be a little bit less burdensome for people to get them, right? Because it it is not that big a deal anymore. It should be more like getting a shed permit. Yeah. Basically,
you know, it's like selling selling diesel within a certain amount of feet from a from a school. It's it's an antiquated Yeah. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, there's no there's no safety concern anymore, right? I mean, they're pretty reliable. It's it's a lawn mower engine. It's not, you know, running on g on natural gas most of the time. So, one
one thing I did say is we have screening requirements for on non-residential generators, but I was saying that we should especially when they're in the sideyard, it it's nice to ask for landscaping, things like that. Yeah. I mean, that that's not a problem. It's just, you know, landscaping it, making it look a little less uh open. Should
that be a requirement or request? I think it should be a requirement. I think it should be okay. Okay. I put a couple bushes around it. Yeah. Honestly, is that's sound absorption and and or fencing. You need to breathe. So, yeah, you do. Yeah, they do have to have air induction. Well, the non-residential has
these standards, but not the residential, right? Okay. So, you want to apply it to them to the residential, too. Particularly when they're in the sideyard and you can see it from the street. Most time they are in the side. Yeah. And I think it not most of I mean my neighbors next door is in the rear yard. My other neighbor's in the rear
yard. So they aren't always on the side here, but um they like they like to feed them as close to the meter as possible so they're not split off the plumbing in your house. Well, they like to put them as close to G to the natural gas and the
electrics as they can, right? But but they they want the gas source to be at the highest pressure past the meter. They don't want it splitting throughout your house, right? So most people don't have them in their rear because then that's other internal plumbing to get there. while my neighbor is in the rear. Two neighbors I have are in the rear.
Don't rat them out. I'm just saying. And they got them. So So that's why they show up in the sideyard most of the time. That's a rarity. Yeah. I don't think there's very few that I've ever approved in a rear yard. Okay. I mean, we weren't here when these were put in. But um and when they plug into the to
the house to be electric, that's usually by the garage. Right. That's where Well, wherever your meter is. Wherever your meter is, they have to put a junction there. But typically by the garage, right? Well, that's because they want they don't want it costs more money every time you run that wire. It's more you every foot you're running that wire
is more cost than material and labor and running the gas line too obviously. But you're right. Most of the time it's on the side of the house closest to either electric or gas. Yeah. But um I mean you could say that you only care if you can
see it from the street or whatever. You know I think we have to we have to straighten up that 10 ft. Yeah. Well, 10 ft apparently is a non-issue, I think. Okay. The the issue is the interpretation because we both read it the same way and Okay. My letter from
today quotes the section. Okay. All right. And it permanent it this is inside the accessory structure section. Permanent generators and their mounting pads are considered accessory structures and must meet all requirements of
subsections. It's what's above it. One, four, and five, and six. This is eight. So, oh, so it really doesn't mean we read we read it the whole like we read it as sections above and the 10- foot setback is one of
the ones excluded. Oh, good. Okay. The way it's written should just be simply more direct. Yeah, it should because I think they're going around the Mberry book to try to get and you're kind of going back and forth. You're trying to go, okay, you're going back and forth, right? It should be clearer so that there's no ambiguity. You may also want
to request or require um screening around like uh HVAC equipment too that's in the sideyard like treat them all the same. Yeah. Just outside mechanical equipment. Full equipment too. Yeah. Or but things that you can see from the street. Is that new installation if
somebody has an undersized lot or is Yeah. If somebody's coming in and wants and that needs a generate, you know, wants and if they have a narrow lot, they have to put this on and then also put some screening in. Well, it can be a
bush. I mean, you know what I mean? It is just sort of saying, can you do something to soften it the appearance? A lot of builders like the house, the photos of that house we saw a lot of builders already kind of planned for that. They have that little al cove on the side of the house where they're
going to put their HVAC units and other utilities and then they have some edge of screening that's already kind of worked in. I've seen a house that's actually being built now where they have two HVAC units, HVAC, however you like to say it, but actually mounted on the
side of the house, right? Yeah. Oh, that Well, it's not on the ground. Flooding, I guess. Yeah, probably actually because it depends on the unit. Like I have that on my house because there are certain units that are now wall mounted or ceiling mounted. Yeah. That the condenser the exterior part split unit.
It's called the split unit. Yeah. The split units. They don't actually mount to the ground anymore. They mount to the the side of the house. Oh. Then I don't know how you depends on the unit. You can't before. Yeah. And and they're high up. They're 10 ft high. So if you put a plant there, you're still going to see it. Yeah. So maybe I mean are you
talking about gates and the corner there? So I noticed that for them like Okay. I don't know. I thought it was you. All right. We went through sheds goals and objectives. So, this is an issue. What's the goals and objectives? There if you look in our ordinance, the
first few like chapter or two is a list of goals and objectives that I think is taken probably from the master plan from 1996. And the problem is there's language in there that we had specifically taken out with the 2023,
okay, master plan. And it it's most ordinances don't have your goals and objectives for the town in their ordinance, but I I've we've seen use variance applications where the uh expert providing the testimony. So, well, this is your the goal and
objective is in your ordinance. So, and it may contradict what the actual had that we've had that happen. And now we're we're having to explain language that really isn't part of the ordinance. It's it's super super and it shouldn't be in there. You're right.
Yeah. Because it's actually causing a confusion. It's causing confusion for one specific and it's causing someone to hang a hat on it saying, "Well, you should have let me to do this because that's your goals." And it's hard for us to say, "Oh, well, yeah, it's in the ordinance, but it don't really." Yeah. Don't look over there. That's the
preamble. It's not part of the story. It's not the what we should be doing is beefing up our definitions. Like we needed an actual definition of a shed and a pole barn and you know, detach and things of that nature and doing away with Yeah. Yeah, we do because
definitions make it so much easier to put a a a get a handle on it and what it is and update if you have to. You don't have to change the whole document, but um All right. Y modifications, you were talking about that. Yeah, it it this
section is also I mean the three of us have had conversations trying to understand what is intented by some of the language. It's it's it's complicated. The modification is is kind of ambigu ambiguous anyway. Is that putting in a plant or is that putting in
a driveway? No, it's it's exempting, right? Yeah. But what is the ex? Yeah. What what does it intend to exempt? Well, it's it the when I've referenced it and utilized it in reports, it seems to me that it was clearly
written by somebody trying to make specific exceptions for specific examples that they saw at the board. Yeah. Okay. So, it wasn't I don't think it was written appropriately to be more generalized. And so, like, as I was say,
I referenced that we could look at this section for accommodating these other concerns, but it it's it's almost as if you took the zoning and planning board annual reports from a two-year span 15
years ago and said, "These five applications, I never want to see these again." So, this is written into the code here. So, when this but that property, you're never going to see again. that exact configuration you're never going to see again. So they don't I don't think they're as efficient at
providing the model they were intended to. Right. So they have to be rewarded to be more actually more general. So they aren't as specific more general and more understanding. Yeah. Yeah. Broader application. Yeah. the the other there is one subsection of that and I bring it
up because this is the thing about if a deck can be counted as 50% impervious if certain uh things are put underneath the deck and we had an application recently where we held the applicant to this standard and Joe had been excused from the meeting and when he saw what we had
put in the resolution he was sort of alarmed that we had been impact like u imposed something that was really ownorous on a single family that that we made him. Well, we we made him do the one or two things that are listed in this section which is like and if it
tangled or is that the one that was also last year? No, I don't think she No, I don't think she was. She may have been actually is the property that like maybe had no improvements to it in about 30 years. Right. The deck So the deck we were talking about that she was going to
reconstruct Yeah. was there from the original approvals of the property, right? And so to make them dig up under the new deck and put in this infiltration that we don't know if it's gonna work isn't it's it's not help. It's just cost generative and it's not
providing a real benefit. Disturbing the soil which is worse. My issue with this section is the um the lack of understanding for a resident on there's a clear difference
between impervious coverage and lock coverage. Right. Right. like we use the term impervious coverage. So it's synonymous for zoning purposes with lock coverage. Impervious coverage in the storm water applications is different, right?
Everything has a varying level of impervious or nature. So when when our code references impervious coverage and you're getting a reduction for the zoning, I personally don't find it appropriate. I think the lot coverage is
the lot coverage and if you have a deck and it counts as lot coverage, it counts as lot coverage. What you do underneath it doesn't matter if it's going to drain or not. It's part of the intensity of your lot as it's perceived visually by the neighbors in the neighborhood. block coverage is there both as a as a
standard is there both for storm water runoff concerns but also for massing which is a visual to the extent that the particularly to the extent that the lock coverage is above ground it's not just pavement so I preer to address the lock
coverage for the massing as the bulk standard and let the storm water sections of our ordinance govern this the standards for mitigation we did have a question And it came up about a pvious coverage and I think somebody really
fantastic no brought up the uh stop um the the the the gapping of the decking which doesn't usually come up in in what we see in this was that tangle wood perhaps or was it's in this section. Yeah. So if we were able to gap it just a little bit more the woman did not have
to dig up her whole backyard, put it in pits and all kinds of things. It was just gap your deck a little bit and Oops. No, it's a twofold. It was the gap and then it's gravel underneath. Okay. But she didn't have to dig up. She was able to put gravel, I believe, 8 in or
something. Listen, I would not even I'd rather you not waste the money on gravel. Me, too. To create cuz what they're going to do is they're not going to back fill a clean crush stone. They're going to put DGA in. The DGA is going to have slippery fines and it's going to choke up anyway. So, you're
basically creating an imperous pad under there over over time. I'd rather it just be exposed open earth underneath underneath that deck. If it's truly under a deck and not part of a living space, an outdoor patio space underneath. Mhm. I'd rather it just be
the native land. Okay. Um I concur because I don't think we're our municipality doesn't have the soils or the or the depth the groundwater table to create these as mitigation solutions. We're usually dealing with the fact that
it's I I'm finding it technically in feasible reason to give somebody that's not just the minimist but something else like what we we have a lot of shelves right what we had at the planning board last week with a a subdivision uh there was no reason to put the the
drywall in it was closer to a thousand square feet of new impervious but we worked with them to connect to the storm sewer in the street I see to get the water out of the area down in syrup. And I think one of the issues I have in here is we it needs to be a little more
flexible too because of course storm water mitigation strategies evolve completely yeah completely evolved past where the data what was what was good yesterday isn't good tomorrow right and I think further that I think the bo board or aka township engineer has both
hats I think that Joe should be able to work with any applicant whether a standard zoning application or a board application to determine because there are materials out there that are considered pvious now. So I think Joe should be able to determine as the
engineer to say I'll allow you to use this type of paving stones that are technically pvious versus impervious. So, we get that. We get that a lot, too, is people say, "Well, if I put a a pvious pavers in, well, then I'm not
over my lock coverage." Like, no, no, no. It's still it's still a massing issue. So, the zoning officer has to deny you, but yet what you're doing is mitigating that massing issue for the storm water impact, right? So, I'll work with you on the storm water side, but you're still going to have to come to the board for the lock. And they don't
understand that nuance. You know the funny thing with those pious favors alongside the senior center they were made to put them in on the lefthand side to accommodate maybe a fire engine going over them. But I've noticed over the years they actually um come out of the ground. They actually get throughout the
the ground heaves them about eventually. Yeah. Because we don't have soils that are conducive. So promoting we took a bunch of them and used them as a pad of steps. The ones that were heaved out, we made into a little pad because it was like the Eagle Project and he was like
cleaning up the property. But they heave out of the ground. They just come right out of the ground. They don't stay. Mhm. Cuz the water goes through and then it freezes. Pops them up. So you can't I was I was surprised at how many that popped out of the ground. Yeah.
Um I have something to add to this if I see I see nothing else beyond this if if I may add. Yeah. Go ahead. And it's something that we sat here. I don't know how long and we'll all have fun. Maybe maybe you remember this one, Jonathan. You know it's coming. Mother-in-law
apartments. Oh yeah, it's a big topic. We need to do something. We got to name them. We got to redwelling. Yeah, you know, what would you like to call it? She shed. And that that that's a that's an excellent one that we should tell
them about. Why make it end when someone sells the house? Because it is a beneficial use for that property. All of a sudden, you sell the house, you got to rip out a kitchen. Yeah. I mean, it's like it it if we allowed it to go for this, if you if somebody wants to buy it
and say, "I want to put my mother in there." Why not allow them to have it? If it was good for one particular situation, somebody else might want it or might make it more desirable. But no, you're talking about two different things. So if if if somebody wants to use a mo an existing mother-in-law suite
or an accessory department as the way it's written in the ordinance right now and they move and they want to use it for the same thing, they can because that's allowed under the code. What you're talking about what happens is when people come in and they move in and they say, "Oh, I have a sec I have an apartment. I'm going to rent it to
whomever. I'm going to that's when the use fair." No, I I understand that. But I thought there was it was an issue because there was a not for resale. They want to use it for the same thing. A lender will aender there was an application where it was specifically in
the condition of the approval that upon the sale they had to relinquish that. So they requested that we remove that condition. Right. But why did we put that condition? Why did you put it in there? That's that's for a younger you. But let me ask this. You know, I was wondering I thought we put it in there
because certainly more of the ordinance than that. Is there anything coming up? Uh, has the state done anything more with ads sensory deal dwelling units? I haven't heard anything. Okay. Because that was a big thing last year at the conference. They were talking about that the state was going to put forward
legislation for each town that you were going to have to choose an A or a B option and no opt out, you know, for accessory apartments. But yeah, last I heard it was moving forward, but I haven't heard anything in a while. I don't know. Liz, have you heard anything
about the I have not heard anything. I mean, everybody's busy with affordable housing and fourth round. So, the numbers disputes the first four months and now the, you know, plan because I could have sworn that person in North Southfield, we put that condition in
there to satisfy what we thought the ordinance made us do. Yes. So, that's why I thought we put it in there and it was something to do with what we were told by our attorney saying that prior to do that by our attorney. Well, I and I do and I think you're right and I
think the concern of the board was that somebody moving in would use it as an apartment would use it illegally without knowing a non relative. But I you know at the same time we do have a checks and balances in registation. Yes. Which is a yearly certification, right? You could
also you could also put it in the deed. Yes, you can put the the unit. Well, there's supposed to be, right? So, if it's in the deed, it's not an issue, but it's part of the title that for what it's worth, I've seen lenders uh deny the mortgage or have to have a a stove
pulled out because they say it's a two family place and we're only lending money on a single family home. Just something that you probably aren't seeing. That's not why this discussion is happening, but I'm just letting you know something I see out on the other side. That's a good observation. Thanks
for your expertise. uh because lenders aren't in line with the seller and answer use or you know with the mother or daughter suite or it goes to the percentage that they want you know interest rate and what kind of property are we lending on if it's in the deed then it's something different a dollar
for every time on a weekly basis that I get asked if people could build a two family house here if I can make you know because you know post pandemic this is and with um the cost of living yeah right you know this is very common thing that you know people in single family
residences they want either you know they want to build a small apartment to either rent out they want to build a small apartment for their you know 20some year olds who graduated from college or parents or Right. Exactly. So it's a it's it's more common that I'm
seeing this and you can correct me I don't know if you're here but it's much so much more common now post pandemic than I had ever seen it before. Really? Well, I guess that's something that Airbnb created that. The other thing I think also, and we really haven't seen it, is people wanting a separate
structure because they work from home, but they don't want to actually be in their home. They want to like go somewhere. Yeah. They want to be above the garage, right? Those are the use because you're expanding like that one episode of Everyone Loves Raymond when a door opens and it shakes the whole
We do have a lot of that, but they if they don't put a kitchen in, you can build a bedroom bathroom. Yeah. But they're limited to 100 square feet. Correct. Yeah. Unless they put up a pole barn. They could put up a pole barn, right? With two with windows on the top. Yeah. With
pole dancing. Really? Okay. Nobody said they couldn't. No. Have a birthday. Is there anything? Oh my gosh. Is there anything else before we Okay. I know. Alex has a birthday gift. He's not sharing. My wife's
actually she'll have another one. That's more critical. Yeah. Didn't you go to last year's? Yeah. Yeah, I did. In fact, I took her out last week. It's high enough already. How many times? Hopefully, it's not a big You're spoiling. We're on the
record. The 18 on record 18 to Motion to retiring this. We're not uh Yeah. Well, so here's what we'll do. So, I'm I'm going to write up, if you could see on
the page three, I'm going to do like a summary of the board observations. Liz and I and Joe will work together to make sure that we kind of capture everything we discussed. And then I will present one final version to the board next meeting. I will be way ahead. I will be here next. Do you want me to wait two meetings then? Yeah. Okay. Then we'll
wait two meetings. Okay. And then um and then the board will vote on it to send it to the plan. We already have a draft resolution. Sounds good. That's great. Go ahead and move second. Okay.