Okay everybody, we are on the air. Thank you. Calling to order the uh zoning board of meeting of adjustment meeting for July 7th, 2026. Call [clears throat] to order and
statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting/hering has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting/hering dates on the municipal bulletin board by sending a copy to the echo sentinel and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Two, standard board
procedures. Any meeting/hering conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial meeting/hering must be maintained at all
times. Three, mating cutoff. Announcement is made that as 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 slash meeting of the board unless a motion is passed by
the members then present to extend the meeting hearing to a later specified cutoff time. Electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices so as not to interrupt the proceedings. Pledge of allegiance. Carrie, would you please
lead us to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] >> Roll call. Deb, could you lead that?
>> Absolutely. Mr. Arono >> here. >> Mr. Ganakis >> here. >> Mr. Rosenberg >> here. >> Mr. Watts >> here. Mr. Zadrosni is ab is excused this evening. Mr. White >> here. >> Mr. Zortk is excused this evening. Vice Chairman acting chairman Groskoff >> here.
>> And chairman correct is excused this evening. Chairman, we have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> Resolutions this evening. We have a resolution for Jennifer Arnette application number 26-02Z. Has everyone had a chance to read it?
>> Yes. [snorts] >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And anybody have any changes at this time? >> I'll make a motion to approve it. >> Okay. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> A second or second. >> Okay. Mr. O'Neal. >> Yes.
>> Mr. White. >> Yes. >> Mr. Giannakis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Watts? >> Yes. >> And Chairman and Vice Chairman Groskoff? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. >> That was easy. Okay. applications
preliminary and final major site plan variancebulk variances to be carried from there's a whole list if you need them I'll read them all to be carried to 81826 block 12304-
lot 1/zone P 1891A longill road application 25-17Z New York SMSA limited partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. Applicant proposes to install a 104 foot tall monop monopole and emergency backup
generator. As I said, that's being carried. >> Next one is >> without further notice. >> Without further notice. Thank you. >> So, we need a motion and a second. >> I'll make a motion to carry that to August 18th. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Great. And just for the
record again, this is being carried to August with no further notice required by the applicant and the applicant has provided the township an extension of time for decision. Okay. Bulk variance. Next the next application is bulk
variance block 13702 lot 4 zone R30 formally R3 49 Preston Drive application number 26-04Z. Um can I ask you to say your name please?
>> Oh sure. >> Thank you Aneska Wallik. and the applicant seeks a variance for a lot impervious coverage relief for a previous edition and patio areas. >> Okay, before we get started, can you please raise your right hand? Uh, do you
swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth so help you God? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> And can you please just spell your last name for the record? >> Sure. It's W A L E C. As Ed would say, what can you tell us about your project?
>> Sure. Uh, good evening to everyone. Um, so I am the previous owner of 49 Preston Drive. >> Just pull the mic a little closer. Sorry. Yeah. >> Is that better? >> That's better. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I'm the previous owner of 49 Preston
Drive and I am here on behalf of the current uh owner. Their name is Mr. and Mrs. Swindle. uh with their permission. >> And are they here? >> They're not here. >> They are not here. >> No. Uh the property has been already sold and the current owner received the
temporary uh certification of occupancy uh with the condition that this um impervious uh coverage variance be heard by the board. Uh we are asking the board to approve the existing condition. So CO
[snorts] process uh can be completed. The existing condition has not caused any problems for the surrounding neighborhood. Uh in your package you will um I included also the pictures of the patio
and walkway and I want to thank you for your time and uh consideration. I respectfully uh ask the board to approve the application and I am happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you.
>> Any questions from the board at this time? >> Of course. >> I'm sure a little bit more. >> I don't want to cut anybody off. >> Um >> so how did you get to us? Why are you here? Like what what happened? Uh the the lot is um the coverage of the lot uh
exceeds by four 5.2%. >> Yeah. So how was that discovered? Who who who figured that out and how did they get you to >> So we had a survey and on the survey >> to to sell the house. Correct. >> Was the survey done by you or was done by the >> by by the new owner?
>> By the new owner. >> Correct. >> And then during that transaction process they realized that there was some varian needed to make the property correct consistent with the zoning laws. Okay. >> So then they contacted you and said that there are some issues with the property.
>> Actually I I was I came to zoning department. Uh I came to obtain the CO for the house >> and that's what when we discovered >> the CO was there work done in the house or you just needed inspections or approvals or anything? >> Uh well there's a construction. >> There was a construction. Yeah. Which
which all the permits we >> Okay. So, so then once once you were looking for the CO, then the town realized that that you were over the a lot of coverage requirements and directed you to the zoning. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, when you were doing the work on the house, how did that happen? Did
you have a contractor do that? >> Yes. Um, so um, previously in the space where the walkway is, it was a gravel that was, um, >> you're talking about the front pa sidewalk in the driveway. >> The back of the house. The back of the house. Yes, correct.
>> Okay. >> And everything sank in uh into the ground and the water start building up and we start getting mosquitoes >> and also for the cosmetic purposes. >> That's great. So, you needed a you needed a a a patio with a sidewalk to get into your house
>> to access. Yeah. >> Understood. So, now [snorts] to do that, you hired a contractor. Did you do that yourself? >> I did it myself. >> You you actually physically did it yourself or your somebody else in your family helped you with that? >> Family. >> Your family did that? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um do they have experience
doing that? >> Yes. >> Are they are they they have the contractor business? Okay. >> So since they have experience, did they know that they needed to get permits to do that? >> Uh since we thought, you know, it was existing some kind of walkway.
Um I didn't think, you know, it will be necessary to think. >> Okay. >> So lots of times the contractors know that when you increase the coverage, you should check that. that we look at, right? That's something that should be done. >> Um, especially, it's a pretty big
increase, too. It's going from 20 to 25%. >> I'm not talking about the percentage over. I'm talking about the increase. So, it's not like you my own percent by a lot. Okay. So, you you did the you did the work and then how long ago was that done? >> Uh, 2015.
>> 2015. Okay. And so, it's been done for a while. So, you lived there the whole time with all that. [snorts] Okay. And then you do any work after that? No. >> Okay. Um, the question is about the retaining wall in the back. >> Um, that goes from your your property to
the neighbor's property. I guess that's the back of a property on Long Hill Road. The red house behind you. >> Yes. >> That looks like it's Long Hill Road. >> Yes. >> Um, so I'm going to show you the picture here. In this picture here, that drop off show to that red house
there, that's our neighbor's house. Yes, >> that's the rear of a of a house on walls over. >> Yes. >> That looks like a pretty steep vertical drop there. >> Yes. There's no retaining wall. >> There's no retaining wall. What holds
the the soil back there? >> It's there is a lag. That is true. But um it's not that steep completely. It's a small hill. How how from that >> it was always that that was existing
>> to the bottom right there. How how Steve would you say that is >> I I can't answer this question. I don't want to give you a wrong information. >> That's the property. Not her property. >> It's her property. >> The neighbor's property is not in the scope of the application. Just so you >> That's why I want to make sure you're
not asking. >> Would I do that? Would I really talk about Okay. So >> the reason why I'm asking this, it's a pretty big drop off. It's It's a 15t drop off >> in in um from the front of your house to the bottom of that wall.
>> Okay. >> My concern is that I don't know what that looks like. I haven't visited this property. I know the property. I've driven by it, but I wasn't able I didn't go into your backyard. I know the neighborhood. I grew up in that neighborhood. >> I know that fall off there. >> It's pretty steep. >> I just have concerns over the safety of
that drop there. You have a patio that's a few feet away from a dry >> if I can say >> people socializing on patios maybe drinking maybe doing other stuff to me it's just like doesn't look good but go ahead what do you have to say
>> that was existing um if you look at that um the wooden log >> yeah I see that >> uh that was existing we never change anything [cough and clears throat] behind the log and basically between me and the neighbor from the below there is
a fence so the whole um hill it doesn't belong to me. >> Right. >> So there they have also a property on that hill that you are >> right to that that's not your property line according to this survey here.
>> Right. The the grade drops off and the fence according to this is showing you that that fence is squarely on your property. >> They they have um they have some kind of retaining. They may, [snorts] but that's not. So, the fence that you're referring to, I think, >> is on your property,
>> correct? >> That's not your neighbor's fence. >> See that? That's the fence. >> For reference, are you talking about the irregular wire fence remains at the bottom of the Okay, thank you. >> Yes. Oh, I think that's what she's referring to. That's the only fence
that's on the plan. U anyway, I have those concerns. I just wanted to know how you got here, why you did the work. getting the necessary permits and and how you landed in front of us. That's why I wanted to >> I I have a question. How the pavers, how
long have they actually been there? When did you actually install them? >> 2015. >> 2015. So, it's pretty much over 10 years. Have they moved or anything? They're all station. You have any big gaps in them or anything? >> Everything stays uh >> So, it's all stable. >> Yeah. As it was uh laid and also um just
like I said, we never did any work on the hill. We never had any problems with the neighbors. >> Good. Right. >> Uh having the water or anything. >> And >> was that also gravel also >> where the pavers are? So it was all gravel. So it was in per anyway. >> Right.
>> Okay. And and it was gravel for the walkway. You just put pavers over. >> All right. >> Okay. >> I'm satisfied. >> And if I can add, you know, I lived there for 13 years. >> Yeah. >> And just like I said, we never had any issues. >> Yeah.
So, so we doub doubt that you don't have any issues because your neighbors generally wouldn't know about like increased law coverage unless they had a serious water problem and they were looking for >> things to blame on that. So, that's not the issue. The issue is that you increased your law coverage. Your neighbors probably don't even know it,
right? They probably have no idea. >> Um, it's not like you built something on the property line that's in their way or blocking a view or something. The thing is you changed it to something else. Now, did you also increase the size of the driveway at that time?
>> Um, >> that driveway, did that that always that wasn't always two cars wide, was it >> at the bottom? >> At the bottom. It was, but not at the top. >> So, now it's paved at the top. Two cars wide. >> It was always um paved to the top.
>> And we kept we kept as much as possible the same width. But as you know, you grew up in this uh area. It's very hard, you know, in the winter time. >> Sure. >> So, um I think that we went a little bit
over. >> Yeah, that's what I think. >> Mhm. >> I think the same thing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> To Jerry's point, uh your front pa walk, was that done? It looks like it's the same stone as the back. >> Correct. >> Did you have a paper walk there before? >> Yes.
>> And you replaced it same size? >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. And I you mentioned the fact that the what you had there before was collapsing, etc. Was there so [clears throat] that was the PA walk that we're looking at on the on the map?
>> That was the part that was collap. >> No, in the back. I'm talking about the back. >> So, was the deck there also when you purchased the house or whatever? Correct. >> So, you didn't replace the deck? >> We we did. >> Oh, you did? But just the same, >> but under the deck there is only gravel. There is no
>> Okay. pavement. >> But there was a deck there before you. Oh, right. Okay. And then the area to the I guess to the right of the deck in this picture here, the paved area with the I guess it's a fire pit or something on it. >> Yes. >> Was what was there when you moved in?
>> Same thing. It It was just a gravel and everything collapsed and there is a um mother u mother mother-in-law suite on the back and there is a door. So, we had basically no walkway. we could not uh
use use the area that was in the basement. So >> So the area that the area where you show pavers next to the paver walk was also the same gravel stone that was collapsing. Okay. >> And was it was it packed gravel? >> Exactly.
>> Yeah. >> And it's the same exact footprint essentially as what that packed gravel was. >> I had a little bit. >> Okay. >> Deb, were these photographs were they included with the application package? Is this what we were talking about? >> I don't think so. I think I I think that was an oversight on my part. I think I forgot to send them to the board. So, we
may we should >> we should mark them as exhibit. >> So, we're going to mark them as exhibit A1. >> Yeah. This is the first time I'm seeing these. >> Okay. >> Another question, a follow-up question because you just testified that the that underneath your deck is gravel. >> Correct.
>> Um is that this is that true of underneath the staircase also, which is enclosed. It's an enclosed area. >> So, under >> that's part of your deck. So under that there is a um old um concrete uh stairs.
>> Okay. >> So it's concrete and stone. >> Correct. >> Some areas are stone, some are concrete. >> Correct. Concrete is [snorts] just a um if I can point exactly where the stairs are. Is that okay if I
>> Sure. Absolutely. It's near the propane tank. Right here. >> Okay. >> The enclosed stairs. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
What what year did you move into the house? >> 2013. >> 2013. >> 2013. >> The end. Um I purchased the house in uh November. [snorts] Middle of November. >> All right.
question. >> I I have I have just have a question for the people on the board or for so in 2013 when she purchased would this because it sounds like this was hardpacked gravel which would count as >> impervious coverage would that not have
come up on something when she purchased the house in 2013 or was that before we had some was that before >> forgive me but that's irrelevant because it's what we're dealing with now. I'm asking a question. I'm asking a question. And it is relevant. It is relevant. It's relevant in that >> she was not aware at the time. And if
they said, well, you had 20% lock coverage, then she was just she thought she was just paving over the exact same thing then. Understandable. So that's why >> how would they either way it's irrelevant for what? >> It's relevant for me. So I'm asking the question just like you asking questions.
Okay. So, I I'm wondering would that have come up similarly that this came up with her uh in her selling of the house >> in terms of whether this is a legally pre-existing >> Yes. >> item thing on the property, a
pre-existing um walkway. It would have to pre-exist the ordinance that >> um >> that required this amount of lock coverage, which is 20% at this point. And I don't believe that uh there's ever
been an ordinance that allowed more lot coverage. I believe it's been 20% from the very beginning, from the inception of the ordinance. So, in that regard, >> um >> unless someone here would be willing and able to testify that that packed gravel
preceded the adoption of that ordinance, then then it really is irrelevant because sometimes people don't check. Yeah. and the zoning officer doesn't know and they have no reason to know. Um sometimes purchasers don't require
um or in the past uh certificates of occupancy for uh changes in occupancy, changes in ownership, they weren't required. >> Um so there was no reason for anyone to ask. >> Gotcha. Okay. But but what is relevant is the fact
that it's existed for at least 11 years if not more than 11 years. Um it was in existence in 2013 uh where the witness is is testifying that when uh she moved into the property. Um and the board uh should
look at whether or not there have been storm water problems and if any mitigation measures are required then this is the opportunity uh to require them whether it be a dry well or anything else. Um whether you believe
that that 5.2% 2% in excess of what is permitted um causes some detriment to other properties that surround this one. >> I'm going to assume that the answer is yes to this next question. You did
notice the neighbor below you, correct? >> Absolutely. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Or any water damages over the last decade or so. >> So that water, as you know, runs all the way down >> to my backyard. >> Yeah. Exactly. and it floods Milton and it floods all the streets in between.
So, just saying it's we've had to put major major dollars into water mitigation on that street. It's just just the way things are built. I mean, so the goal of of the town is to have all of the water from your project stay
on your property, right? That's the goal. I know it's difficult, but that's that's what we're trying to achieve. So, That's why we're so adamant about >> Do you have a detention basin on your property? >> A detention basin for collection of
water on the property. >> I I'm not sure. I >> like a dry well or something to that effect. >> It would be on that survey. >> I I don't see it on the survey, but sometimes sometimes it gets missed, but >> that's the reason why you build people get permits is so that you can do it the
right way. And then when you're doing the construction, you have a backho there already. Maybe you just, you know, had them at the time. >> It's not on the survey, but then again, it's a surveyor. You know, when Bill Hollows, he's an engineer. When he goes out there, like in our next application, you know, he captures all of that
>> and and I'm not really sure if there is one here or not to it >> because generally what a survey is going to do, it's going to look at what the boundaries are. But if I may say um one more thing
>> living you know in this house uh even with the large rains big pores and stuff I never we never saw nothing on the long hill road that will >> be collecting or >> because it's a slope and it goes down and it keeps running it doesn't stop
along the road because it's a drop of literally 30 feet or you know 25 feet slope it's like crazy it's a it's a cliff The water rushes down the street. >> Although this surveyor has captured pretty much everything on this property.
So if there if there Yes. If there was a dry >> I don't see. >> God bless you. >> Bless you. >> I don't see anything. He's got all the papers marked. Deb, to what extent has our engineer
looked at this application? >> He's reviewed it quite extensively. I mean, and he did not have any issues with it. >> And had there been an issue in his eyes, he would have been here. >> Absolutely. Or anything like that. >> And or he would have written a more extensive memo. >> But he has definitely reviewed it. And
again, it's this is I I'll remind the board of the procedures, you know, in the between zoning and construction. This is a scenario and you'll have a few others this year with the same scenario and that happens quite frequently as this board is aware that
when either if a zoning officer gives an approval or maybe it comes to the board right depending on the type of an addition like this um we generally always require a asbuilt survey once the project is
complete to close it out for certific certificate of occupancy for just in cases like this in case there are additional things the contractor may add without you know or without discussion the and the homeowners it happens all the time with the how homeowners don't think think about it they trust the
contractors and you know etc etc so in this particular case this is the perfect example >> so um unfortunately the when she went to sell the house she couldn't close it because these were open permits everything is in line except for the
impervious coverage So, we got the permits. Got the job done. >> Wait, we got the permits. We got the job done. >> Yep. >> Just never sealed it up by bringing it back and having them >> correct. And then in order for for her to be able to close for the new property owners, the attorneys got so because as
as we all know, anybody can technically be the applicant with the owner's approvals, right? So the attorneys in this particular case said we are willing to uh close on the on the house as long as the as as Miss Wallik um agreed to go
to the board for the variance to get the problem solved hopefully. >> I'm sorry. >> Couple things. So you said earlier that the zoning officer gives approval. >> Yes. >> Did the zoning officer give approval in this particular >> Yes. >> And how could they do that when there's
a a requirement to like because my predecessor my predecessor didn't pay attention to certain things and impervious coverage was one of them. >> Okay. >> So, did they at that point like you said requested as built? Did they request that?
>> They would have had they come for final closure, but the homeowners were not aware at the time that the contractors never closed out the permits. >> Well, she said they didn't have a contractor. They did it themselves. >> No, the addition >> addition [clears throat] said they did this other work themselves. >> Right. But but needless to say, what
happened is they were under the impression that everything was closed out. It was not. >> That's It doesn't make sense to me that if they did the work themselves, they would ask the contractor to close it out. I >> didn't They may have done some of the
hardscape themselves, but the addition they did not do themselves, >> right? But the addition is not the issue. >> It >> the addition is not part of this right now. We're talking about >> Well, the permits for the addition weren't proposed, >> right? >> Not the permits for the >> But we're not talking about the addition. That's not part of the application.
>> The application is only dealing with the with the impervious coverage, which the addition doesn't look like it expanded. It expanded the footprint of the house. >> The addition. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, the addition expanded the footprint of the house and we and we don't have
board approval on that. >> They didn't need it. >> Obviously, it did. No, they did not need it for initially because the drawings that were initially submitted and reviewed were under the impervious coverage calculation. >> Okay. So, so the addition itself is conforming, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we're back to where we were
before. It's dealing, we're only dealing with the with the patio and the walkway as we said earlier >> and then we're not contracting. >> So, the addition again one second. The addition is not part of this application. >> No, the addition is not part of the application. >> Okay. That's what I started as saying. Okay. But anyway, >> I'm just giving you the background as to why she's in front of the board. So the
zoning officer gave approval because it was conforming. It did not need Okay. >> So we still don't have somebody coming to the town for approval for lot coverage. >> Hard skip. >> Correct. For lot coverage, >> correct? >> Issues. Okay.
>> No. >> So that's the problem. Okay. It made it sound earlier. I I mean I misinterpreted earlier that that that somehow the town like gave tacid approval of this, but they did not. Town did not approve this. Okay,
>> that catches us up to where we are today, right? So, we're looking at the hardscape. >> We're looking at the 5% 5.2% over >> and there should be is there anything else we're we're needing as a condition.
I don't think that I think that's the only problem we're facing. Right. Right. I guess the point here is is do we ask for a dry well at this point even though it's been >> we're not qualified to figure that out >> right we need we need an engineer >> but what we could do is ask for further
review and um so another thing is the engineer can recommend it but so can we um we can recommend for environmental reasons the engineer can recommend it to be in conformity with statutes
>> and the engineer had no comments about the statute. They're in line with the >> right. That's that's what I'm saying. So So that's one part of it. And the second part is we can recommend it as a board. >> Why would you do that with a hardship on an applicant? >> Okay, Deborah. I don't think that's an appropriate question for
>> Well, I'll take it. Why would we do that with a hardship on an applicant? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> The way I'm looking at it is this has not been a problem for the last decade or so. And if it had been, now would be the time to remedy it.
>> But if it's not, I don't think we need to put any additional incumbrances on the property. >> That's your opinion. >> That is my opinion. >> I only one vote. >> Yeah. >> So I I think we would need to uh >> And Deborah, when you question me,
that's fine. But I don't know that the board secretary should be questioning board members on their opinions on environmental. >> Well, then I'm happy to square myself in as the zoning officer. >> Zoning officer. whatever your position is. Thank you. >> Okay. Well,
the board engineer has opined on this. He he has he has taken a look at it and he he thinks that the board in its discretion um can be satisfied by planning proofs uh such that the applicant
doesn't have to be compelled to require storm water mitigation or or the board doesn't have to be compelled to require storm water mitigation. So, in other words, the engineer is going either way on this. Um, as you say, you have a right to do that from an environmental standpoint, but he doesn't believe that
from a stormwater management standpoint, it's necessary. And because in his opinion, and I'm just reading something that he had written in an email uh to the professionals, uh he said that in light of the fact that conditions haven't changed in at least the last six years because he's been looking at
Google map aerials of this property since about 2014. and you know, he's taken a look at um the changes on the property, any changes that he could have ascertained just by looking at the Google maps, and he thinks the conditions are stable.
They're unchanged for at least almost a decade. Um so it really is up to the board uh to determine whether or not a storm water mitigation measure might be uh needed for this property, you know, to mitigate that 5.2% 2% that has been
in existence for you know now we've heard for nearly I don't know 12 13 14 years >> or or more. >> If I could add or ask a question I'm not sure. Um she basically didn't add more than 900 square feet which would require
anything more. So she's basically it was basically a gravel drive uh gravel pa um where she put the pavers is basically a gravel walkway which like um was mentioned that it was impervious coverage to begin with. So she really didn't add anything. >> So it's really it's really the same. >> A little bit bigger though than what
they >> even still not even if even if you want a little it's still not 900 square feet. So I mean >> you know I mean everybody in this neighborhood Jerry you know I I live in it's it's always a problem because of the lock coverage there. It's just and they're supposed to be changing that eventually. You know they're making a
master plan. This two two three years from now this may not even she may not even have to come in front of us you know. So, and >> thank you very much for your explanation of the engineers position. We did not have that information prior to this meeting. >> So, I do appreciate that.
>> Sure. >> And um like you said, it's can go either way. >> It can. And and just you know what we're looking at here is not impervious coverage, it's lot coverage. So, there is a little bit of a distinction. Mhm.
>> Well, when it comes to the water, I thought, >> you know, obviously more impervious coverage, you need dry wells and such, but as long as it's not more than 900 square feet, you wouldn't need it anyway, >> right? >> That's what I'm saying, >> right? >> If I'm right, I guess. So, I'm right or wrong with that. >> You are correct. >> Once in a while, I'm right. Once one
time a day at least, like a broken clock, you know, >> coverage twice a day. >> And also, you know, part of this coverage that we're talking about here is a deck, right? There's a wood deck. >> Yes. >> On the property. which opens the gravel below. >> Oh boy.
>> Right. >> But we don't know that, you know, it gets a little technical because we don't know the the gaps between the boards. And that's all relevant here. >> That is relevant. >> And then the other thing is like this this this patio, are you sure that was the size of
the patio the whole time? >> Are you sure about that? >> What do you mean? I'm sorry. >> The patio was these dimensions the the entire time when you purchased the that patio was there. >> I added maybe one um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's what I thought. It got a little bigger. So like that's what I'm saying. It dep when you do this, it
deprivives the board the the analysis to make the decision at the time. That's all I'm saying. And it it wasn't all there. This stuff was built recently. This stuff was recently built. Whatever you want to do with it, I'm fine with. But I'm just letting like we see this a
lot. We see this >> too often. And Paul, I understand properties are constrained, but if you come in and do the right thing, we find we we are a helpful board. I think we help applicants find the way to complete their projects. >> We take the path of least resistance. We I think we do that.
>> Yeah. We do the best we can for the people. That's what we're here for. That's what we're here for. >> So, let's do the best we can for her today. >> Yeah. >> And we always do. We always do. >> We do. >> All right. >> So, I understand what's the difference between and lot coverage because on the survey it says impervious coverage.
>> Yes. Um, and and I have to admit sometimes I use them interchangeably too, but in our ordinance it it's it's lot coverage. And I will read you uh the definition right now. I just because I don't want to just go off
>> sure >> and explain but lot coverage is defined as that percentage of the lot which is devoted to improvements such as but not limited to building structures paved or gravel parking areas loading areas paved or gravel driveways and walks pools or
ponds and patios and all other paved or imperous surface areas. So impervious surface area is within the definition of lot coverage. So I would say that this is a more stringent um definition.
It goes beyond imperous coverage because we're talking about uh ponds, pools uh on you know which in other you know >> anything that stays >> anything that that stays on the ground is considered lot coverage and is
regulated by the ordinance. and there is a limitation on how much of it you can put on the property. Some of those things don't contribute to runoff. So that's what the engineer is trying to say. Uh when he analyzes these things,
it's 5.2% of lot coverage. Um if we look at what the lot coverage is, it's a patio, it's a walkway. That's obviously impervious. So you have to take that fact into consideration if you're looking at any storm water mitigation measures. Um, so we're looking at a lot
coverage variance, but in terms of requiring mitigation measures, you have to look at the impervious coverage. And that's usually what the engineer is going to look at when he's going to design, you know, how much what type of a drywall you're going to need to hold
back the amount of water that you should be holding back on that property. [snorts] That brings us to the point of >> All right. So, one more question. On your survey, um, near the back of your house,
near the word asphalt and driveway, just below that, there's a little square that says pavers. It's on the survey, which is this this document here. Is that the little square about? >> Uh, this is um cup favors just for the
grill. >> The grill. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the grill's not on the patio, but it's on the separate box right there. Okay. Thank you. Of >> course. Thanks. See that? Well, that that's included in in the coverage. >> All right, councelor. Where do we take
it from here? >> This is not >> No. [snorts] >> Right. And and the definition I think I read that part of the definition. I didn't read that part of the definition. uh gravel areas not subject to
compaction such as decorative stone used in planting beds is not to be considered as lot coverage. >> That's a newer part of the ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> When was that? Just curious. Just
curious when that part of the >> We would have to look back >> at these ordinances to determine that part. Um, >> it was here when I was here last >> at least 20 to 30 years. >> Yeah, it's been it's been here. I mean,
I know when I was here in 2018, it was here. >> Probably going back around to the the original master plan in 1996. All righty then. All righty. Um, at this point I think we need to discuss
>> any Would you like any members of the public? >> Thank you. >> Any members of the public who would like to appine or ask any questions or anything else? >> Anyone? >> Nope. Would you like to get up and speak or >> need to get you? >> I didn't have I didn't even get the
microphone. >> But I'm her name is Preston. >> You should use a microphone. >> You can sit next to her if you like. Use that same mic. That's fine. >> Oh, that's good. Yeah. >> Welcome to the show.
>> So, I'm her neighbor at 46 Preston. Um and and what is your name? Anna Hart. >> How do you spell your last name? >> H A R T. >> Thank you. >> Um, and as long as I've known her and we've been since she moved in, we've been neighbors. We go over all the time.
[clears throat] Um, that's been there. So, and it doesn't even on rainy days and go to her house, everything's fine. Um, and I Yeah, I don't like see any problem with it. And I know that she was really close friends with the lady that lived behind
her in the red house before she passed. Yeah. >> Um and she never >> Can I swear you in because you're testifying and you can [laughter] you can but I want to swear you So do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this application is the truth. So I help you God. >> Yes. >> Thank you. But you already said stated your name for the record. You're Anna
Hart. >> Yep. So, what you're saying is that you have not observed any storm water issues and uh you also testified that the neighbor next door hasn't experienced any storm water issues. >> No, I mean really close friends before she um passed away. So, yeah, if there
was an issue like they would definitely say something to her >> or she would say something to her. >> Are are you the White House in this picture? I don't know if Are is that you? No, that's the next. No, that's >> that's the other side. >> That's the other side. Yeah, I know.
They have a >> Yeah. >> So, you're on you're actually on the other side of Preston. We're above her. Yeah. Up at the hill a little bit more. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, but >> and you've lived there for how long? >> Uh since 2010 >> and you you don't know about any water
problems, water issue with neighbors. You would know. You know, >> yeah, we know like >> I agree. The people that never have water. No, she knows the people [laughter] across. >> Yeah, we know everybody in that whole neighborhood. We're really close um >> to every neighbor. >> Okay, very good. >> So,
>> thank you. >> That's it. >> Appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else like to make a comment? Seeing none, closing to the public. >> At this point, we just deliberate. Paul, >> would you like to start deliberation?
>> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. Uh once again, we find ourselves with lot coverage issues in uh this neighborhood and uh again, I hope they satisfied it soon with the new master plan because it's uh taking a lot of people's time and money. Um I'd be in
favor of this due to Mrs. Wallock, how you say her name? >> Wallak. >> Wallak. Sorry, Mrs. Wallak. You know, [clears throat] it was all gravel prior to this. It was a walkway. Uh she said she went a little bit over. It was way under 900 square feet from what they're describing. I don't see any anything
needed for water mitigation or dry wells or anything like that. And in this neighborhood, again, you dig a dry well and then the neighbor next door ends up with a flooded basement, which I'm I'm aware of in that neighborhood also. I think just leave it alone. It's been that way for 10 years. And I'm in favor of passing this application.
>> Um yeah, Mr. Aronia's comments I think were were really valid. Um hearing what the engineer had to say, which I was not privy to until today and knowing that he did an extensive review, find it necessary to recommend anything I think far far be it for me not being familiar
enough with the area personally anyway um to question that. So based on what we learned today, I think >> uh so based on what my other two colleagues have said, I kind of agree with everything you say. I think it was great that Jay brought up some good
points about what's going on with regards to lot coverage. Um and I appreciate you sharing what the uh engineer had to kind of u say about it. So overall, I I appreciate you coming out and I'm sure it was kind of like a little force, but it's good that we've
got this kind of resolved for the new owners to have kind of peace of mind and a and hopefully a property that is going to be, you know, approved. >> Thank you, John. >> Yeah, I think I agree with what everyone else has already said. I don't have much
more to add other than just saying that uh I hope that everything now goes smoothly for you in the sale. >> Thank you. Uh, you know where I stand. Um, well, if you don't, so I'll be a little clear. You know, I'm not happy about the increase size of the driveway. You are a
contractor family, so it's not like you had no knowledge of this. You know about this stuff. You told your contractors. Um, you increased the driveway. You testified that. You increased the size of the patio. You increased the size of both walks. You created an area for your grill. You built a deck. And, you know,
created all these things without any consideration. I'm not happy about that. But considering where we are, the engineers report the rest of the board's uh you know decision on this, I I think I'm not appreciate.
>> Thank you, Jerry. Um I [clears throat] too am I would be reluctant if you were still living there. You're not the house is sold. Um this was this was not many projects that
accumulated into a big project uh a big um lot coverage issue. This was one to my mind paper project that just kept going until it was done. U so I'm I find it a less egregious even though permits
should have been done and it should have been done properly. Um, to my thinking though, I I I'm going to go with the engineers report. I do thank Jerry and I I I like that we're looking at these things of people coming in after the fact, but I I will be
voting to the affirmative. >> Thank you. >> We have any We have no conditions. Correct. >> There are no conditions. >> Good. >> And can I get a um a motion? >> Yeah. Move it >> to approve. >> Motion to approve. Second.
>> Second. >> Who was the second? I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> Rosenberg. >> Mr. White. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rooney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gianakis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Watts. >> Yes. >> And Vice Chairman Groskov. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Good luck. Good luck. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Sounds all cleaned up. We'll move on. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you for doing this. >> Michael, come on up. Does anybody need a fivem minute break? >> Move on then.
>> All right. >> Next. >> How you doing? >> Doing well. How are you? >> Good. >> Next application. >> Lot 13101, lot 16.02, 2 zone R20 298 High Street application number
26-05Z. Michael Cortez. Did I say that correctly? >> I say Cortez. >> Cortez. Applicant seeks variance for lot impervious coverage to install exterior handicap lift.
>> Right. Uh what would you like to tell us about your application? >> Okay. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this application will be the truth? So, help you God. >> I do. >> Thank you. And your last name is spelled >> C O R T E S E. >> Thank you.
>> Uh, just for the board's knowledge, there are two things that you did not previously have that were emailed. You have a copy of a former resolution for this applicant that I found after the fact and that uh we do not need to mark as exhibit
because it is a public information. Yes. >> And there are photos. Uh Mr. Cortezi sent me um a photo of the a proposed photo and then a Google a Google Earth photo of the property. >> This is actually not his I'm sorry. This
is not his property. This is >> No, that's his. >> Oh, that that's right. >> That is his. Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> And I thought it was an example. Okay. >> No. Well, it's it's actually I think you got it from chat GPT, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's not going to look exactly like that. That's just the concept basically.
Yeah. No, it looks good. >> So, we will mark the uh the photos as exhibit one. >> Okay. So, um how many photos are there? >> Two. >> Okay. Are they dated? >> Uh no, I can date them today, though. >> No, that's okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Two photos
and their color, right? >> Yeah. And I had the opportunity just for board members information to read the resolution with regard to the lot coverage when the minor subdivision was
approved for this property. Uh it contained 31.2% imperous coverage. It was proposed to have 29.1% and it does have right now 29 29.1%. So the planning board um
did grant that variance at that time and this was back in 2011 to 29.1% impervious and what Mr. Cortez is looking for now is 29.2 correct for this pad. >> Okay.
>> So of 1% increase in the lock coverage is what you're looking >> correct. >> Okay. >> I don't know the math. >> So yeah, that's essentially it. So, it does require a variance because that 29.1% is an actual legal pre-existing
um situation that was approved by variance. So, they are permitted to have that 29.1%. But in order to move the needle to 29.2, they need a another variance from this board taking in account uh the fact that 29.1% is
already a deviation. So, So when when this when this this was you you were you came to the board to get this original one for 2011 >> and at the time it says you had 31.2 and went down to 29.1 at that time.
>> So or is that >> if you like I explain [cough] >> okay >> 31. >> Yeah. Well so I guess when you came in 2011 you were reducing your lot coverage. or >> I was expanding my lot. >> Oh, so you're Oh, you were taking
another lot on to combined. >> My mother-in-law lived next door when she passed. >> Um, we we were going to sell the house and the way her house sits, it sits down low and there's a retaining wall and I only had 10 foot on the side of my house. Mhm.
>> So, we decided to move the property line and that's what we did. So, we had a little more room and it fit the way it worked out well for the other people as well. >> So, it was a minor subdivision approval, but it was really a lot line adjustment
which which qualifies as a minor. >> Yeah. >> So, the other house still exists or Okay. So, there's still two houses, but Gotcha. >> So, because the lot got bigger, your coverage went from 31.2 2 to 29.1 at the time. >> Gotcha. Okay. So, there was no change in
what was there. It was just because your lot got bigger. >> Sorry, I >> No, I understand. >> In the in the R4, 25% lock coverage is permitted, but this property was permitted 29.1% by variance.
>> Taking a little more property. >> Exactly. It was pretty much dictated to me. >> Yeah. >> And and the need for this is, I assume, because someone in your house is >> Well, my wife and I uh are retired.
We're in our 70s. Um we love our house. We've been here 39 years. [clears throat] The only problem with the house is it's built into a hill. So to get to the first floor, we have to go upstairs. We don't have a real problem going up the
steps, but groceries, suitcases, packages are starting to, you know, become an issue. I'm going for, not to get personal, I'm going for a knee replacement. So, we'd like to have this lift. It's going to
lift up to our balcony, which goes into our wreck room. And when I designed the house, I had put our bedroom on the first floor. So, technically, it's almost like a ranch to us. And we want to stay here. We love it here. This is where I'm from. So,
this is what we like to do. >> Can I ask a question, please? There's an elevator on the outside of the house, right? >> Yes. that goes up to my balcony and the only this pad is only to mount the two uh struts that hold it to the house and
I actually they're only requiring um uh 68 by 57. Uh but I'm I'm making it a little longer because there is a small retaining wall there that's um paper and um we're going
to we're going to redo that and The landscaper claimed that you're going to put a pad, try to extend the pad, you can walk off the pad with the retaining. >> So, so if this gets approved, then you'll have an elevator on the outside of the house >> on the outside on uh uh to the right of
my balcony, >> right? I'm looking at the AI drawing. >> They they make it to whatever color you want, you know, so it'll blend in real nice, >> right? But then everything will still be outside on that balcony. [cough] Still have to bring it in. And I don't know
the configuration is inside the house, but have you ever considered an elevator inside the house? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And this you see you see this as a better solution. >> Starting at about $70,000. >> We got to change all the beams and everything. It's it's cost. >> Well, they make these little like, you
know, beam me up Scotty kind of too. >> They're very very expensive. >> You got to rip everything. >> Again, this is basically to help us bring packages up and down. my wife, you know, goes shopping. She's a little and I got to be there all the time and >> things like that. Just an assistant.
That's all it is. >> Yeah. I I have a question. Um I mean, nobody can basically see it anyway. I'm looking at your uh aerial views. There's really no one's going to be able to see this anyway. >> No. >> Yeah. So, it's not going to be any any hardship on any neighbors or anything.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm good. >> Any other questions? It's only for you guys to use. It's not for uh anyone else involved. >> You sell tickets for like rides and [laughter] >> the grandkids may come over want to go up and down. >> I've been in this neighborhood for a while myself and we didn't like
trick-or-treating at this house because there wasn't enough because she loves Halloween. >> Um that that >> but it's closed for Halloween. >> That chat picture is a little bit convoluted with all the way they did the walls. I want it to be a little more subtle.
>> Yeah. But I was just trying to get a concept there. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions from the board? >> No. Seeing none. Any questions from uh the audience, ladies?
Seeing none, hearing none. Closing in on her bed. [clears throat] All right. Uh no conditions, no nothing. God bless you. >> Thank you. >> Jerry, could you please lead us in deliberations? >> Sure. I think this is um a pretty
straightforward and easy application to understand for me. I mean a a minimal change in the sideyard setback. Uh a very if you if it needs to be qualified as very dim the minimous uh increase in the lot coverage calculation there lot
coverage percentage there we're talking about uh onetenth of 1%. Um to me it's negligible or dimminimous no problem his application. >> Yeah I think that uh you know obviously Mr. Cortez needs, you know, as as we all
get older. I had my knee surgery just a few months ago. It's tough recovery and I hope that this can get in before you have to have that so you can get up and down because it's not fun. Um, but I think that, you know, just the dimminimous amount of increase in the
lock coverage won't have a negative effect in anything. So, and it helps you stay in the house, which I think is what we all want to be able to do. So, thank you for coming and and I appreciate your your presentation. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Um I see that the lock coverage is very dimminimous. Uh I think this is a great solution for getting into your house. It's not going to um affect uh the look of your house or the neighbors aren't going to say, "What the heck is that on the side of the house?" So, I'm going to
be in favor of this application. Thank you for taking the time to come to the board. >> Yeah. No, thank you for the time. Thank you. >> Pretty much like everybody else had just said, uh, you know, there'll be no impact to the neighbors and like Jonathan said, you know, he's longtime resident and hopefully he stays here
even longer and if this helps him out, makes his life easier, I am all for it and I'm I want to prove it. >> Okay. As I think of it, I have just one question for you. That it's 29.2 is what you're looking for, correct? You did say that uh your contractor wanted you to
move that out like another couple of inches. Is that going to be like Is it going to be 29.20004? >> Can we round it up? [laughter] >> You're still I am >> Can we I'm in favor of >> Can we round that up for him in case
>> it's a it's a percentage and you know so I I think if you add a little bit of you know >> I'm not adding what you see is what I'm asking for. Okay. Okay. So, >> that is included in that that's included, then we're all covered. >> Okay. And and just for clarification, I
the application did say something about a sideyard setback, but the sideyard setback that's required in the R4 zone is 10 ft. So, they're not even close. They're fine. >> Oh, I think they're going for So, all No, all we're looking at is lot coverage of that 1% over uh what was approved by
variance in 2011. >> Thank you. You all have to be sure to understand that. And then the it's over the 25%. So you're ratifying uh what was already granted and adding another 0.1% to the uh lot coverage, but we don't
need any sideyards effect. >> That being said, can I get a motion to approve? >> I'll move it. >> Second. >> Second. >> Very good. Mr. Rono, >> yes. >> Mr. White, >> yes. >> Mr. Gianis, >> yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Watts. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Congratulations and good luck. >> Good luck. >> Appreciate it. >> Good luck with it. Good luck with the lift and good luck with your knee. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Well, wait. We're not done yet.
>> I just I want to take a moment to clarify something for the board because there have been a lot of good questions that came up this this this evening, especially with regard to the No, you're Mike. You're >> okay. [laughter] >> Take care. >> So, I want to assure the board. Now, last year, the end of last year and the
beginning of this year, this board had um we had significant conversations with our professionals about reviews for residential applications and trying to save applicants some money. I want to assure the board. Okay. Um every residential application is seen by our
professionals and every res and Joe vouch our engineer writes to the three the to the professionals and basically outlines okay I don't have any issues or they need a lock grading permit if if it's required. So he's looking now if there are more extensive issues on the
application you will absolutely see a report but if he has no issues again we're just trying to save a little money here and at least Joe because and again because Joe is both board engineer and township engineer which is so very helpful um just having his eyes on it if
and there's been a couple cases where he said well they should come for a lock rating great so after the fact after they go to the board they go through the regular process so but I I wanted to remind the board. So, it's it's not that we're I'm withholding anything. Um, if
everybody would like to seize Joe Joe's comments, I can email them to you because what he's doing is just basically putting it together a generic email that says he has no issues. >> I think it would be helpful to see his comments, especially when he's not here. >> Me, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'd be happy to
>> especially in advance of the meeting because like again tonight we have these things is like on our day is when we come here and it's the first time we see it and it's helpful to see >> well it's not the first time you see it because I email it to you >> the Joe's report on tonight's >> well no Joe's report but the application documents okay
>> so but I'm happy to do I will be happy to email Joe include Joe's comments in that >> going forward >> yep everything >> now again now Liz our planner unless it's a commercial application and if the board is still okay with that generally there's really no reason for her whole
pine as a professional planner on a [clears throat] residential application. >> And again, she doesn't do this in any other towns. Most municipalities don't do that. Uh but again, she does see the application and I do rely Yolante and I rely on her heavily for advice and other things and when we're in review of
applications. So if there is a time in which we feel or she feels that it would be beneficial to an applicant and to the board, she will opine and create a memo. Yeah. And I remember that we had talked about doing what we can as a board to save applicants money. And I this was
the first time it came up where there was some question, right? Do we need some engineering input or what and I just wanted to confirm basically what you just said that the engineer we weren't waving any sort of review whatsoever. We were waving appearances and things like that that would be necessary. But having that comfort that
this has been vetted already. We're just saving being here in person. Um so I think comments ahead of time. Um, even though now we know that that it's >> I'm happy to do that. Happy to do that. >> That might, you know, seems like everyone else wants it. So, that'd be great. >> Yep. No problem. >> Thank you.
>> And and just so the board is aware, the planning board is in the process right now of uh implementing the master plan that was just adopted. Um, and it is going to change some of the zoning ordinance. So perhaps you're not going
to see as many of these applications before you uh in the future. that that's the hope that eventually that's going to happen. And um looking at storm water mitigation, yes, when you have an application that
is um adding a good deal of lot coverage, obviously the board engineer, who is also the township engineer, as Deb said, is going to want to be involved and we're going to ask him to be involved. But with these dimminimous applications, I I understand what you're saying. every time you add something
dimminimous, it does add up, but that's something that is better um mitigated through a widespread program by the township engineer rather than trying to mitigate it here at the board. if if it's
something that requires it, then obviously the engineer is going to recommend lock rating uh to have it go into a certain direction, you know, and he's going to know how to do that. Um the the applications that you had today, I mean, those are all existing things.
That's why Joe didn't find, you know, the need to e expand on uh on the mitigation and and in a report because it it just, you know, it's not something that can be solved. You know, obviously
the cumulative problem becomes a problem eventually, but that's something for the township to solve via ordinance rather than the zoning or uh you know, the zoning board trying to fix it, you know, piece by piece, application by application. I mean you I mean listen just telling poor Mr. Cortezi that he
had to come for a variance on two by 3x3 pl [laughter] I mean that's >> it's tough. >> Yeah. Like I was just like I am so sorry to break you break the news but you got to come or and and true like applicants you know when unfortunately I I just got another situation today when there was
an asbuilt that came in for somebody who built a pool and they said well and this is why we do this in between zoning and construction. They they built a pool. They said they were coming in at 19.8%. I said, "Well, you need an asbuilt." Well, they came in quite a bit over.
>> So now they get to decide. Do they come to the board or do they, you know, eliminate? But this the these are the things in procedure- wise that, you know, we see on the back end behind between zoning and construction, >> right? So I mean, but these are determinations that have to be made more
on a global scale uh by the township engineer. We have attorneys that argue all the time and engineers who come here and argue all the time about how, you know, stringent and whatever that they see other things in other towns. We always take that with a grain of salt because it's different here. There are
steep slopes here. Uh we have a different geography here than the towns that they're talking about. >> We're the great swamp. >> Exactly. >> We're long hills. We're not scotch plains. >> Precisely. So, you know, but but that's why we have to, you know, it's better to
do it not peace meal, but rather, you know, in one, you know, kind of cohesive program throughout the township and have the township engineer work on that and and we are going to be doing that eventually. >> Yeah. >> Eventually. Hopefully, we'll get to it
next year. >> Yeah. So some of the history of that right it it the town was ever moving forward step by step with more stringent storm water management programs >> and we were doing point source we're doing a lot of different things.
>> So is that going away and there was a lot of um I I would say you know the board had a little bit more latitude in what we can and cannot you know require. We still, to my knowledge, we still do from a legal basis. We can require, in this case, we could have required if we
wanted to storm water management. >> Y, >> but it's hard to do when something's built, right? It's already built. It's hard for us to sit here and say, >> you know, go drag a back through your new project and and put a put a retention base in it. That's that's a difficult thing to do. It costs money and it's also damaging to your property. >> Right. Right.
>> So, does that give some people an incentive to build things >> without the necessary permits? because maybe if they're going over by five or six% and you're here and you have a backhoe on site, you're expanding the footprint of your property, they're going to say, "Put in a put in a seat pit anyway." >> Right. Right.
>> And now we lose that opportunity. So there might be an incentive to, you know, to circumvent the board and we'll deal with it later. That's what I'm saying. And I I like to try to take that away, that incentive away. >> There are always incentives to do things without permits and people do it all the
time everywhere. I was going to say talk to somebody construction any day. They'll write a >> book to get forgiveness and permission. >> Correct. >> Uh that's why hopefully you know we'll we'll build a better mousetrap. That's >> I mean I mean in one way when you have
something that's 10 15 years and it's been there and none of the neighbors have any problems. There's no water issues. It's kind of good. >> I know it sounds bad but I know I know they're not convinced. >> You know you know what I'm going to say is like and I'm not saying I want retention based in there or anything like I'm not talking about any particular application, but yeah, people
who live on the hill have no water problems. >> The people that live at the bottom of the hill are the people that have the water problem, right? What I'm Preston whose basement floods now every time we get certain rainstorms and that's why that's because we've built all top of the hill >> and there's no
>> water management. There was in that neighborhood there wasn't for years. You know, they put in those new ducks recently and >> you could dig in you could dig in a neighbor's yard two feet down there's water and then you go to the next neighbor and there's nothing. It's just crazy. There's underground streams. It's just >> that area not touching ground. >> That's where it's been heading.
>> Yeah. >> For the last 20 years or more, 25 >> probably 30 years. >> So, it seems to be a sea change in the direction of the board. If that's what we're talking about, >> what do you mean? >> Well, what do I mean is that it seems like the board used to discuss
stormwater management issues uh per per application. And if you're saying it and still should and I think okay we should still should because I just got maybe I misunderstood what you're saying that it's going to be done on the town >> level now. >> No what I meant was and maybe I didn't
carry Yeah. It's it's when they're dimminimous you know when they're dimminimous when when it's um when it's applied to a piece of property that's been that way. And I know board members have already mentioned that uh when it's been that way for a decade or so. And I think that's
>> so that might be the change. It really wasn't like that in the past. It was didn't matter. We never in this this board, these current members, it's the first time I ever heard of anyone talking to talking about the opportunity to take down something that's already built, right? That that never happened.
But I saw this board going towards that a few times. >> But as far as storm order after the fact, I have seen that. >> Yeah. >> Where there's for these percentages we're talking about for five, six, seven% over. Yes, they have done that.
They've said put in a seage bid. You [snorts] know, >> this board has done that. Yeah, this board has done that. And this board has also and I was here, you know, just for the last couple of months, we've been here and we've seen um applicants remove certain portions of what they were proposing in order to get more in line
and that depending on the application appropriate. >> That's what I'm talking about. That is come to the board and we'll work with you. will try to get you there. >> That is appropriate. That's certainly appropriate because if the board believes that what the applicant is proposing, you know, despite that
there's a deviation but that it satisfies the criteria for the variance, if you can impose a condition that mitigates, you know, right the small detriment or if you find that there that the detriment is so small, >> there may not need to be any condition. But that's up to the board to decide.
>> Barring that, it's very difficult to meet the positive or the negative criteria for any of these applications because What are you doing for me? Nothing. [snorts] >> You're doing nothing for me. You're just coming in here and getting a stamp of approval and going home. And that's legally not a condition that we can do. You can't do that.
>> Correct. >> Well, no. No, they have to they should be satisfying the negative or the positive. Well, a lot of the applicants that come here, I mean, we can take this discussion offline, but a lot of them that come here, you know, they either satisfy the flexible sea, which, you
know, they they are improving their property and they are creating a better environment, you know, for people even to look at and aesthetics is certainly a um it's a valid reason uh to give a a variance. And then on the flip side, they still have to prove that they're
not that they are not uh imposing any substantial detriment on their neighboring properties or or [snorts] on the ordinance. >> And the detriment has to be substantial. It can't be a little bit. >> Sure. So, and and I think that's, you know, when we're talking about the
dimminimous nature of some of the applications when they come in with lot coverage, you know, sometimes a when it's dimminimous on this lot, it may have less impact than if it is seemingly dimminimous on a different lot.
>> And that's and well, that's the nature of variances and land use. Every property is unique and you have to look at every single property as its own thing. and how it contributes you know and how it affects all the properties around it. So at least in this case and
I don't want to go on because this has already been decided >> but you know in general when when the um engineer or the planner are looking at an application that comes before them and deciding whether or not they're going to do a report to the board,
they're looking at it like that. They're looking at how it's going to affect everything else. And when they say dimminimist, I I take what they say, you know, when they say dimminimist, what I take that to mean is that they don't think that this is going to have that much of an impact and that it it's
really up to the board. >> It's really up to the board in that case because even though it may not qualify technically under the engineering standards, the board because the board understands and knows, you know, the local conditions, uh you're all local
people, you live here. Um you're able to better determine sometimes even than the professionals what's going on and what you may need. um you know what conditions you may need to place on an application in order to mitigate any any of those detriments be you know because
you feel that those detriments are becoming substantial. And I'm not only talking about lot coverage. It could be anything. It could be a sideyard setback, a front yard, a rear yard, whatever it is. You're looking at that piece of property and you're saying >> we need to put shrubs here because you're just invading now your neighbor's
property and and you you know you put that in there as a condition. [snorts] the planner may not may not think that that's necessary, but you do and you have a right to do that >> as the board because you understand, you know, local conditions. >> And I think one of the helpful things for the board, too, is that, you know,
this board has seen other properties that have come out for variances similar, lock grading or otherwise or set back. >> And the notices when they go out, right, we the applicants send out notices to the 200 foot. So people then and this
board has seen on multiple occasions neighbors coming out and saying hey there's a problem >> and that helps the board >> to determine the detriments or you know the impact or anything and you know and then more rightfully so conditions of
engineering. >> Yeah. And not necessary again for the neighbors to come out. They're helpful but not necessary. the board, you know, the board um boards are not required, but boards are encouraged to go and take a look at the property. You're allowed
to take a look at the property to walk around to go on a site visit as long as you're not visiting together and creating an illegal meeting. Yeah, >> a quorum. Uh you can [snorts] go on site visits and you can take a look at what is what exactly is happening on that property and just get a better sense of
what's happening. So when they do come in for that front yard setback, you understand why you know, and and how it affects others if you actually grant that front yard setback variance >> for use variances. I think it's even more important to go to the site and
take a look at what's going on >> to gauge what the impact might be. >> Speaking of Verizon, [laughter] next month >> next, >> August 18th. Yes. >> Is there a meeting in between them? >> There is not a meeting in between that.
No. So, the only and I I had originally >> I had originally emailed the board about uh adding a date, but I don't think we need to. >> Um >> Oh, no problem. >> Thank you so much. >> Happy to help.
>> We'll be in touch. >> Thank you so much. >> No problem. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Take care. >> Hope you found this last discussion very >> interesting. [laughter] Motion to adjourn. >> No old business, new business. any none. Okay. >> No. So, no extra meetings. I think we're
fine. Uh but Verizon, yeah. So, anybody I've heard from a couple people who can't already can't attend the August meeting. Uh so, if you can't attend, let me know ASAP because if we don't have seven, they may want to carry again. I don't know. >> Okay. >> Seven. Is that what I can't? >> We need Well, no.
>> They carried it for other reasons. Uh but the um >> Well, we didn't have seven anyway. >> Tonight, we don't. But it's not a used variance. So for the used variants, we need seven voting members. Now, I don't think they're going to come to a vote >> because there's no way we're So it's not
going to be like a major crisis. Somebody can watch it after, but please just communicate with me so that I if you're not going to be there so that I can tell the applicant's attorney >> to be >> motion to return. >> May I get a motion? >> That was a motion.
>> Oh, that was [laughter] asking me if all in favor. >> Okay. All right.