Okay. All right. We're going to get started with that flag salute. America to the Republic for all. Michael Richmond here. Rich Patterson here. John Pittz here. Dan Adams here.
Craig Pomaniano here. Rich Tulson here. Johanna Perski here. Herb Pagno here. Steven Jaki here. Drew Campbell here. Sam Freriedman here. Patty Rosenberg. Okay. This meeting is being held in accordance with New Jersey statute
requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act Sunshine Law. Notice that this meeting has been advertised in the press and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building. All applicants are hereby advised that if you receive board approval tonight, you must come forward
and sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and mer licenses. At the conclusion of your case tonight, please approach the board administrator PAMA to sign the provided information sheet. All right. We have approval
of minutes meeting of May 29th, 2025. Number 23, 2025, Jerry Slipov. Number 24, 2025, Robert 25, 2025, Roy and Joanne Goldberg. 26,
2025, Michael and Mandy. I have a motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Oops. About approval minutes. Uh for the meeting on May 29, 2025. Do I
hear a motion to approve? Make that motion. All in favor? Hi. Okay. All right. We have two cases tonight. The first one is Joseph and Barbara Murray, 104 South
Kenyon Avenue, block 12, lot 11, located in the S30 zoning district sending seeking C variance, relief for building coverage, height, and potentially others in order to elevate the existing single family home. Parent on taxes, water and
sewer payments, proof of advertising and notification provided. Representative by James P. Swift. I'll get Mr. McLaren sworn in. Mr. McLaren, please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth. I
do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Board members, my name is James Swift. My office is 1335 Tilton Road, North, New Jersey. appearing this evening behalf of Joseph and Barbara Murray for the application at 104 South Kenyon Avenue. Mr. and Mrs.
Murray are here in the second row. I also have with us Mr. Halliday, our architect. Um he's the person who prepared the plans. Um briefly, if the board will remember this is not the first iteration of these plans before the board. We were here in June. We took
into consideration the comments of Mr. some of the concerns of the board members. We modified these plans and what we're proposing before the board is to take the old garage which is it's dated. There's no question about it. Eliminate the garage all together shift
the house uh to such a position that some of the bulk area requirements will actually be lessened. So we're hoping that the board makes a determination that this house pursuant to the proposal that we have before the board will be
more comply. Some of the bulk area requirements such as the aggreate side which are presently five are going to go to approximately 16 ft. That's a significant difference. In addition um the the impervious coverage will be
less. So those two bulk requirements will actually be more comply exist by removing the older garage. It it eliminates some of the coverage issues. What we proposed here is to take the first floor and basically make it
nonlivable garage storage outside or not outside but a shower enclosure inside not inside but non-livable space. There will be no appliances, things of that nature. By
doing that, it makes us by necessity request what I would consider a relatively moderate height bearing. What Mr. How has done is taken into consideration that instead of let's say having a 3 foot 6 in crawl space, he's
basically asking the board to permit us to lower the first floor a little bit so we can have and a ton of storage. Mr. Hall has heard the concerns of multiple boards in this area where they're saying, you know, you've raised it and you have a flood
plane, but there's no storage. So what you're left with is in the summertime is that a house it's yes this high it has a crawl space but now the lawn chairs the bicycle all the for the beach are now
all over the lawn. So what we've done here is not only given some significant storage space but we've also given significant parking. This presently configured property has three spaces for parking. If the board approves this,
this will be seven parking spaces, two of them underneath. Um, also too, I would submit to the board that this configuration, in other words, first floor storage, parking storage is a configuration which is consistent with the number of properties that are
happening in also the important thing, the property is 3T below flood. So to make it So we figured instead of making it raise it a little bit the lawn shares all over the place the
rafts and the beach all over. It's a nicer set. Um again we think that if the board approves this property will be more comply. Um I have at this point Mr. Hall to discuss the technical part of the
application. Sure. Let him swear in his Sure. Mr. Holidayiday, just give us your name and business address and I'll get you sworn in. Chris Holidayiday architects 728 West. Okay. Please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the
truth. I will. Yes. And you've been here numerous times. Registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Yes. So, you want to do Sure. Quick, before I go into my report, I just want to uh acknowledge that we uh
recent member of the planning board recently passed Joe board member. He he had to resign because he moved out of town, moved all the way to Longport, far away, but uh it was sad to see him go. I didn't realize he was 80 years old, but
he he looked like he was 70 for about 25 years. That's true. He'll be missed. No, he was a good guy, good and Anyway, thank you on bigger and better things. My report
is based on the application of Joseph and Barbara Murray South Kenyon Avenue block 12 11 S30 zoning district report the background is as follows and to jump on what Mr. Swift was saying
there's a state law where before Sandy came right understanding if you had elevated a house and as non-conforming you expanding non-conforming you couldn't do it. So Governor Christie in August of 2013
passed a law where allows non-conforming structures both use and setbacks whatever to be elevated to BF plus three without coming from the planning to get out of harm's way which makes perfect sense here. We measured plus three for the bottom of the floor. So now that
they want to go to plus N from grade in order to have parking which we endorse but if you have existing nonconformities they spur variances and that's why they they could by law raise this plus three without show but they are making some
modifications and I just wanted to explain why we're here and they're not really changing it much and also one thing that they they are getting rid of that detached garage. over the line. So your actual building coverage even though detached garage
actually does your building coverage goes down by attached garage. So going back to my report, page two is the zoning chart in reference to this property highlighted in yellow or gray.
Indicates where the variances are page three at the bottom of the document section two received and see these are the revised plans. Mr.
Chris and the variances are required as follow sideyard set back to the building on the right whereas the minimum sideard setback is 8 ft 0.2 ft exist to the former attached garage and then the 10.8 ft to the house and 5t is proposed. So
they're moving over so it compies with the it will be 5t away from the property line on the right side creating more space on the left side for additional parking as you can see on the plans sideyard set back to the building combined this is the aggregate that Mr.
was talking about whereas a minimum combined sideyard set back is 18.5 ft which is based on 37% of the lot width 5.1 ft exists and if you take the garage out it's 14.7 ft and 16.0 ft is proposed
again even without the garage you're improving the aggregate side building coverage whereas the maximum building coverage is 39.375% 47.4% % exists and 39.8% is proposed. They're
making an improvement and it's slightly more than what it's allowed to be, but it's still a variance. Principal building height again, you're taking 31.4 ft of house from the roof to the first floor. You're moving it up because you're going past
3. That is now a variance. So, it's uh 27.9 ft exists and 31.41 ft is proposed. The adding a bridge to the top floor garage door setback. It's my understanding that this barance will be
eliminated. My conversation with Mr. Holiday earlier today said they will comply with 18 ft from the garage door to the to the property line. Now, technically speaking, as an engineer, I have an issue with the access to the driveway on the left. You have to drive over the
lawn. My suggestion is to seek a curb cut with in order to facilitate the use of that side on the left. So I would say maybe 22 ft would probably work instead of the 18 that's required. Again, it's a
suggestion. It's up to the applicant if they want to pursue that. If they don't pursue that, I I think that's not going to work too well. Or they have to fill in some of the grass areas, which they have room to do. The tire driving over the grass.
So, I'm not going to go through all my comments. I turn over to the testimony of the applicant at this time. Just clarify, we do have an exhibit coms. criteria change because it's internal
adjustment. In the garage pop up there are I'll call this exhibit A1 just for the record. Sure. First you said it outside. I'll do my best to not repeat
testimony of the engineers. attorney, but hired us uh to help renovate their 2003 home. Um it's a traditional style home and we want to keep that and just improve upon improve upon it. Um currently it is three and a
half feet below what is allowed for. So when looking at needs and their growing family and they have children in their teens and 20s with each having vehicles particip which is their idea to move the building
over to allow for the free spaces on the ocean side. So, uh the proposed renovation is to raise the home in the air focus are changing. We're lifting that house up to 9 ft above the curb. We are reducing the building coverage by 239
which is a difference of 7.6%. We're adding by removing that garage adding 11 ft in side step back and um we're also reducing the impervious coverage by 5.7% with this renovation.
Um so feel like it's an improvement. We're getting it out of the flood zone. We're allowing for addition parking in a very busy part of town on the beach and we're improving the exterior aesthetic with high quality materials. uh kind of
taking the essence of the home and just trying to improve upon the current material and it is wellmaintained on the inside. So, what do you are you think are you going to ask for a driveway, curve bar
if the board will permit that? I mean, I'm looking at the picture and I totally agree with Roger. It looks pretty awkward to be able to, you know, try to I've never seen that. Actually, they have a similar situation now.
But if that would obvious 22 feet you think will work part of the reason why we have that landscape there is with stairs a landscape We still want green space in the front with the driveway and the new
on. Yeah, with the steps there is an allowance to reduce it down to 50% front yard and I think you could probably make that work combination of wider curb cut and maybe fill in those areas or tire.
So we can work that out. So you still be compared. this plan. Yes. Out of the flood zone and increasing parking while reducing building coverage and lots. Anybody
from the board have any questions or comments? I I do like the that ground floor. There's really not any room to make habitable space open. I'd like that. You'll notice that There's no one
current design in the first place just to give them more private exterior space. So tag on that you still required to have a non-con conversion agreement for that ground floor as you know. Anybody else on the board?
Do we have any idea? There's a curve cut right now for the neighbor right on the property. So this would make it so it's curve cut smallve there would be a park there any but not anybody else
open it up to the public from the public to speak they want to speak public portions close. Okay, if there's no further questions, it's a C variance application. I'll summarize the variances. It's a sideyard
setback on the right side of 5T or 8 ft the requirement. It's a betterment, but it's still a variance because they're getting rid of the garage. Um the combined sideyard setback, again, it's a variance, but but it's a betterment. 18.5 is the requirement. 16.08
is proposed. Building coverage, they've gotten that down. The requirements, the permitted maximum 39.375%, they're just over 39.8%. And then the building the building height because of the lift 30 ft
permitted and they're 31.41 ft. So that that is a C variance. And um the curve cut 118T wide curve cuts permitted and the varian for a 2 foot wide curve cut
and they're going to make the the garage uh door setback comply terms and conditions on there the non- conversion agreement anything else in Mr. McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed and just the other standard conditions subject to any outside approvals that may be required any representations made
during the course of the hearing sorry I have one more question in my report I said they they don't have to have a With that, we need a motion, a second, and a roll call. I'll make that motion.
Michael Richmond. Um, okay. So, we're raising the house to get out of the flood zone. Um, we're creating seven seven parking spots. I think that
more than justifies the uh curve cut variance. I agree with Roger be really awkward, you know, to try to squeeze in there. Uh I I really don't see any detriment to
the neighborhood. I mean, I I know the neighbors came and I know the neighbors on the other side and they didn't come. So I don't really think, you know, is any detriment and I'm going to vote yes.
Richard Patterson. My main concern was the 14 ft in front of the garage and they answered that. So I agree. I Dan Adams. Thank you. Um I I'm going to echo Mr.
Richmond and Mr. Patterson's comments. Um I think it's a good design. And I think moving it over uh you know you meet the criteria for the sideyard setbacks and I think overall with the seven parking spaces you're increasing the ability for opening parking spots on
the evening for other people and that's just a good thing for the neighbors and the fact that there's no neighbors here to complain about your project or the height the overall height or any issues. I think it's a good project. It's a beautiful house and the open space is is
amazing. So I vote yes. Correct. Yes. Once the changes were made to the parking swision. substantial Johanna just I'm with everybody else the additional
parking and keeping the traditional home Stephen just I think this is a benefit for the community to be able to get additional parking and taking cars off the street
and for the for the um exception about going up high. I think it well benefits for the improvements that you are doing for this and so I approve and John Pittz
um existing nonformities are being reduced building that problem are requid motion carries. Nine in favor and zero. Thank you very All right. Our next and last case is
Brett Crutchman and Robin Caner. Crotchman 364 North Rumpson Avenue block 619 lot 3.02 located in the S40 waterfront zoning district. seeking relief for deck height
deck side yard set back sideyard set back to pool pool equipment total front yard landscape coverage and potentially others in order to extend the rear decks into the sideyards and install swimming pool as well as construct a ground level
deck on the right side of the house taxes and payments, proof of advertising and notifications provided representative by Eric Goldstein. Ladies and gentlemen, Eric Goldstein on behalf of the applicants.
We're here tonight. I have a handout that I'd like to pass around because the photos are probably better. series of photos or just one. There's three photos in each of the packets. There's enough for everyone to go around, but that could be applicant one.
Yeah, thank you. Chairman, board members. The report is based on I actually wrote this not three years ago or two years ago. I wrote it this year. Application of Brett and Robin Caner
catchman 364 North Thorson Avenue block 69 lot 3.02 as Eric mentioned located in S40WF zoning district. You can see relief planning and zon report phase complete
grant is as follows. Vanc is being requested for extending a raised rear or deck to decide your property line extended at a higher elevation than permitted. The house and deck were constructed as per the ordinance in 2017 and was part of a subdivision. Now several is being requested to construct
a pool, reduce landscaping and construct a higher deck than permitted on Sunset Canal. It's my understanding that that that deck height may be modified as part of the presentation tonight. So page two is a zoning chart continue on page three
as well as the documents reviewed and the plans reviewed. There's one plan I think it's a new plan set. planio and the variance are requested as as follows when the when the application was first made landscape coverage total
where 35% is the minimum required landscape coverage 35% exists and 25% is proposed rear yard deck height on the left looking from the street whereas the maximum printed deck height beyond and
beyond the building side yard setbacks extended is 18 in from and 3.3 ft is proposed and just Mr. to correct you know we've spoken a bunch of times today 24 in is proposed so we have um changed that plan discussion
that with the neighbor who is actually here tonight so I don't want to be misunderstanding the application we're bringing it down substantially 18 is allowed and we're asking for extra to be added thank you so board members that is still
a variance but it's a lesser degree you want to use that term River deck height on the right whereas a maximum permitted deck height again is 18 in and 3.8 ft is proposed pool set back to the property line
whereas a minimum set back to swimming pool to the property line excluding the bulk line on waterfront properties is 6 feet and 3 ft is proposed full setback equipment filter sideyard setback whereas a minimum setback to swimming pool equipment side property line is 10
ft and is proposed. No waiverss have been requested. Again, I provide the board some rear yard definitions, some other comments, but I will turn over to the testimony at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Once again. Um, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is an existing house which has been built for a little less than 10 years and the proposal is to extend deck off the rear of the house into the sideyard on both the left and right and the installation
of a pool. With regard to the left side deck, initial proposal was to match up the height of the deck with the height of the rear deck. Uh, we were initially scheduled to come back last month. Spoke
quite a bit to the neighborh. And we've adjusted the deck downward where the stairs that you all see in your packet on the first picture will be eliminated in their entire in place of the stairs.
Deck you can see above will be boxed out to take the space of the stairs. So, we're actually not going to pick up any impervious coverage. What's there now will be exactly the same. Instead of the stairs going down, it's just going to be flat all the way across. On the left
side, decking material will be 24 in maximum above the ground. Parking entrance is on the left. There's a garage. The parking spot in front. Two other spots on the pad and the strips to the left. They will remain. And then the
deck will be no more again than 24 in above to the right side of the house. There is a pool proposed and extension of that deck all the way to the property line on
the right. Property owners who abut the property line on the right are also here. Um they have gone over this project plan in depth as well. would like to plan as
submitted. So, with regard to um testimony, I will have Mr. Craftsman sworn in and then um I'm going to walk through each aspect of what we're seeking tonight. And there is, I believe, another property owner here
who had a question to have a glass railing installed on top of the deck to not block his view from his house, which the property owners have agreed to as well. So, I think hopefully we've satisfied the neighbor's concerns. Now we have to
satisfy all your concerns. So question, Mr. Craftsman, uh, just give us your name and address for the record. Yes. My name is Brettman 364. Okay. And please raise your right hand. You swear from the testimony you'll give will be the truth. Yes. Thank you,
when I was giving some background information about everything that I've said lastly as we're submitting it to the board decks along the back and So, we wanted to extend the deck to the bulkhead.
wanted to stairs decks. So, the design as submitted has been changed. It's lower on the left. On the right, the railing is going to have glass around it, but it still does need
variances and presently and everybody has a package which I believe is the third page the deck in the backyard let you go out further into the Ask tonight is to have this extended out
further towards the stamps house and to have rail around the top which would be in the side set back as well. Along with the rail and deck height
which are also to stop at the house it's already built just extending out that a little further about on the left side of the property. The variance is the over and above what is otherwise allowed
18 in to be set back. And again, the stairs and everything on the left side of the house extends out a little bit further permit and without any variances in 2017. So,
we're really for now is Roger indicated equipment location to the fence. Uh it is still 3 ft. enough separation for emergency landscaping
down couple probably already landscaping out of that. Certainly trying to figure it out. I just don't know if replacing current strips with paper give us enough credit
seems kind of build the debt one way of course right um but short of that um we don't think there's any place we can get the landscaping we are
maybe the full equipment you can pick up a couple Put that on a deck somewhere. So the stairs on the left hand where you're showing the new steps and landing. Is that staying or is that going on the left side? The stairs that are there now,
right? But I mean on the on the plan it says new steps and landing. That's that's going. Yeah, that's going. So there's not going to be any steps to get up or what? Not on that side. Correct. Right. So, you're getting rid of some space. Yeah. So, you're not going to
have any steps getting to the deck? You will, but not from there. I'm sorry. Below right at 18 in, there are going to be small steps there. Um, not in front, but on the side. Right. So, you can basically get up two steps.
I mean, so the only way you're going to be able is going to be on that left side with two small steps through the house. So emergency personnel have to go through the house to get There's there's
access on the other side. There's no steps. Lower deck and upper deck. There's going to be steps down on on the deck in the middle of the house down. There is going to be a set of small
steps on the left to get up to there's two steps up to the deck. That's high and then from there there's three steps up to the next. Okay. So, we will have access. Yes. Is there anything on that deck? That 24
in deck. Is there anything there? Um, and is that does that go to the property line? That would go to the property. And what is the neighbor's height at the deck? You're going to be No, we're going to be at 2. Yes, that was what we had compromised
with neighbort we so is that required at the bulkhead side too no because they're allowed to be Right. So,
so okay. So, the other variance which pretty okay. So, number one, is there any reason that we can't push that pull to the bulkhead or at least that three foot to the outside of that bulkhead? Huh? That
three foot is to the outside of that. Oh, it is. Okay. So they couldn't you can move it a foot maybe a foot. Okay. And was there any consideration with the pool about just spinning it?
You know what I mean? Yeah, there was. And we're trying to figure that out, Mr. Chairman, about getting the additional space on the right side because you do have a little bit of a I need
like this. Chairman, I talked to the designer of the pool who also was the neighbor talking a few minutes. Um, yeah, we can pick up some space there to make the pool foot smaller on that side and move it a foot towards the rear.
That will give us 5T of separation on the right side. So you're going to make the pool a foot smaller. Yeah. How big is the pole now? Oh, 8 by 12. 8 by 12. So what are you going to make it?
7 by 12. 7 by 12. And we're going to push it back a foot. And as the property goes on the angle there, we'll pick up a foot. So there'll be 5T of separation between the property line. Okay. Why can't
because then we'd be too close to the next vertical structure which would be a different shows on the corner the left corner of the pool. You got that second thing there's like probably a column there
holding up. Yeah. Yeah. So we have this thing where you know for safety we want three foot we also in that we also include a column. Okay. So even though that's all open
under there, there's a column there. It's going to be pull. Um so what the pool get back to the pool equipment which is another why is there a reason um
why we're um for this deck area here? What's the reason for that on the right hand side? Is there You know, you follow me. Like why why couldn't we take the pool equipment? I don't have a scale on me. And how how wide is uh is
the pool guy here? No. Pull equipment platform is 3 feet wide. Three foot wide. Is that what you need? I mean I don't you know I do I build house. You you pretty much have to have three feet. Yeah. I would say two and a half. Is there any on that right side
there? Is there any window or anything? where the pool equipment is. No, where where that deck comes out? No, there's no window. So, was it was there any thought about maybe using up
that section like are you catch my Yeah, because then you know that helps eliminate more of the um impervious coverage. I'm assuming the deck the new deck's all going to be the um open right spacing. It's not going to be concrete
or pa or anything like that. Right. So if we spin the pool then the the side the set back for the pool goes from three foot to five foot. Um if we could you know if we could think about putting pool equipment there which to me I don't
even know. I mean I'm I don't live there but so yeah and then what we're thinking about before but this is a question for Roger. Could we put, we've done this in the past, could we put the pool equipment under the deck if it were up
out of off the ground? We know it's still BF issue, but is there a way to do it under the deck? Well, if it's out of the building envelope, it does not qualify under NFIP. It's not insured equipment.
As long as it doesn't show up on the certificate, flood elevation certificate erroneously, I don't see that being I think you want it out of harm's way. Well, you would, but think about it. If the water is that far out, you know, we'd be two feet up basically
off of Rumson, which would be several feet out of the canal. But that would eliminate the bar because it would be out of setback and it would be tucked away. attenuating fence and nobody would hear it. So that's certainly an option. Where were
you saying to put it under the deck? Okay. And you that be okay with ventilation and everything. Which deck are you talking about? Under the first floor deck or the second? Under the first floor on the right side, right back there, too.
That could be an issue with that's enclosed space. If you could find a way to put it on top of that new deck on that same side, I think that would be a home run for you. And also, I think you can get credit for the steps in the front towards that landscape coverage. Okay. Because you
have 35%, you're allowed to go 30% with steps to get to the first floor. So, where do you think the pool equipment? We want to be a minimal of course um that pool equipment affects the one neighbor talk about it but you know we have to satisfy the board as well. So if the pool equipment's not on the platform
and it's not underneath I guess we can move it back a little bit but it would still be the same size platform. Well no what we're talking about with my idea is on the right hand side you have the deck the deck extension. Okay. Right.
Exactly. So, I don't know what the width of that is, but if you if you you still have plenty of room to I mean on that right hand side, you're not going to have any stairs to get up there like it's three feet. You're not are you you're not going to have any stair? No,
that's going to be the access back. Well, what are you going to do back there? What are you going to What are you going to use that deck back there for? The seating around the pool. Okay. Um, so what I'm saying that deck is, you know,
that's a pretty decent size space there. So, and especially since you're talking about moving the pool around, you know, in my opinion, if if you put that that um pool equipment on that corner of the deck, do you follow what
I'm talking about? Then that would be, you know, that would help out a lot of things. You know, another thing we're not big on is taking away coverage. Well, there's another point of view that this house was built too big to have all these additions. It never would have
been approved initially. This was a spec house or it was just built. No, it was built for right and it was maxed out. You wouldn't have gotten these things. When you're building a brand new house, you wouldn't have gotten what's
a relatively new house. It's too big for in what way? The pool's going to comply. We're going to we're going to make the pool comply with the exception of 5T. So, you're going to have one foot bearings. It's a relatively new house.
I think it's too big for the reason we changed the rules with the deck. When we approve a variance, the variance is for the property. It's not for the people. It's not for the maintenance. It's for the property. And we had problems with necks going
right up to the property with neighbors violently complaining. You happen to have a neighbor here that says it's okay, but we're approving this for the property. The neighbor sells the next I just think you're asking, but again,
explain explain why. But the pool itself can comply. Let's assume it can. You're shaking your head. No, the pool can comply. You could if the house is okay. So if the pool comprised
that's eliminated side deck on the left side is 6 in higher than allowed but a foot and a half lower than the neighbor. So we're really talking about the percentage of landscape coverage
which we're picking up substantially if we can get the step credit and we get rid of a little bit of the debt. So, we're almost 100% compliant. So, it's not really that far out of whack. And when the house was built, you could
have gone side to side with deck, right? Right. But you said when the house was built, this I did. I said except for the decked grass on the strips that are there. How much credit? It's the percentage of opening in the
country block. That's I know the neighbor next door actually did that in their driveway open cell concrete that drive. It depends on the material used. If it's like a 30% opening, you multiply that by
the area and that's what you gain. Yes. Perfect example of that is that house questions. Of course, we know about the neighbors. We know people can sell their homes, but before
you make a decision based upon a fact that may not be correct, you should flesh all of those issues out because you may think the house is too big or that they got too much at one point, but this is really just about it as much as possible.
Right? So, let's get back to equipment. So, if the pool equipment can't go the deck, which again, I'm not sure why it couldn't. We've seen this. I've seen it done before where the pool is either under the stairs or under the deck. What would stop that being put under set of
stairs? Well, I guess I guess that might be more of a building. Yeah. When it's been under steps before, like you and I talked about, we worked together at on it was Right. It was open on the one side. The
the steps in the deck. This is you're putting it in harm's way plus access. I think like to avoid that, but I think there's room in that deck where you can elevate it up and although it looks like there's some type of vent there,
Correct. Yes. So, right now the deck has a skirt on it which is solid. So, Would you remove that and get rid of the door? Get rid of all that stuff and left it open. I mean,
again, I'm not a full expert and I'm not expert enough as well. And I'm sure that can be designed in a way that is open where the exhaust would be. So, it wouldn't be a hard to work with construction to make
sure correct ventilation is available down there. Okay. So, are we going to get rid of the equipment? I would say that depends under the deck where it's going to be under. Well, we probably put it as
close to the to the entrance, right? So you have access. If you're looking at the plan, it would be close to the line that goes to the property. My thought for moving it was to landscape space. Well, that would pick up
that deduction to I would say keep the side to put a new location. You won't get that 10 foot back, right?
Yeah. The outside just clarify Well, they put them in garages so they they can Yeah. So, moving forward, if we get rid of that, keep the setback
bearings, but you put underneath the deck. Got to realize that when you go to get your permit, you might not fly. So then you're going to have to the only other thing I see you can do is put
it on top of that. I do I would say if it doesn't work by way of subsant or come back Right. I think we could figure out a way.
I mean, honestly, I I think that equipment I I don't think is so platform. That's a 5x3 picks deduction plus.
pretty close. So, and then get back to the pool now. So, you're saying that you're still going to seek a foot for the pool or are you going to try to do it so that we don't need that? As you know, we have a hole
on the one side of the makes it hard for circulation. So, we can move the pool over a foot and then shrink it a foot, which gives us 5T from that point. Okay. So, you're still going to keep it like that? Yes. But you're going to make it thinner and push it up. Correct. Now, if
we could move it a foot closer to the house, which might eliminate the pool together, it would be a little bit tight squeeze because there is there, right? But we can make the pool work. you denied the pool. We could figure out a way to
make it work. We would like to be 5t from the line on the right side. If you deny that still smaller and that's saying I'm having trouble building out access to
taking maintaining light and open space relatively different access. There's no parter Sam asked that question just before I did.
In the picture on the right side of the house, what do we have? Six foot on the right side of the house. There's a sixoot opening grass all the way to the bank. And you want to cut that off and bring the deck all the way over to the
property line. That's my point. If I live next door, I wouldn't I don't think I would like that. next door neighbors tell you they do. That's right. But it's air and light and open space
right now. There's no public access from the street. That's correct. There's no public private yard. So they could block it off with a fence. They could block it off with a lock fence. They can block it off with landscaping. They can block it off any number of things. And there's
nothing the board or anybody else in the city do about it. So in that regard, all you're doing is letting the property owners enjoy their property out. This isn't access for ingress and egress
traveling public access. There's an entire barrier barric I mean that's I don't think that We're still on a consultation. All right, we're gonna take a fivem minute
break. Thank you. It was good to take the break. We did make some uh concessions here and obviously taking all the board's comments into consideration have decided to propose the following which probably gives us no more need for
a landscape. The picture you have right side of the house deck will not go out to the property line. It will be 3 ft of separation from the property line
to the deck which I believe is enough for emergency personnel I believe with that. Wait, how much is it now? That would be zero. No, no, no. the picture
cut that. Yeah. Okay. And then I'm ask Roger to to calculate, but maybe you should ask for it anyway. But I think at that point we do comply with total landscaping so we're not losing all that on the side.
We still have the step deduction possibility if we need to go to p. But since it's not going all the way out, that's going to save us a fair amount of grass on that side. I don't understand. How far out is it from the house?
You know what? I don't have that. And then the pool variance would still be a foot. It would still be five feet from the property line. But it would be again we can make the work. It's just ask for the pool perhaps as a separate
vote, but we can make it work if need be. We'd like it to be 5T. It'll still be significantly far from the neighbor's property, but we understand your need
for the railing of the pool. Can't move it too much to the left. So you'd asked for a separate vote, right? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. So, does anybody else from the board's
going to kind of explain what we're talking about? Yeah. We still have to go to the public, right? Right. What are we doing with I think the solution is figuring out a place to put it under the deck and if
not we can't make it work put it somewhere else and come back for that question becomes equipment either way you're going to you're going to go for the variance for the setback because even if you put under the deck, you're still going to
have it. So, yeah. Okay. Um Okay. And then uh I just want to reserve the right to come back, right? Yeah. No problem. No problem. Anybody from the public to speak?
You got to come up. Just give us your name and address and I'll swear you in6. Okay. Miss Sams, please raise your right hand. You swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. Thank you. Yeah. So when you look at the photos um
of the sort of side yard that abuts to our property where we have that low fence, the way that our house is oriented, all of our outdoor living space is on the open bay side, not on the um Sunset
Canal side. So in their quest to try to maximize their deck to their property line really has no impact on us because where our lower fence is will always be open space to the bay. Our house is
oriented in an opposite direction. So I understand the press for wanting that access to the bay, but I think that there needs to be some understanding that from their property line over to
our structure will always be open access because our just the way our house is oriented. We're oriented toward the marsh. So, this will never be usable space for us, right? If that has an impact on your decision um about them
going to their sideyard setback on on our side of it. Yeah. So, where our lower fences again like that's not a usable part of our property. None of our decks feed down into it. It's just auxiliary landscaping
decorative. So, Even if they built to their property line, there will still be open access to the lagoon on our side of that property. That might not last forever. I mean, that's Can I read a definition?
Rear yard space extending across the full width of lot between the principal building and the rear lot line and measure perpendicular to the building at its closest point to the rear lot line. Said rear yard shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward except as else.
Listen, we just love the project. We would love it for our neighbors. We love the plan. We would love to see it come to fruition. So, I'm just here as an advocate for my neighbors in their quest to improve upon their backyard,
their families. Anyone else from the public? A lot of modifications. I want to make sure everything in the right separation.
That gives us that significant am landscaping. So that's an improvement as far as equipment goes. That platform's 15. Well, why don't you just say you'll comply? this case.
Well, my suggestion would be if you're short, then you would have to put the pavers in, but if you put the pavers in, you're still short. That's going to be a problem, right? That's why we want to make sure we're going to be pretty close. So, just make sure
if necessary said we can do the onset. Then as far as the left side goes in 24 access that side on the right side
would be over in high also for spoken to make a representation. I'll put on the record that the railing around the pool will be glass. There won't be anything. We got nice neighbors, all of whom are
cooperating here. So, um, Eric, what's the pool set back again? The pool set back is what we're proposing on this right now. Still need a
You still need a landscape. All right. So, we'll ask for the 2 ft from the edge on that signal structure. Next question is that railing as a glass railing the purpose of the foot separation is so
that there's nothing people jumping in. No chance of that. Correct. That would assume that the pool is at ground level. You're talking about you shaking your You got 2 ft of clearance out of the ground. I don't understand how that's
wrong. I understand that. Please clearly explain your concerns about that. from a glass railing pool that's already out.
The same reason it's 3 ft from the house. We determined, we're not experts, but this is what was determined when we made the rule was you would have three feet of space around for rescuers to have easy access.
We'll make that work and Stop shaking your hands. Mr. Chairman, we got just a ton of unanswered questions if No, I No, we don't. What? There's no unanswered question. We've answered
every question. If you don't like it, you can vote no. You can't put this off because you're you don't understand the application. We're not going to put We're not going to put it off. Okay. So, let's gonna describe what we're going to vote for
and then we're going to vote. But let's be clear here. There aren't any everything you had a question on is answered. What what is unclear about this application? We have a right to know what you think is unclear about making a decision on their property. Well, I think
I think that I think let's kind of outline what we're talking about and Somebody has a question from the board. Is that okay? All right. So, it's a C variance application
for the landscape without without the permeable pavers for that. The variances are for total landscaping coverage. Um they're about 85 square feet short it sounds like per Rogers calculations. Is that correct?
Yes. So without doing the grass paper for 85 and you're ask you're asking for that varian. Yes because we know if you say no we can make it work. So right we would like the variance and not therapy enough. If not we can make that. So maybe we should put
that separate. Well let's summarize them just in case. So, I don't want your whole application to go down over something that you can make. That expansion on the left. Um, all right. The rear deck height on the left side,
18 in is allowed. They've reduced that to 2 feet 24 in. The rear deck height on the right side, it's also 18 in is permitted. That's going to be at 3.8 ft over the 18 in. And it's going to have a three foot
sideyard set per the per the testimony and I'll note that as a condition. Um the pool equipment variance that's you're going to make that work through the building department or you're going to come Okay.
But you're going to relocate it, correct? I got you. But it's still a sevenyard setback. It won't it won't be less than seven. So, right. So, you need at least a three foot variance on the
pool equipment set or no more. Let me go back to landscape a second. I don't understand why you're not doing the papers. We can give you the variance based on doing the papers. That might be short and we'll give you that variance. Yeah, we have. So, but you just said you're not going to do it. Unless we
turn you down. Said we can comply with code. We're asking for Yeah, but you got other included in your question. You want the whole thing turned down because of that? We said we lose your question.
My question is you're short without so why don't you commit to doing the papers and we'll give you a variance of that short. I think what you said was you weren't going to do it unless we turn you down
and that's stated incorrect. You okay? And then with the Did you get that? I did. We'll go back over it if we need to. And then as far as the pool setback, you're going to ask for five feet, but you think you can make the the three
feet the three-foot requirement to the railing comply? Yes. You sure? I just No, I'm not sure. But I don't think that uh the way the board has this case, we're going to get that. So, we're going to
get and then as far as the conditions, I sort of stated them as I was summarizing the variances, but but I also that the pool will have the clear the clear railings to satisfy the neighbors.
Um, so if there's no further discussion, I think we should take two votes, put the pool separate, Eric, or what's your preference? Yeah, I think the pool should be separate. I just want to go over again
from the tight corner. Everywhere else is further. backur landscape covers and the other separation and you look I I have no problem if you ask for when we get to the pool part as for the setback variance for the five
feet depending on he goes then you can ask for the the two feet as you described it as opposed to the three feet um because they're se they are separate variances what It's your application. So, I'm just throwing that out there. But I think the first the
first vote should be the following. They're going to do the pavers in the front. Um, but if if they're still short in the 35% landscape coverage and they'll provide a calculation to Roger um if he's
satisfied that they've done what they said in terms of pavers and creating the landscape that they said that they would create if they still fall short of 35%. Without the papers there, Roger calculates they're at about 27.7%. So they're going to get close certainly
closer to third. They're going to get above that. Um but they may still be short of the 35%. So that we agree to utilize deduct as low as possible can then so that's the first variance. Then there's the rear deck height on the left
side to 24 in where 18 in is permitted. The rear deck on the right side is 3.8. where 18 is permitted, but it's there's going to be a three foot separation from the edge of the deck to the property line. The deck's going to have clear railings as a condition and then the
pool equipment setback um seven feet proposed or 10 feet the requirement. They can provide greater than seven feet but they 6.9 ft one plus a seven eight or nine. Um, but they are going to
relocate that equipment to a different location. So, they'll pick up more landscaping there and they'll have to work that out with the construction office. So, those and then again I'll the clear railings on the pool. Um, the other conditions
will be anything else we discussed tonight. This is putting aside the pool for now variances for now and the standard conditions we put in every other resolution. I think the first vote, second roll call vote.
Just to be clear on the height of the deck in the back, it's going to match what's in this picture, right? Yes. But it'll be match. It'll match the picture with glass match existing height.
three foot three foot separation glass and then on the left side it will be lower and it will basically be where the stairs are. It'll be where the stairs are. They'll be eliminated. So we're not talking about the swimming pool right now.
Not everything. No, but not stairs from the lower deck to the Well, you've got two steps to the deck. The deck would be platform. Well, you got seven steps, but there's no deck landing. The deck
would act as a lands. Whatever. Okay, anybody else? We're not talking about the swimming pool now. Just so everyone's clear. It's not required. That'll be on the higher
gate. So, okay. So, just one more time. Right now, we're not dealing with these full setback. We're deal with and possibly landscaping and the setback
for the full equipment platform. No matter where they put that platform. So want to make a motion. Second. Michael Richmond. Um,
you know, after listening to the testimony of some of the board members, Sam and I guess I really didn't through this whole testimony really what I mean the the
deck that's there now is a decent size deck it's not like it's a three or four foot five deck I didn't really hear any compelling testimony for these variances besides the fact that you know I guess
you could you know it would help the pool situation out but other than that I I look at that picture on the right and you know I know that um we're taking the
three feet away but personally I I didn't really hear anything that would make me think that it was valid to grant the variance. So, I don't The pool
equipment is okay with me. Um, I think we're getting we could get really close with the landscaping, but as far as the deck, I I can't vote for that. So, I'm going to vote that. Richard Patterson, I
Dan Adams. Okay. You know, based on the fact that you were giving in giving us the access on the side and you are going to go with the landscaping landscaping and the neighbor's testimony
or not testimony, but neighbor stating that as long as they keep the deck below that height and you provide like you just said locking gate for the second floor access, um I will vote for it. Craig
Palomas, I have a problem with the left side deck property line. Also, the purpose of that visualize what could be put on that barbecues.
What else is there for that? It's an open area. I don't like it going up to the property myself is nice on the other side and I kind of chairman Rich Tolson
looked at this first response I get concerned. I imagine setting I haven't said very accurate. Johanna landscape coverage incredibly close. So I I appreciate the
concessions that we need. Um I do understand now much better clarity on the deck situation that's being proposed um and the orientation of the neighbor's house
that's not in this particular case it's helpful information should the property change based on all that. I'm
going to chairman. Andrew Campbell. Um I do appreciate the clarity of all this. It was a uh somewhat confusing prior to today trying to understand all the uh
provisions. I just think that um we'd be setting a negative precedence for future cases that come down the road with applications like this. And uh I'm going to vote no.
John Pitz. Uh yeah, I have nothing to add by other members of the board. I motion fails. Two in favor, seven. I don't know what the vote on would do because
I'm trying to give you your opportunity. I tend to agree about the deck. I don't think I want to take a vote on the pool because depending if we come back something I I would agree.
We'll say that that's for it. I just I to my client to say something. We're going to be back to something else. And what you did tonight is a fairly significant injustice. Not just for the people who voted no. You're allowed to vote no. But I think it's
important to have an open mind and realize a couple things. There is no precedent in a planning board case ever, ever. Each case stands on its own when you say you're creating a bad
not. So please keep that in mind. Additionally, seemed as if some of the board members comments had their minds made up ahead of time. It isn't proper as well. So every applicant deserves your respect,
deserves to be treated with an open mind. You an opportunity to present a case fairly and I don't think they got a fair shake. So yeah, thank you. Okay,
we don't have any other business. So, got a motion to adjurnn. All in favor? All right.