David Bradford >> here. >> Barry Rosen >> here. >> Regina Truit >> here. >> Or you >> here. >> That's that's not here. and Jessica Nina Roberts. >> Steve Cohen. >> Yeah. >> Craig Pner
>> here. Okay. So, a couple things before we get started. Um we have a couple applications that are going to be carried. Calendar 408026. Um that application under Rebecca Spiceandler at 33 Windermir. That
application be carried to 427 uh this year, April 27th. Uh there will be no further notice. um and check the uh town website for any changes to that application along with calendar 402525.
Triple 1 Holdings, which is um property located at 44 Essex Street, that application will also be carried that capturing um no further notice uh will be given. Um, so if you're on those either either application those tonight, just know that they will not be heard this
evening, which will bring us to our first application, calendar 40 23 24 uh 31 court. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> My name is Erica Edwards. I'm a land use and zoning lawyer here in New Jersey.
I'm here uh before the township zoning board adjustment representing Gregory Tinsky. Uh the subject address is 31 Talbit Court. Uh that is block 4101 lot 51 on
the Milbour Township tax map. Uh we are in the R4 zoning district. Uh we are here this evening seeking um uh seeking Carings or bulk barrier approval to maintain a raised patio located in the
rear yard of our property. Uh we have two expert witnesses and a fact witness uh here with us this evening. Uh we have our uh licensed professional New Jersey engineer, Mr. Steven Parker. To my immediate right uh to the right of Mr.
Parker is our planning consultant, Mr. Samuel Bellamy of Dresnner Robin. And to Mr. Bellamy's immediate right is the applicant and property owner, Mr. Gregory Tilchinsky. Uh so with that, I wonder if we could swear both of our or
maybe all of our witnesses at once and then I would qualify them uh the experts um one at a time. >> Great. >> Yeah, hold on. um before we actually even do that. So, this application, just
so we're all clear, was originally heard in part on August 25th, 2025. And at the time, uh the application got started and then it was parried first to September 29th
and then to subsequent dates. That brings us to March 16, 2026. Couple things to note. Number one is that due to the passage of time, we asked the applicant to renotice and get
a new 200 foot list because of the uh elapsed time uh between the August of 2025 uh date and today's date. Number one. And number two is, and I communicated this with Miss Edwards,
that given the unusual passage of time between the first hearing and this hearing, coupled with the fact that at the time the initial hearing took place, a number of the board members that are sitting on the deis today um either were
not here, were not even board members at the time, including Mr. Yu tonight. And given um the relief that's requested um I had asked or stated to Miss Edwards
that I thought it was a good idea that she essentially start over or start from scratch because we hadn't gotten too far at the August 2025 hearing and instead of having um board members go back and and look at a video or read a transcript
from you know six months ago if not longer. uh that it would be better if we just sort of start over and have those repres presented. So, uh Miss Edwards, you were here to hear me right now. Do you have any objection to the way we're
going to proceed? >> Not at all. >> And just to remind you, um that at the time back in August, there were a couple of exhibits that were marked. Um so, we just want to make sure that we're going
to mark exhibits. We're going to kind of remark them, rebate them, etc. >> We are going to do >> So with that, if anyone's going to be testifying tonight, >> you're inclined to testify. >> Tinsky, let in case. Yeah.
>> Okay. Raise your right hand. If you are doing, do you solve affirm the testimony you're going to give tonight is the truth of whole truth and nothing but truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And one by one, to state your name and address, please.
Samuel Belly. Our business address is 30 Montgomery Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> Uh Steve Parker, Parker Engineering, Somerville, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> No, you're not going to be testifying.
>> You looked at me as if byation. >> Okay, very good. Uh, our first expert witness will be uh, Mr. Steve Parker. Um, Steve, I'm gonna ask you to put your uh, um, educational and professional credentials on the record, please. >> Yeah. Um, my name is Steve Parker. I'm
licensed as a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey for uh, probably over 30 years. U, testified before many boards. I don't think I've been before this board uh, in a very long time. uh as a professional engineer um and provided testimony in applications very similar to this one
here. I'm an owner of Parker Engineering Survey uh and we prepare applications for land use applications similar to this one. >> And your license to good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay, please proceed. >> And just so we're clear, uh Mr. Parker, you're just testifying this evening as a
professional engineer. >> That's correct. So, the uh the application that's here in front of the board this evening is for um well, it's it's a little bit unusual because uh it's for a patio that is currently under construction. It it
started um with permits uh quite a while ago. Uh it was determined after construction began that there was some um some issues with that that required the application to come before this board. Um but if you look at the plan uh that was submitted to the board for
approval um it shows basically directly behind the house uh where the patio construction has begun. Uh that is actually in in place of an existing patio that was there before. Uh that prior patio was a little bit smaller. It was removed uh and construction began on
this patio here where it says patio under construction. Um and then it was discovered that there were some uh setback um uh issues and some coverage issues and the planner who was going to uh provide testimony after me will go over in detail what those exact
variances are. But I just wanted to provide uh just some a little bit of background on this property and what what's being proposed and what's part of the application. So um you can see the size of the patio dimensions are there. Uh the coverage numbers are listed in the um uh in the chart on the right hand
side of the drawing. Um and in addition to the patio and I'm sorry, there is an existing pool there in the backyard that is going to remain um in uh in addition to the patio, the proposal is to install uh some uh trees for screening purposes
along uh both uh property lines in the area of the proposed patio to act as a screen. Seven will be proposed on the left side of the drawing as you're looking at it and then six on the right hand side uh as well. Um in addition to that, there is a drainage system that
will collect runoff, storm water run from the patio and you can see where there's some inlets uh illustrated on the plan basically directly behind that patio. What those do is those collect the runoff from the patio and that will divert or direct that runoff toward the
back part of the property toward the on this property toward the backyard. Um, so it doesn't go off on the oppos the sides. We don't really go inside on those side. There's really no significant grading that's proposed or no grade changes that are proposed. The patio is slightly raised. I think the
plan is to be about 18 inches uh above the uh the grade at the highest point there. Um, but that's really the essence of what what's being >> Okay. Okay. Stop right there. Okay. The record should reflect that Miss Zaul has
come up to the deis is present. So um I would say that uh given that Mr. Parker so far has provided some introductory remarks about the application that she can sit and participate here. >> And if there's something you want to
repeat for Miss's benefit. Um I I think yeah I mean just briefly we're we're we're prop proposing is uh is a patio that's under construction started construction seeking approval for that because of some variances that are required from
setback for coverage purposes. Uh those exact numbers will be provided by the planner who going to be testifying after me. Um and I think as I was describing there really are no other significant changes that are proposed. This patio is a little bit larger than the one that was there, but it's basically to replace
the patio that was there. And the reason is to provide a more usable area with access off the back part of the home. Um, and um I would say that's probably about all I haven't covered is really >> So, real quick, um, has engineering
reviewed this township? Well, engineering review the original plan came to me when we went out to the site that >> that's not what was done out there. >> Okay. >> So, >> so when you talked about this drainage,
you said drains to the back of the property. Was there drywalls put in or is it just drains? >> Just drains. No drywalls have been drains to deer fils >> in that direction. Correct. It says it's the drains outlet on the property toward the back side of the existing pool onto
this property. But yeah, it's the school is behind his property >> and and like I said and engineering had no comment regarding that. >> It was >> I'm not aware if the radio does fire.
>> Mr. Parker, in response to the chairman's inquiry, has there been any thought given to installing the drywall in the rear of the property? um given the space back there and the adjacent
property to the west >> certainly if that's a requirement component. >> Yeah. I mean this board is it's outside the perview of the board. It's it's merely that you know you have a sizable patio here um of 60 by 27
>> correct 1,800 ft. Um, so that's the only thing I was wondering, but like I said, that's something the engineering department would have to look at. So I I just wondering if they took a review of this or not. That was the bottom line. I >> think they're also waiting for something to do because the work's stopped.
Correct. There's no work being done there. >> That's correct. >> Waiting for this to >> and I'm sorry. Correct. Just just so that the board's clear that even if this application or any application is
subject to a subsequent engineering review when you're dealing with excessive block coverage, building coverage, etc. Certainly, it's within the perview of the board to make determinations whether it's conditions approval or otherwise or at least make inquiries in terms of addressing things
like storm water uh management in those circumstances. Like I said, interesting with a with a impervious of 42.8% I would like to see the engine department actually take a look at this. Um, so why don't you also tell us about why
you're here tonight? Like where did we get to where we are? Like we're sort of picking up but fairly, you know, is this an oops moment or where where we at here? >> You know, I I I I'll do my best. Uh I wasn't involved from the beginning uh of the project. Um, but my understanding is
that there was an application that was submitted that was approved. Um, but I think there was some discrepancies that I think engineering was called to go out and take a look at the site and there was some discrepancies found on the plan that was initially submitted. Um, and so then that required the board approval
and that's how they ended up in front of the board. >> Can I uh just jump in on that second discrepancies in the plans? I thought it was something was built that was bigger than bigger materially bigger than what was in the plan. >> You know, I'm probably not the best
person to answer that question because I wasn't involved from >> because I'd like to know what the two different numbers are. >> Maybe perhaps um the applicant or the planner I think has been more the next witness can probably describe that better.
>> Mr. Mark, you was able to describe um the dimensions of the prior patio or the smaller patio as you described it versus the proposed pio. >> I can. Yeah. So, the proposed patio you can you can see on on the uh in the chart on the right hand side, the
proposed patio is about 163 square feet. Okay. That's what's being proposed. The existing patio or that the prior patio that was there um is about Um, sorry. I'm sorry.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's um Well, I don't know the exact Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes. 718 square ft. So, it's an increase of uh roughly 900ish. >> So, it's not a little. >> No, it's a big patio.
>> No, no, the increase is not level. >> It's a It's about 900 or so square feet, >> right? More than Oh, it's more than double. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Right. But what was applied for originally? >> We get that answer. >> I don't know if we So, what was applied
for originally? what was the original specs of and if you're not if you don't know that and someone else does. >> Yeah, >> I'm fine with that. But I'm just saying what was the original application book because you know clearly it's a forgiveness application but we're proceeding here like it's all brand new
and shiny. So we need to know where we came from to where we're at today. >> Yeah, I'm probably not the best person to answer. You got it all kind of in, you know, so I'm not sure what how that this how the project started. >> Okay, so let's get to that. Any
other questions for uh Mr. Parker? >> We may circle back to you. So, >> yeah. Anyone in the public have any questions for Mr. Parker? Comments? We'll do at the end. Uh I ask you to come on forward because we're recording
this meeting tonight for minutes. Um, at this point you do not have to be sworn in. You do have to frame your uh comment for a question and just please identify your name and address for the record. >> Your name is Ken
27 which is the house. Next. >> So next door to the left or to the right staring at the house? >> On your left. >> On your left. Thank you very much. >> Um, Parker, you said that the patio was slightly raised. what was it raised from
and to so the existing or the proposed patio I can speak to the proposed patio that's out there now and I think there's well there's there's an exhibit that the the next witness will present that shows it's about 18 in uh in most of the area uh it'll be a little bit more than that
on the backside but I think the plan is >> 18 in higher than the >> higher than existing grade higher than existing grade so so you can see the existing grade and I think there might even be some elevation Um I had but um
yeah it's about it's about 18 inches above existing rad. >> Did that answer your question? >> No. >> No I didn't think it did. So he's wondering and I mean if you don't mind me speaking for you from where you went to where you are not so much where you
are but what was it prior to its expansion? Yeah, unfortunately again I cannot answer that because only because we were when we got involved in the project it was after that patio was already removed. So I don't know what conditions were before we got involved. The patio that's there now was already
when we were let wait hold on hold on. So Mr. Parker, um, your plan is dated January 19th, 2026, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. When did you first become involved
with this project? >> Uh, December of 2025. >> December 2020. Okay. So, go ahead. Ask your next question. >> I'm really asking when is it >> the current elevation now? >> Yes. On the side, there's a side that
runs 27 feet or so. And >> so that'll be the side adjacent to your property. >> That's correct. What is the height on it lowest point of the ground? >> So the um the point where it's the
lowest is directly adjacent to the house. So where that patio is up against the house, that's where the patio is about 18 inches tall. >> And then proceeds to >> and then the ground slopes away toward the back part of the property. And it it's probably about uh 2 feet or 26 in
around in that in that area. >> Your your plan says the proposed wall 3 foot high >> maximum. Yeah. So it won't be it won't be taller than that. But I think the plan is actually to put some probably bring some fill in around the bottom area there. Uh and and bring that so we could certainly say it won't be more
than you know 2 feet 24 in above the existing grade. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> I'll leave that. >> Okay. Any other questions from the audience uh for this uh witness? >> I'll provide to you counselor.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you. Our next witness stand, would you put your educational and professional credential on? >> Um so I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm with the firm President Robin. also certified by the American Institute of
Certified Planners and I do have a masters in city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I uh testify frequently before boards in New Jersey as an expert professional planner. >> Credentials are accepted by the sport. >> Thank you. And I do have an exhibit that
I like to mark into the record. Um it's a presentation uh titled variance relief with eight slides uh last revised date of March 156. >> We're going to mark all that as A1 >> A1 >> A1.
>> So the A1 and A2 from last A1 and A2 don't exist. We're starting over. Next one. Yeah. Uh so I did appear at the August hearing. Um at that hearing the board had a number of questions related to what was being proposed, what existed uh
in the prior condition. Um they asked for uh site photos um and conformance with overall the zoning um of the R4 district. So I did put together this exhibit to hopefully address many of those comments that the board has. >> Thank you, Mr. tell me you understand
based on my comments at the beginning of the meeting that we're acting not acting we're starting over in this application. So um please for your benefit don't rely on yeah the prior hearing or your prior testimony you're going to give it again is >> Yep. Understood setting the table for
for the uh the presentation. So um on the first page you'll see there's a picture of the home at 31 Court. The lot size here is 20,000 square feet. So it does meet the standard. It's 100 by 200 f feet also meeting the lot width lot depth standards of the art for district.
There are the two variances that we're seeking. One is for the maximum lot coverage. The requirement um is a maximum of 35% permitted. Uh the existing condition was 34.6% and the proposed um condition with the
proposed patio is 42.8%. >> Hang on one second there. So you have the existing with old patio at 38.2. >> Yeah. So getting getting ahead, um we we're not taking credit for the prior
patio given that it was removed as part of construction. So we did want to be conservative and and basically um show the existing conditioning as no patios being there at all. um just given the uh you know the the nature of this
application and the construction going ahead with with the proposed patio, >> right? That's the Well, that's this isn't the proposed patio. Proposed patio is already proposed to the township. They've approved the patio, right? >> Not
the 700, >> right? >> And that original patio. Okay. Where were you on your numbers on that original patio? >> So, with that patio included, the lot coverage uh was at 38.2%.
>> So, that other patio didn't conform either. >> Correct. It was over. >> So, then how was that not flagged for zoning? >> That was dating back, I think, to the 80s is the survey that we could see. So, >> Oh, so you're talking about the existing one. So, you replacing an existing non-conforming, correct? Correct.
>> So, you're staying at 38.2 to with the original plan submitted. >> Correct. And and I think what would help is to go over what the discrepancy was when that zoning permit was applied. The plan being that was shown did propose
what's what's being proposed now with the patio at the rear of the uh home. The difference was it didn't reflect the pool patio and the pool coverage which represent a substantial amount of coverage. So when the when the zoning
application went in, it went in without that coverage population and actually showed up as being conforming. >> So that that that was the difference. Um it wasn't that what was being proposed and what was constructed were two different things. It was simply that
what existed what existed on the site with the pool patio that was constructed somewhere along the lines 2030 years ago wasn't reflected on the plan that was um submitted to the building department. >> Oops.
>> Okay. Carry on. We'll figure it out from there. >> Um all right. So the coverage we just talked about the the additional bulk bearance relief that we need is for the minimum sideyard setback on the south
side. Um given that the raised patio section rises above 18 in from the grade it's considered attached to the principal structure and therefore the setback conditions for the principal structure apply to patio portion. So the
patio is inset two feet deep from the south property line. It's overall uh two feet additional from the home from the south property line. The overall setback of 12.15 ft and the requirements 22 feet
um for structures uh taller than uh I believe 20 ft. Um so again we're we're applying the setback standard that's for the entire home to the patio and requesting the bulk bearings relief given the uh portion that's rated above.
Can I ask on the on the on the part of the patio that's not raised, isn't it raised at least something? Because if the if it's sloping down the property, isn't that doesn't may not be raised as much as the other part, but it
must be raised. Right. >> Correct. And um so I can turn your attention to and I apologize. I realize the numbers aren't the page numbers don't show up on the the presentation, but it's a fifth page. Um, it has six images of the conditions of the home.
Uh, I did take these photos myself back in in August. Um, so the image number two is essentially looking from behind the patio uh on the pool patio looking up back to the home and the raised
patio. So you see there's two steps that get you to the lower I guess lower raised portion of the patio and then there's another two steps that gets you to the higher um portion of the raised patio that levels off even when you enter the home. >> So picture one. Okay. when I walk back
there. I'm sorry. >> Do I'm sorry because the um witness has provided eight slides. Um my recommendation is let him just sort of go through slide by slide and then we can ask >> you can ask as many questions as you
got. >> So I think you finished your first slide. >> Yes. >> All right, Mr. B. So what is the second slide intended to show? The second slide showed that plan that u the 19 a 1985 survey that showed the exist the prior
patio on the property. As you can see there is a pool indicated. It's a different shape. It's not exact dimensions. There's also no patio shown around that pool. So when the the plans were presented with the drawn on patio that's now being proposed um it
reflected a much different condition that what was actually out on the site um getting us to to where we are tonight. Uh the image on the left is an aerial image that's dated March 3rd 2024. Um again that shows the existing
conditions of the property prior to the zoning permit application and construction of the port partial construction of the patio um with the prior patio and and pool and and pool patio located on the property just to provide some context of what was
actually on the on the property. Um, going into page three, this now shows the a current aerial of the property that's dated March 19th, 2025. Um, that shows the portion of the patio that was constructed uh to the rear of
the home. Again, there were no changes to the front of the property or to the pool or pool patio. Then on the right is the current plan that was presented by Mr. Parker this evening. Um indicating the uh the upper raised patio and lower
race patio um that's being sought for approval tonight. The third slide is meant to provide a comparison of now that prior conditions plan and the proposed plan. Um you can see the image on the left has an orange
highlight of the patio area. >> This is this is the fourth slot. >> Yeah, >> correct. Thank you. fourth five. Um the image on the left is that 1985 survey. Um highlighted is the in orange
is the prior patio that was 718 square ft about 3.6% overall coverage on the property. Then on the right shows the proposed patio. Um the entire uh area of the patio is highlighted in orange. Um
at 1,648 square ft, 8.2% of the overall property. And then o overlaid um or underlaid on that image is the prior patio to show that it's um you know larger than what
was there previously and extends the full width of of the home. um and was a increase in what what's being proposed now is an increase of 930 square feet from that prior patio that existed on the property. Um the table on the upper
right of the page shows again the permitted lot coverage at 35%. The existing coverage was 34.6% excluding the prior patio 38.2% 2% including that patio and now photos at
42.8%. Um and below that is the calculations uh breakdown of lot coverage um provided from the site plan that Mr. Parker presented earlier. Moving in from page number five of the
presentation. These are those six images um showing the conditions of the property uh with the partially constructed patio. Um number one is walking up the side yard of the property. Um viewing from the gate to
the rear of the property. So you can see there is a slope as you go from the front of the properties back down to the rear. Um, and then to the very right uh bottom of that image is the two steps that get you up to the uh upper portion of the patio. Um, image number two is
viewing from um the rear the yard from the pool patio up back to the house. Um, again, there's two steps getting onto the lower portion of the patio area. Um, and this is due to the topography on the site sloping down as you go to the rear
of the property. Image number three is viewing south from the north side uh sideyard. Um looking into the patio and and um and you could see the lower portion and then on the left of that image is the the part
portion of the raised patio that runs adjacent to the home. Image number four is from the southside yard viewing north. Um, you can see the two steps that get you to the raised upper raised portion of the patio that runs the entire width of the helm about
five feet from the home in width and then also uh about believe it's uh about 20 ft um from the south um going north is the upper raised portion of the patio. Image number five is viewing from
on top the lower raised portion of the patio viewing through the pool and the pool patio and the rear yard. And then image number six is viewing from the rear yard, the south side back up to the home. And you can see the slope of of
the yard um and the difference between um when entering the home and and the back portion of the property. Slide number six um is the uh indicates the setback side
setback variance relief that we're seeking. Um it's in the southside yard of the property. Shows the existing home at a non-conforming condition of 10.15 ft where 22 feet required. The raised patio was constructed at 12.1 feet from
that southside yard. Again, where 22 feet's required. Um, and I'll on on the right of that page is some some of the um, you know, justifications for the variance that I'll get to later in my testimony. I just kind of want to go through the presentation and answer
questions first. Um, but as Mr. Parker indicated we are proposing um trees along both side property lines to minimize the the impact of the raised patio. >> Slide number seven. Um
>> by the way I'm going to break my rule and interrupt you for a second. So on pages five and seven you have a whole series of photographs. Uh when were those photographs taken? The um images on slide five were taken
back in August um by myself. >> This is August of 2025. >> Correct. >> And then the images on slide number seven were taken by the homeowner, Mr. Kjinsky. They were actually taken today. I wanted to get some additional images
with measurements. Um, but they do reflect my site visit and and um and uh and remembrance of the the conditions that I was there. >> So the photos that you did not take that
are dated March 16, 2026 accurately what you saw when you leave the property. >> That's correct. Go on. >> So those images um images one and two um are both from the the south sideyard. ones from the basically the edge of the
home looking into the rear yard. Again, just to show the slope of the property um in that southside yard location and the um and then the image number one is looking back up to the home again showing the uh the topography of that
southside yard. Image number three does show the measurement. And I realize it's a little bit hard to see, but that's that measurement is 19 and a/4 in from grade to the top of the raised patio at the uh at the corner of the home. Um
image number four is the southwest corner, so towards the rear yard on that south sideyard. And that does increase the 42 and a/4 in. So we're talking about a 23 inch difference from the front of the patio at the home to the the rear corner of the patio. And then
number five is to show the difference between the lower raised patio and upper raised patio. That's a difference about 16 inches. So each step's about 8 in um going to uh an accurate entrance into
the rear of the home. And then finally um slide number eight is just to show some other conformance of the property. So the F permitted in the R4 district is 26%. The existing and proposed condition is
the is the same. It's at 21.3%. So we're below the overall F permitted on the property. Front yard setback, we do have a 40.1 front yard setback that meets the minimum 40 foot requirement. Uh rear yard setback is 20% of the lot
depth. So that's 40 ft in this case. Uh the current condition is 58.7% is 117.3 ft to the um to the home. And then now with the proposed raised patio, we're measuring that setback to the the
rear of the patio. That's 45.1% or 90.15 ft. And that also exceeds the minimum rear yard setback requirement. Um finally, the rigard unoccupied calculation. It's a maximum of um it's a minimum requirement at 25% of the lot
area or 5,000 square ft. Um we are proposing 36.2% of the lot area, 7,235 square ft of the rear yard to be unoccupied and that's reflected on the image in the left of the area in green um is what is unoccupied and then the
area in orange is what is occupied. Um, and that that image also shows those setbacks I referenced and for the front and rear yard as well as the uh area in blue is the area the home and the F package.
So I think that takes me through the presentation. Um, so before getting into the justification of the variances, I'd like to see if the board has any questions or would like to elaborate on anything further. Any
questions for the board? >> I I do. I want just want to make sure I understand these numbers correctly. The original plan, without getting into it, why it happened missed the patio that's around the pool
in doing the calculations. Is that correct? >> That's that's >> and that's why it came out at 34.6. And when we discovered that realized that that we're really at 42.8 >> that along with the the great difference that we ref the old survey didn't have
topography so you couldn't tell you know we're looking at 2D >> but I mean just in terms of the lot covered it's just >> just what I said or was there some other reason? >> No, it was that difference of the pool patio that wasn't shown.
So, when the original and I don't really care so much about what was submitted in some ways because this is what we're dealing with today, but what was submitted to town was the same patio just without the calculations. Cool. >> That's correct. >> So, it was ex what we're looking at today and then what were you someone called
and said this doesn't look right and then you and the town went and looked at it because I don't think they just drove by because they had >> I think that's that's my understanding. >> Okay. That's what I want to make sure. >> Nice. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Absolutely. >> This was initially submitted as a patio
grade level patio. So the setback was 12 ft and initially it was rejected by me because he was over on accessory covered. He reduced it on one of the sides didn't show the pool surround around around the
p around the pool. And so what happened was that I think engineering went out to do an inspection. I don't know if we got a complaint but for some reason they went out >> and discovered that it wasn't a great little patio. They had built walls but it's not raised which made the setback because initially it was only 10 feet off the property when he pulled it into
12 but then when they went out they realized it was raised well now it's part of the principal struct so that's when the whole thing kind of >> and the pool magically appeared >> well and it also said the pool wasn't
reflected on the surface so once you got an accurate survey and you realize where it had gone >> okay >> I couldn't and if I could At the time it was the homeowner submitting his zoning permit application. I wasn't involved. I don't believe Miss Eric. I said >> no. >> Um All right. So, why don't you get any
any questions from the audience real quick so far? Do you you know what? I'm gonna hold off on that one second because I want him to discuss his proofs and then we'll get into that. Okay. Uh anyone else on the board questions up to the point we're right now? >> Just have one question. >> Go ahead. So, if the patio had been
built at grade, you wouldn't need some of these bearings. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Um, well, given the topography of the slight the site, I I think the the rear portion of the patio would always be raised. Um,
short answer is if it was completely level, then no, you wouldn't need the setback variance. you would still need the lot coverage, but the setback variance would go away because it would no longer be considered part of the accessory uh part of the principal structure. >> So, I'm guessing two things. The old patio was 15 ft off and it was raised,
but it was clearly judging by the look of it, it was substantially over. >> Yeah. So, um the old patio was >> I mean obviously it may have predated the zoning requirement, but it would
have conformed in terms of its setback. >> Yeah, I I think it was set back beyond 15 feet. Um, if you look at page five, the images number four, the the patio basically was level with the grade at when it attached to the the
home. So there were steps down from the home to the grade where the top of the patio was >> and then that was the patio was leveled, you know, sloping slightly to the rear but held back with I believe was railroad ties. So 3 in probably below
what the lower base is today. >> Yeah. >> So you're going to go cruise style. Is that what you want to do? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um >> All right. Let's let's go that direction. >> Okay. Um, so yeah, the two bold variances that we're seeking, I think
both of these bold variances can be granted pursuant to the C2 flexible standard here where the benefits would out substantially outweigh the detriment um and that there would be no substantial detriment to the general welfare or substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. So as I
mentioned um the condition of the property there was always a patio in the rear. Um, with this proposed application, it provides an accurate exit from the home um to the to the patio area. So, there's no longer steps
directly from the home down to the patio. So, I think it's a safer condition walking out um to the to the pro proposed patio condition. Uh the drainage was designed to capture the storm water runoff um at the rear of the
wall where with the slope of the property and does discharge out to the rear yard of the property. Um as you heard from Mr. Parker, I think a condition could be u working with the township engineer and if the recommendation is to add a dry well, I think Mr. Told you would be happy to do
that um as a condition uh with this application. Um, with respect to the south sideyard setback, again, the the patio is inset two feet from the south side of the
home. Um, so it's at 12.15 ft. Um, the patio itself is directly behind the home. So, it's not visible from the front yard. The front um the front of the home is actually raised up above the street, too. So, patio itself isn't visible from the right of way. So really
we're looking at the impacts that to the two adjacent neighbors. Um with this application there are proposed seven trees located along the south sideyard of the property um to provide a screening and buffering of that proposed
raised patio area. I believe those trees are to be planted at 6 feet um in height and and they grow to about 10 to 12 feet and they'll be spaced uh four feet on center. Um, so I think it would pro provide a a consistent screening um,
blocking visibility of the the raised patio area. Um, as you could also see in the aerial images on page three, the adjacent home to the south of the property does runs deeper into the rear yard. So the proposed patio entirely is
adjacent to the the side of the home and not into any um, rear yard open spaces. So I think from a privacy standpoint with in addition to the trees that are being proposed due to the lot configurations and existing conditions of the adjacent home, I think there are
minimal impacts of having a a raised uh patio in this area that's being proposed here. >> Um with respect to F, I know I did mention it's below the overall F permitted on the property at 21.3%.
that's where 26% permitted. Um so the overall intensity in terms of like the bulk and really the the higher standard um of controlling bulk in the R4 zone is the F standard. So given that we do have a lesser F on the site, I think the
intensity of the overall um site is is lesser than what's contemplated in the zone um notwithstanding the uh lot coverage variance that we're seeking tonight. Um as I mentioned we do have conforming
front and rear yard setbacks and also we are below uh we do exceed the uh required unoccupied open uh rear yard open space area. So a lot of the coverage on this property is dedicated to the driveway. We have a full
turnaround driveway that also runs into the north of the property. Um, so that represents a coverage of over 15%. Um, and really substantially takes up a lot of the coverage that's permitted on the property. Um, so I think overall the compliance with the um, with the minimum
rear unoccupied space shows overall consistency of what's being contemplated in the R4 district in terms of coverage in the rear yard area. Um, this project does advance, in my opinion, does advance the purposes of
the municipal land use law. I do think it's an appropriate addition to the existing single family home that will guide the appropriate use and development of the property consistent with the R4 district standards um, consistent with purpose A of the MLUL. And I also think the proposed project
will promote an desirable visual environment. It's um proposing a new patio area with trees as screening. Um so I think this is a motion of a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I um with respect to the negative
criteria. I don't see a substantial detriment to the general welfare here. Um, a lot of times when you're speaking of coverage, and I think the chairman made this point before, we do have excess co excessive coverage. We are managing where that storm water is being collected and and discharged to ensure
that it doesn't go into the sideyards. I think a little bit of that is reflected just in the topography of the site. Um, but as I stated, I think a condition would could certainly be working with the township engineer and if the recommendation is to add a um dry well in the in the rear yard area where the
water is being discharged, I think the property owner would be happy to do that to address any of those concerns related to storm water um management runoff. Um, with respect to privacy and um, screening, I think that the project's
achieving that by proposing the trees along both side property lines. The minimize the view of the proposed patio area. And again, I think the condition of having the adjacent home run deeper into the property um, sort of acts as a as another privacy barrier where you're
not overlooking the fence into a rear yard and adjacent patio or or deck area on the adjacent property. Um so with that I don't see a substantial detriment for the general welfare here. I likewise don't see a substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I think this project is consistent with
the R4 district standards um with the with the goal of the R4 district um and several of the objectives of the master plan including objective B which is to protect the character of established neighborhoods. I think the proposed project and patio is consistent
with the overall development pattern in the area. And as I mentioned, I think the project is minimizing any impacts to adjacent properties um with with the screening and storm water um detention that's being proposed. Um so overall, I
think this project does meet the positive and negative criteria. Um, as I mentioned, I think these both variances can be grant to granted pursuant to the C2 criteria whether benefits would substantially outweigh the detriments. Um, and with that, I believe that would
conclude my direct testimony, but I'd be happy to answer your questions for questions for clarification. So, on A1, the very first page, minimum sideyard setbacks side permitted required 22 feet >> only 15. It's only 15,
right? Because it's building up to 18, right? I mean, >> it's 15 feet required, >> right? So, you you agree with that? >> Yeah. Um, you show the 22 ft as being conservative because the overall home itself is greater than 18 ft, but certainly the portion of the patio is
less than 18, >> right? So, so the the delta for the setback is 2 and 1/2 ft. >> I would agree with that. >> Yeah. And um is there something that you can do to reduce that nonconformity
like like what's that that patio like we haven't heard anything about what that L portion is to be used for right is that part of the proofs so yeah I think part of the goal of
having the portion of that patio green as I testified to is to have an accurate entrance to the the rear of the property, but it certainly does exceed along that south property line to the rear wall. Um, you know, I think that area is for um intended for grilling,
possibly a table at the at the top of it um and just kind of direct access to the home is is why that portion of the patio was proposed to be raised. Am I correct in saying that there's there's a door that accesses the raised
portion of the patio that's very close to the left side of the house as I face it? >> Yeah, you can see it in image space there between that door and the edge of the patio. >> Yeah. Where where the counselor is
thinking about pushing it in. >> Well, I'm not thinking about it. >> Well, no. where you raise the >> making observations. >> Yeah. I mean, it looks like two or three shaker shingles. So, it's probably less than a foot or two feet >> from the edge of the wall.
>> So, you don't have a lot of spare there. If you walk out that door to your left, there's not a lot of spare space between where you probably have some kind of fencing >> to prevent people from falling off the patio. >> Yeah. You had the two steps going down
directly on the edge, but beyond that, yeah, I think you would have some sort of railing or or barrier if we're trying to follow. >> That's actually my question. At what point do you have to terrace this because that's pretty tall? 23 almost 24 inches at the end. It is striking when you see it. Is it kind of cliff there? It's a cliff. Do is there a requirement
to terrace any of this these walls? >> Building that. >> So, that was what jumped out at me. Does this have to be terrace? I mean if it's going to be railing basically be a debt gonna be what they're going to put railings on it not be that
>> has to be but has a conformity code so if it if it's required yes >> okay so we don't >> but probably not as much as it would be a random >> okay >> but that's once again that's that has to conform code >> okay all right because that's identified in these plants and also what are you
going to cover this white substance with anything >> are you talking about the base of the >> the base of the wall. >> So, that actually is the finished material. Um, it's like a stone. It's like a tile. Um, >> it's a tile. >> Yeah. Base. >> And what's going to go on top of the
gravel? >> It's the same as material with carrying over on top. >> It's It's a tile, >> correct? >> So, it's it's permeable. It's not permeable. >> No, >> it's not going to stay gravel. Okay. >> Yeah. The antenna is it's it's sloped to run to the rear where the drainage would
would pick it up. And are there plans for railing now? >> Uh not I'm not aware of that. Um but >> okay >> if yeah certainly we would have to meet building code. Um and if the board felt that a railing was necessary and it does
get steep at the rear. >> Once again that'd be up to the building department that's not um so um your distance off the property line is you know 12 whatever it is 12.15. Well, how far would you say the property
line is to the neighbor's house? Like the distance between this patio to the neighbor's house is basically what I'm looking for >> in your estimation if you have it. >> It looks a little further. So, I would say at least 15 feet from the property line to their house. >> Yeah.
>> And plus the 12 feet. So, you're saying this patio sits what 27 feet or so off? You know, from the patio to the house. >> Yeah. I think that's I think that's And overall, I didn't mention this in my direct testimony, the project does meet
the combined um sideyard setback standard. Um that's a 35% of the lot width. So 35 ft here. Um and we have believe we have over 40 feet total. Um on on the second sheet of A1, second
slide. >> Y >> on the left side we show an aerial dated March 3rd, 2024. And it looks like there are a whole bunch of mature trees separating
your client's property from the property to the left. See that? >> Yes. Right. Two questions. Number one is on whose property are those trees and what types of trees are there?
>> Yeah, I know there were trees after discussions with my client, there were trees removed as part of a tree permit. Um I believe that was prior to the construction of the new patio. We do reflect two existing 8inch pine trees that are further into the very yard on
our property, but beyond that, I don't think there's any existing uh trees on on >> So the So if you go then to the third slide where it looks like it's a little down, all those trees on that left side are
now removed. >> There's trees on the adjacent property. Um >> Okay. That's what I'm going to ask. Yeah. >> So, those trees that we see from the aerial dated March 19th, 2025, those are trees on the neighbor's property. >> Yeah. The the trees on on the on this
application property don't start until after the patio. The the trees between the patio and the home to the south are on the adjacent property. But you're talking about adding some trees next to the trees on the adjacent
property. >> Correct. Along the property line. Yes. >> From the patio back >> from the the home to the to the back of the patio. >> So and those would be planted at 4 feet on center to provide the you know a full
screening. So, just to clarify, is there a testimony that the like there's a bunch of oaks and pines shown on the plot plan, but you're saying you're saying they were not on the property or those are not there anymore? I'm just trying to follow.
>> So, the the two and >> page page four, the the plan image, there's two pine trees shown beyond um the the cypress trees that are being shown as proposed. Those exist on the property, >> but all the ones forward.
>> There's a bunch there as well >> from adjacent to home. No, those are still there as well. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, but between the patio and the side property line, there's no trees on the >> Yeah, right. I guess that was space.
>> So you you commented about the F and and your view that the massing of the property and the intensity of the use of the property uh because of the F was not accessible. >> Yeah. So can we just talk a little bit
more when you look at the when you look at the the property was proposed there's an awful lot of patio in the back. There's pool. Um it's a busy backyard. Um in terms of intensity of use, what is
your perspective on that? Putting aside the F of the house. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I I you know going through the zoning ordinance and master plan, I think one of the controls of the overall intensity of reard areas is what I would say is a unique requirement of
um the unoccupied rear yard space. So, as I mentioned, we do exceed that 25%. That's based on the entire lot area. So, at 36%, I think we're actually we're we're less than what the overall intensity of our rear yard is contemplated in our court district. Um,
and as I mentioned, I think the the coverage, even though I I would admit that the patio is a big patio, it's big pool and big patio, a lot of the coverage comes from the driveway and the front yard. So I think the overall intensity of the rear yard is consistent
with what zoning allows for. >> Well, you're 43% of mileage like this. That's consistent with zoning. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's a big number. That's a real big number. Uh hypothetically, what's your plan B?
>> Yeah. Say say it doesn't get approved. What what's the plan B? Because you obviously have something built here. like, you know, I was just kind of what what's what's the visualization like look like? >> Yeah. I mean, if the application were denied or was withdrawn, um, the only
way we could come back to this board with a similar application is if it's substantially different. So, it would have to be a substantial reduction in coverage area. Um, removal of the sideyard setback variance. Um, so that's the only way we could get back to this
board with both variance relief. Where the other alternative is the patio that portion of patio that was constructed would have to be demolished and either a conforming patio would replace it or no patio at all. >> Because I honestly can't remember last
time we were that we looked at an R4 with a 42.8 and I believe been on the board for 10 years. I don't remember that. So um any other questions from the board?
I guess in terms of abuse, why does it have to be so large? >> The the patio, >> the patio, what is the reasoning for is there hardship or is there any explanation of why it has to be so large? Yeah, I think the topography of the site does play into it where if you don't have a patio that levels it off,
then you have a substantial slope, the grassard area to so to make the area usable is to construct a patio that is level and provides for a flat surface to you know have tables, chairs and be able
to host parties. Um, so I think this the slope of the site does play into that and does warrant in a sense a a greater patio that provides that flat surface. Um, so I think that's part of the aspect
is >> the width of it. Why does it have to be so wide? >> There's there are doors located at various points on the rear of the building. So again, it's to provide just that direct access from the home at those various locations rather than
stairs down from the doors that are there. >> And do you know what the slope is? >> The overall slope of the property. >> Yeah, you mentioned the slope is >> uh >> to the >> Yeah. So, it starts at about
452 at the back of the home and then to the the rear yard, the back of the property, it goes down to 447. >> So, it's the back of the yard. Okay. To the I guess it would be to the pool because the pool is level. So,
>> the pool is at 451 >> and the 451. And then the house is at >> 449. 452 bottom of the yard is 1247 should run. >> Any other questions from the board? Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Um just trying to understand again in the back. So in photo six on page five that's where um there's like that that door I think that you mentioned is is why you're looking for the >> the >> and then I'm just trying to reconcile
with what was there before. So, you know, just trying to understand the order and it looks like the, you know, the orange other patio did not have a door that he grabbed via step, >> you know, I'm not sure. I think the property owner got the
>> I'm just trying to understand. >> No, but it's over here. >> So, I Yeah, just >> I'm trying to understand why it needs to come so close to the property line that far to the left because it didn't look like it did before. I'm just trying to wrap my head around.
>> Yeah. I don't know. >> And part of the reason like why it didn't reference the C1 criteria hard is can the patio be reduced? >> Certainly. Yes. >> There's other board. Yeah. It means it egress from the home to the patio. >> Yes. Yeah. I I think this was what was
present. This is what you know the goal of the the homeowner was. um >> you know, unfortunately he didn't realize that the zoning and the different challenges of the because of pography and and the uh old survey and now we're at this you know this point
where we're asking for certainly excess of what the zoning allows for. >> Sure. So so on on page second slide of 81 you have you have a hatched area
to the left of the twotory frame dweller. I think that says porch. >> Yeah, that shows how old that survey was. >> Right. So, at some point that was the porch, right? And then do you know when
the addition was put on? >> I I did speak with the homeowner prior to this and it was I think somewhere shortly after that survey was taken. >> Okay. Okay, that was like 1985 too, >> right? >> It wasn't constructed by the current,
>> right? >> Any other questions? Shouldn't work. >> Any questions from the audience? Go forward. name and address for the record. Once again, please come forward to the podium. 2017
the house to as you're looking at your pictures. >> Thank you. Um, you said I believe that at the tip on the south side it's raised 42 and 12 in from
the ground. Is that correct? >> The southwest corner. So the furthest corner patio. Yes. 42. Is there at any point where the voidance is required that if it's over 18 in that it's reclassified
and subject to a whole other set of factors >> is subject to the principal structure setbacks um which as referenced is the 15oot sideard setback and the 40% three yard setback would also be applied.
>> Well, the principal is not the principal structure. It's true story. It doesn't get to go on, does it? Does it? >> I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Does it have to stand on its own on its own as far as but it's measured by what
the principle is >> the principal structure setbacks. So the the standard set setbacks are applied to the patio. >> And wouldn't that be 22 ft? So that that was one of the things I think we discussed. 22 feet is for
structures over 18 feet in height. So since 18 feet in height, so the home itself is over 18 ft, but the patio itself is certainly less than that. >> At what level does that patio become an extension of the building as
opposed to being called a patio? >> I don't think it gets reclassified. It just gets the setbacks applied which is at 18 in above grade. >> Okay, I'll wait for that. >> Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the audience?
>> Uh any comments from the audience regarding this application? >> I'm sorry, Miss Edwards, do you have any more witnesses? >> Uh we do not. >> Any comments from the audience? Come on forward. We're going to swear you in.
Okay. Sure. >> Hang on one second. We're swear you in. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Rempel, raise your right hand. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give tonight. It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Okay. >> Please state your name and address for
the record, please. >> My name is Kenneth. My address once again is 27th and sitting in the audience is my wife Joanel
um and I'm representing her as well as 45 years ago. Just a couple of introductory remarks so you know who we are and what our values are. We moved to Short Hills 45 years ago.
Okay. We've lived at 27 Talbert Court for the last 33 years. My wife started Melbourne Milbour Short Hills Girls Lacrosse Club when there was none. the
time my daughter was in fifth grade and she's now 43 and lives in town and has served on the heart as president of the heart shine uh PTA. She has three children who have attended
Lberg schools and I served on the township's board of education sitting right where you're sitting now uh for that tenure. I have three children who graduated from Melbourne High
in 48 years that we had a home been homeowners. This is the first time that we've ever had an issue with a neighbor and it's always been cordial work things out. Things get taken care of. This is
the exception. Okay. Now, it's my belief that when Mr. Tolchinsky moved in, he knew what the zoning lines were, and
he should be held to what they were. And let me explain why. And for your edification, I haven't seen the pictures you have, but I have my own set of pictures that I'd like to share with you because it
kind of um makes you understand my remarks a little better. >> Okay, we're going to mark this exhibit on >> now. Yeah, >> I only have nine. So,
>> I have one for myself. So, I can >> you know, you know what? Um, I'm just going to take a pause just for two seconds. Um, Miss uh, Miss Edwards, um, do you have an extra >> A1 exhibit? Yes, we do.
>> That you can provide to Mr. pal. >> And the reason why I'm I'm suggesting that is that if he's presenting his exhibits and he may want to compare in terms of photos or otherwise to what the
applicant has provided. >> So, I'm sorry. >> Hold on. So, I I believe that uh Miss Edwards team should have a copy of the of what we're going to be marking. So, here I'll
give up my copy. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I'll be grabbing one from one of you handed the proceedings. So, what we're going to do is um for purposes of tonight, we're going to mark um this. And it looks like it's
slides. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 9, 10, 11. Right. O1 is a set of 11 slides. Is that correct, Mr. Rempal?
>> Yes, it is. Okay. And did you create this set of 11 slides yourself? >> Yes, I did. >> And there are looks like there's some Ariel and some
photos. Um, did you take these photos yourself? >> I either I took them or my wife took them. The Ariel I got from Google Earth. >> Okay. And the photos that were taken, um, approximately when were they taken?
>> Well, this is the fifth time we've been here. My guess is we took them when we prepared for the first time. >> Okay. So, these photos were taken between August of 2025 and today. >> Yes. >> At various times.
>> Yes. >> And the photos that you and your wife took, um, do they accurately depict the view from the various areas that are shown in this uh set of 11 slides >> I believe so
>> yes so why don't you proceed >> can I just clarify something on that the first picture where you have the sidebyside aerials the one on the right appears to be before any of the construction >> well he he said that the ones those are
only Google earth he's going to talk about I was just asking the ones that might >> actually the picture. >> I will. >> Okay. So, why don't you go through your slides? >> Hey, first first when you open it, I'm putting right up front widely
this uh var these variances. It does impact the use and enjoyment of our property and I'll explain that as we go through this both visually and auditorially
and there is the potential when someone sees this I'm not I'm going to be kindly high wall next to our house that may have a railing even taking higher
uh it may affect our ability to sell the house. So, I'm concerned about their >> Okay. You're you're not um an appraiser or a realtor by trade, correct? >> No, I'm a lawyer. >> Okay. So as a lawyer probably know that
um the case law is pretty clear that to demonstrate dimmonition of property value or property value reduction that uh the courts have established that you need to do so through a form of expert testimony such as an appraiser and
provide before and after appraisals in terms of um what the value is before the uh thing that made less valuable, etc., and compare apples to apples. But >> just so you know, I'm not I'm not an
appraiser. Uh I'm putting this forth as we believe it might. We don't know obviously. >> Okay. >> First two we know. Now on the next page, this is two old pictures put together
showing from above what's occurred. Okay. The picture on the right actually is not what went doesn't go back to the very beginning because that's not available now. So some of that area
that's cleaned out next to the old porch if you will which you can see clearly where it is. Some of that area was bush bushes trees and so forth providing further screening
and noise agreement for us. What what was the date, Mr. Rimpal, of the Google aerial photo that's on the second page? >> Well, that one was >> on the right.
>> So, I know I know what you're asking now. That one was probably, you know, I've taken so many photos that, you know, it's probably taken somewhere. Well, let me first say one thing. My wife and I in 2025 were on a
trip to Peru. We had no notice of anything and we came back and when we went back we were greeted by this wall next to our property. Okay. So that's May 2025.
So my guess it has to be after that after work had already been done. Well, are you talking about? We got to make sure the record's clear. As you know, >> the one on the right is 1920 is 2022. I think >> that's what I was asking. Okay. So, 2022
is the aerial on the right, the Google areas. >> And and the one Hold on. And the one on the left you believe is sometime in 2025. Yeah, that's current. Now, a lot of the trees on the on the right have been removed because they
were on Mr. Tilchinsky's crop. Uh I had three skid trees uh in that lineup and that was on uh I think you'll see one later picture. What's happened to this
is on the left you can see there's a big clearing map directly to the big wall. Okay. And the green you're seeing right next to the green wall and down that's grass. Those aren't bushes
just to make it clear. Okay. So that's open as well. Now, if you go to the next page, >> wait, wait, wait. Oh, >> come on. You're so close. On on the second uh page,
when when we just talked about those uh are aerials, it also shows three red arrows on each slide. >> Mhm. >> Okay. What do those represent? >> I'm just trying to show you the area that I'm speaking to uh and what's changed in that area.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Got a clear what I'm talking about? >> Yeah. >> If you go to the next, you get a view of the side and you can see two of my skinny little
trees there that were left. You can see where my property line is approximately and you can see the sight line from that particular window. It just so happens that that side of the house
is where all of our living takes place in terms of we have people in, we socialize, we hang out. That's the side of the house. And on the next picture, I labeled it so you can see what's there. We have a kitchen window that's
affected. We have a dining room window that's affected. We have a living room window that's affected and probably the only area of backyard we ever use is our deck and that's affected.
Okay. So, we're all living the curse. It's really has a huge impact on us and I can say there's two reasons. One, it's radius
significantly. And two, if you look at where he's planting his cypress trees, they're further back. He doesn't come with that hole that you see there. Look on the plants. You'll see where the cypress trees are.
They're not covering that. Yeah. >> Well, it looks like four of the seven are covering in a direct horizontal, right? >> Right. But that's excuse me, that's further down. >> Yeah.
>> Right. No, I'm I'm I'm well aware of what's not coming because Mr. Trump Mr. Kchinsky has put the gate to his fence on that side and he has his stepping stones going down that side and I don't
think he's intending to do anything about that. And the trees start further down and those trees are much less than what's been there when when this all started. Just to give you an idea, you turn the
page and look at the left. You can see right into the pool. That's the area with the chairs to the left of the wall. >> So, we're on slide number five, right? >> Okay. I didn't know, unfortunately.
>> Was trying to make a record though. Mr. >> Hey, you can see that we looked right into the pool. Let me say two things here. I can hear very clearly from my deck. Now,
when he has groups full and they're talking loudly, it reverberates on our deck and it's an annoyance now. And I can only imagine what we do by bringing it closer and raising
the height from where it's coming. It's not something I look forward to or my wife spoke. Additionally, there were bushes there. We didn't see the pool before, but he took out those bushes for some reason.
Okay. So, I just want you to get a sense that there is even when they're at the pool, a lot of noise. >> Quick question. Have you ever thought about putting more bushes on your side of the property? >> We have landscape right around our deck.
We have landscaping all around our deck to try both sight and sound. >> We're also the three skinny trees are. How about filling in there also? Did you look at that or >> he just did that before I didn't you
know he wouldn't have solved anything >> right >> okay so that just happened and before I start spending my money I've already spent money because of this and before I start spending more money I want to see what the outcome is okay which would be
germanine to my decision and my wife's decision the next page which I guess six. >> Okay. Wait, before we leave, page five, where um this photo was taken by you or your wife? >> I took this photo.
>> Okay. And when did you take it? >> Uh probably sometime in the summer. This past summer, >> summer of 2025. And where were you standing when you took this photo? >> I was standing at the property line. Probably
>> right at the line. Okay. >> Thank you. >> I was not inside. But we do turn to the inside on the next page. And in the f there are three photos. In the first photo
that's taken from our front foyer. >> So the first photo you're referring to the one on the right >> on the left >> or the table in it. >> Has the table. Okay. >> And it has the chandelier. >> Got it. >> Okay. That's taken from our front door.
Anybody walking in the house will have an immediate view of what's outside unless, as my wife has done for the last two plus years, keeps the blinds down so she doesn't have to look at it. Okay,
that's quite a view. The other two just show you from the dining area, you know, what the different perspectives are. Okay. So there is a visual there.
The next page you can see this is from the dining room window. What folks? >> So this page this this photo was taken from the dining room your dining room window. Yes sir.
>> What time of year? >> Well the is still on there. So my guess is it was before October and after uh between July and October someday. >> And this is uh slide seven.
>> Mhm. >> Go ahead. >> The next slide is from the kitchen window and you can see the view that we have from there. You can also see that to the
very right in that picture is a storage shed which is not mentioned at all in their plans which is a non-conforming use as well as an accessory that has to be in the rear yard is my
understanding. >> Are you talking about the structure on the eighth slide to the right of the air conditioning unit? That's the most now I have to say for since he moved in that was always right on the property
line facing him and we saw the back but we didn't complain. Okay, that's not the way we operate with our neighbors. But since we're looking at the whole thing now, I am pointing it out. That is a storage shed leaning against
the house which I'm sure is inside the area that's around. Let me make a comment about that side of
the house. We speak with the old in 1985. That area of the house was an open porch. >> And what they did was they closed in the porch, made it another room, and built
over it. I don't know if she remember if they had variance or not, but it that's what happened with that. She also planted an an enormous amount of shrubs next to it. Now, I didn't know
this until this all came up. Why didn't we notice? Because it's a closed in area of the house. We don't hear anything from inside. The character is changing now. Okay. Whatever that was, that's supposed to be
22 feet. It's now 10 10 ft something. But we didn't care because we didn't hate hearing and it wasn't a visual problem. Now we're dealing with something that's both a visual and an auditory problem,
but it's not enclosed. And I don't recall whether it was Mr. Tuchinsky or whether it was there previously putting that door back the outside off that road. I don't recall. But I just needed to point that out so
you would understand this. The other part is closer but significantly different in its character. Okay. Then on the next if you turn the page you get to see the whole thing and
exploring. Okay. You can see how tall it is. But even on the left side, you get a sense of how tall it is looking from the top, right?
And the door most to the right. I don't even know. That's not the door that we're talking about. Uh it's further over as if you follow that 27 foot expansion from the house.
That certainly is a lot different. Uh then the rest and >> these two photos that we're looking at now were taken from your property line. >> Um they're taken from my property. I can't
tell you exact. They're taken somewhere between our house and the property line and we have about 14 ft on our side. 14 15 >> to to the prop >> to the propagator. Okay. And finally, the last spectra I'm going
to show you says it all. I don't care what's on his plane. And let me tell you why. If you look at this over here, what you see is he puts his fence up and
then in a 90 degree angle comes to my fence. Prior to what we found out, he brought it to my attention even though it's on my survey. In the back, the very back of our fence, we were two feet over the
property line on his side. Okay. Here we were. I forget the exact time, but like a foot and a half. There was another foot and a half to our property line beyond the fence.
So, what you see there is some of that is on our property. >> You're talking about the L, right? That's >> Yeah. >> Now, why do I bring this to your attention? He told us we have to move the fence
because when he goes to sell the house that can create a problem. >> So So the chainlink fence is your fence? >> Yes, it is. So we spent a couple of thousand dollar to move the fence because he claimed it
would affect his ability to sell the house. I don't know whether that's true or not, Mr. Simon. Maybe he needs an appraiser to tell him that. I'm not. >> Is there a railroad tie like wall there? >> Yep, there is. And >> that's yours or his?
>> That's part of it is ours. >> We go to on an angle 20 ft down before the fence is, if you will, right in the middle. >> So, did you move this fence? >> We moved the be the rear.
>> Okay. >> Okay. The part that of ours that was over, >> right? Okay. Okay, we moved it because it wasn't worth the grief, but we were getting
now. I can sit here and I was talking about 42 in because my understanding, Mr. Simon, you have a lot more experience than I do. My understanding is that takes on the character of a
building. It's attached because it's greater than 18 inches. It's not patio. It is part of the building. It's an extension. And if you look at the rules of the building, they're quite different. And
that's what caused the initial problem. When we came home from South America, we went and talked to the people uh who handled that for you guys. for the town. And they then came out and looked at it
and they said to me, "That's a building that came in, an extension of the house itself." And the rules that it had to follow, which the initial plan did not, was that of a building. They didn't show it was
going to be raised on that initial application. They gave you the 1985 survey. They didn't show that. It's been trickery all along on what they've shown you. The way they label things. If you
notice the current survey we got, which is from August 2025, we didn't get they didn't provide us the actual survey itself. Okay. And my question is why not? Do
they have is there more information on that servant that we're not seeing? That is >> well let me just kind of nip that Mr. Parker,
who signed his plan, his variance map, states on note two that boundary, location, and topographic information obtained from a survey prepared by Campora Survey, Inc.,
um, Mr. Campora is a New Jersey land surveyor with a license dated May 31st, 2024. So >> respect from Mr. Sun. >> As an attorney, I've seen a lot of
certifications from attorneys that don't contain accurate information. That's all I'm saying. >> Well, you had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Parker about the service. >> I'm not asking that. >> Okay. >> All right. If it was available, I would like to see it. That's all I'm saying to
you. Okay. And when you talk about the increase here, you're talking about an increase of 18%. In your coverage of the line, I don't just take the difference. I said, what
how much is it increasing by that's an 18% versus what they say the existing is different. That's a different way to look at it. If you look at the sideyard,
which in my interpretation supposed to be it's subject to the 22 foot side setback and now they're talking about 12.15. You're talking almost,
you know, almost 100% in moving it over the I'm going to use the term of the side requirement. Okay. So, I'm going to point that out. Now, the question we heard that this is
good for the community when you look at the test. Well, is there neg negative is it negative to the public good? I'm going to argue yes it is because
well we represent public good the way we are. R4 zoning has certain objectives. Okay. And if you look at one of the pictures here look at the difference between the houses.
Look at the difference between the space and that's the fourth slide. Look at the difference between the space of a house from his house to the one on the right and his house to power.
I mean that tells you a big story. Okay. Now is it a hardship for us? I tried to lay out the case here why it's a hardship but it's also a hardship for the community the setbacks if people can go in
and do what they want and come here and then are able to keep to maintain what they have you can the character of our four is distinct from our three which is distinct from R5
and those setbacks establish what the character of R4 housing is and I think you're going down a road in this case law where you are it's a dangerous road where you can wipe that difference out
by allowing and freaks in a creep. So I'm telling you happy to take your questions. Um whatever you have anything to say here
but it would be questions for Mr. Rmpelle and also Miss Edwards should have an opportunity to ask question. >> Anything board? Um, so just to clarify, the the applicant did not speak to you about this project. It was a complete surprise to you.
>> Well, we came back from South America >> and it was done. >> So, the answer is no, we didn't speak to you about it if that was done. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> May I ask when uh Mr. Pincy moved to this uh location? Is that a proper
question? >> Ask. >> I'm not sure he's going to know the answer, but you can ask him. I don't know the exact time. It was two, three years ago, maybe a little longer in that range. >> Any other question? >> No, just saying thank you for bearing
this. It's helpful to understand. >> Um, thank you. Um, anyone else in the audience have any uh, sorry, council, do you have any questions you would like to ask? >> No questions. >> Anyone else in the audience have any comments they would like to say regarding this application? I
>> come on forward. We'll swear you in. >> Please make room for the next witness. Please um raise your right hand. Stare affirm the testimony you give tonight's truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Please state your name and address for the record.
L7. >> What's your first name? I'm sorry. >> Yeah, like Cheryl with a J. J E R Y L. >> That's why our kids have blank names. >> Go ahead. The only thing I wanted to say is in terms of some of the drainage stuff
already, we quietly spent over $3,000 because on the uh the down part of my near our kitchen and going down got completely um
flooded out as this project had um been embarked on. and we just quietly took care of it. We never said anything. We just fixed it because we didn't want our back lawn um
completely ruined. And the other thing was it does bother me that for two years I can't the kitchen shade or the dining room shade and that used to be the daylight. It's upsetting. >> I have a question.
So, are you saying that the flooding problem got worse or or did you ever have a flooding problem >> and and is it just standing water on al on the side of the house? >> Well, there's a slope. So, what happened was that from that area it it came down
and it eroded that area and we I wish I had picture. We really try and take care of our property and it will be very much landscape. It's just
saying it's it's better now. >> Any other questions from the board? Thanks so much. >> Any other comments from the audience? >> Some. >> Yes, please. keep it uh precise.
So, we appreciate um the Refell's um comments. Appreciate them coming. We actually um sent a notice. We wanted the opportunity to meet with them in advance
of the hearing um but they declined to meet with us. It would have been nice to have been able to talk about these um these issues. >> When did you send the note to them? >> When did we do it? Uh it was right after
we were last here. So it would have been uh August of 2025. I could document that. Um >> Okay. >> I just trying to get a date. >> Yeah. Yeah. right after we were here uh the first time um we reached out and
asked for a meeting and um and that request was declined. Um like I said would have been nice to have had the opportunity to talk about uh these issues. Uh certainly
um we want them to um enjoy their home comfortable in their home. Um, we would be happy to, um, as a condition of any approval that
the board might see fit to grant us, we would be happy to, um, add additional screening. Um, the photos of the view from their windows are enlightening.
Um again, we would have could have could have um addressed this six months ago. Um we certainly are amanable to working with our neighbor.
So we we would like the opportunity uh to to better screen our patio. >> Well, that's kind of vague. So >> So what So, where do you want to go from here? >> Where do we want to go from here? Well,
we would like um we could um we could informally discuss a landscape plan here at board level uh or here this evening or
>> I'm not sure this is the right venue for that, but >> I think we would want to see a full landscape plan. >> Fair enough. not a kind of a loose discussion. >> Understood. We can certainly do that. We can get a landscape architect um to
>> I still think we need to discuss the you know >> the actual variance really saw. So, >> we've I want I do want to point out that we've we've we've certainly tried to
um permit our improvements. Um this is not a situation and boards have the situation where somebody tries to circumvent the permitting process altogether and winds up in a situation
like that. That's not us. Um we did apply for permits. There was some confusion there. Perhaps we contributed to it unwittingly. Wasn't intentional. Um but nevertheless,
we find ourselves here and um we have a neighbor here who is upset and um got a we got a permit for our fence. >> Councelor the rule of holes when you're in one stop digging, right?
That's, you know, when when you have to acknowledge conditions like the ones that we have when we're looking out the windows of our neighbor's house. We have to acknowledge that
we want to make it right. We wanted to make it right six months ago. We just didn't know about this six months ago. Um but we want to make it right. >> All right. So I think at this point we will um we'll close the public portion.
We'll deliberate. >> Okay. >> And then you can decide where you'd like to start from here. >> Well, wait. Hold on. >> If we're going to deliberate, if the board's going to deliberate, the board's going to deliberate vote. If the decision of the board is to have, you
know, just to have comments and, you know, take straw poll or something like that, that's different. >> Well, okay. >> That's what I was just wanted to correct. >> Just to clar >> Yeah, that's >> okay. That's what you'd like us to sit down and
>> Yeah, we do our comments. >> Fair enough. >> Um, then I will close the public portion. Uh board members Mary >> BS I came in here on the fence. I don't mean you know no pun intended.
>> I I hate situations where we get pre presented with something that's 90% done and it's far over the numbers. Um, council just testified that nothing intentional was done here. To me, using
a 1985 survey to develop numbers, um, that doesn't even show the existing building, it reeks of carelessness. Now you can say there's nothing intentional there but calculating a set
of numbers there that were well over uh you know any anything that's uh that doesn't need a variance and it gets discovered because of neighbor complaints. Um I I have a lot of problems. So So can I ask Rob and I
think I know the answer to this. Are we allowed to take into consideration the fact if we were to determine the applicant at fault, forget intentional or otherwise, but at both are we allowed
to consider that in making a decision about whether to grant this variance or not? >> So, I've counled the board in the past on that issue. >> Everybody needs to be clear. >> I That's a great question. It's awesome. So, um, what I've done in the past, and
I'll do it here, is that if it determined that there's some sort of zoning violation that results in either a warning, fine, municipal court, what have you.
This board is not an enforcement agency. We have no power to enforce the ordinance. we just call balls and strikes with regard to variance applications. Uh and that's sometimes
involves site plan and that's it. So while um an applicant may come in asking for forgiveness instead of permission and it does not feel good uh that regardless of whether someone's
telling the truth or not telling the truth um I've always advised my boards to kind of put your blinders on and just look at the proofs that are presented and make a determination as to we'll get
to it um in a moment as to positive and negative criteria for the variances sought um and they have to rise and fall with their proofs. But you can't say well you know I'm on the fence but because you know I think that somebody
is a bad actor. I'm going to vote you know no because I don't believe them. Now, you can certainly as a board assess a witness's credibility in determining, you know, whether you believe that they've met their burden of proof. Um,
but you know, I think that until I see a case that says that, you know, you can lean a certain way based on uh somebody coming in for forgiveness and and you have to, you know, you have to leave it to the enforcement officials to and I've
been involved in plenty of cases where um folks are in municipal court and the fines are $500 a day and the prosecutor and the judge say, "You better get to the board of adjustment to tweet and and file your application. We're going to hold this for 30 days and I want to see
you back here in 30 days after you've gone to the board of adjustment for relief. Um, so but that's not our job to to that answers your question. >> So getting to the criteria here um assuming this doesn't exist. Let's say
this this is a new fresh application. We're not looking at a structure that's you know three quarters here. Um I don't agree with the C2 criterion that that was put forward here that somehow this lot should absorb 42.8% lot coverage. Um we have a conforming
lot there's no hardship as for the lot. Um so I really would struggle just if this was a clean slate offering in front of us. I'd really struggle to say why do we need a patio this large u in in a lot that's conforming in size with no
hardship of the property. So I think that's where I struggle most with this that this would be a big ask if this just came in front of us clean getting all the other drama associated with it. Um so that's sort of where I am on this. So I I don't think I'd support this
application if it just came in front of us organically. And of course you have all the other contributing factors over here tonight looking at a patio that's almost done. But uh that being said I would support it. >> Yeah I think I I echo that pretty much
that same sentiment. I mean and adding you know when I think of the support you know I don't know if it's where the to David's point um 718 was approved was the first note I had and I don't know if I have the numbers correct but I noted the 718 was
approved and then an additional on top of the 718 another 900 was built. So I understand that we didn't realize and there was something miscommunicated. Sure. And again, you know, to council's point, that's not what we're here to
deliberate on. Um, but I think coming with that and then hearing that the C variance, you know, testimonies that there's no substantial detriment and it's, you know, going to promote desirable visual, you know, consistent with our master
plan. I I'm finding inconsistencies with that, you know, that this application is not living up to that those criteria. So I always need a little help with this because I'm one of the newer members of the board. But u you're granting a
variance. So we have to balance positive and negative criteria, right? >> Well of the application, >> right? So the this is a C2 what's called a flexible C2 which is the proofs that were presented or at least attempted to
be presented. Um and you know it is a determination of whether the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. Now there's a seminal case called the Calfman case that I like to >> benefit from who >> to the community
>> community and so there's a case called the Calfman caseman vers planning board and the Calfman case stands for the proposition in the context of a C2 application which this is that the project needs to represent a better
zoning alternative for the property. right? Like why why is this better for the community, right? And that goes to the purposes of zoning and it goes uh to assessing the negative criteria, no
substantial detriment to the neighbors and no substantial impairment of the master plan and zoning ordinance and you balance those. But, you know, I think that the board needs to, you know, always for a C2 case adhere to the Capran case, which is does the project
provide a better zoning alternative for the property and for the community. >> Okay. So, since we're talking, I'm just saying that I don't see a lot of benefit to the community this project, but I see
a lot of detriment. I believe the next door neighbor is included in the community. And uh there have been times in my life when next door neighbors wanted to do something and they usually came to me first and talked about it and and made sure that everything was going
to be fine. No, no negative benefit. It's a neighborly thing to do, but it's also very good thing to do legally. um it wasn't apparently apparently wasn't done in this case and uh it's so something was built that does not in my
mind seem to um help the community in any way just that's just one uh yeah I mean I think you know there's nothing new to add as the chairman mentioned for me 42.8% 8% of such a
large, you know, lot area. It's very busy at the back, you know, and I do not see, you know, the reason why the the patio needs to be that that that large, right? and um you know looking at the
you know the plan the way the the property is is situated I I feel like yeah I mean if you're just looking at this for you know as is a fresh application it'll be like you know we we do not need to have it so large push it
back and have you know no reason to have that site you know fed back to be my um you know uh opinion so I will not be you know supportive of So, counselor, um I think simple math tells you you're not getting in the end
zone. So, um what would you like to do? So, I believe um without having had the opportunity to speak with my client and the other consultants, I believe we're going to ask for a
continuence uh to a new date and we're going to regroup and come back with an alternative proposal. >> Okay. Um what does that look like? >> Looks like sometime in June.
>> Okay. Do we have a date? >> I have a We have two dates from June. June 8th, June 22nd. >> Okay. So, >> those are the first available. >> Yes. >> June 8th and >> June 22nd. >> 22.
>> Okay. >> So, let's go to the ETH. something changes obviously >> spell me is expecting a child about that time. So >> the 22nd >> 22nd is better you said >> yes I'm sorry the 8 is better the 22nd.
So um this case will be moved June 22nd. There'll be no further notice. Um any of the changes be town hall. >> Make sure you have any plans or anything in you know at least 10 days 10 business days prior.
>> Yes absolutely. And um that will do it. >> Thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate what you do to our presentation and we look forward to seeing you again. >> Great. Thank you so much. Have a good evening.
>> Uh we're going to take a five minute break and then we're going to get into our next 225 T from 1126 52 Wellington. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Sworn. So you're under oath.
You're previously sworn. um this so this was a carryover from January 12th. >> Yeah. We came the board back and we are
who wasn't here. >> No, no, this Obviously Roy obviously was not here. >> Um Regina was here. Okay. Beth was here. Regina was here. Gary was here. Mina was
here. Craig was here. David was here. Wasn't I was here. >> Not in January 12th. You weren't here the first meeting of the year. >> No, I wasn't. >> No, that's when >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. >> Right. So, Stephen and Roy, >> correct? >> They're not available. You will not be
able. >> So, um, >> right. So, six six members who are eligible to hear, deliberate, and vote on the application. It's an F variance. uh required five affirmative
votes. So you would need to go five through six to get an approval. And um you also have the option to carry the meeting and present when there's
seven eligible board members. You can present now if it's okay with the board and then the matter can be carried for purposes of deliberation. The vote is really up to the chair. Yeah, we take the opportunity to present. >> I would recommend doing that. So,
>> thank you. I'm gonna hand it over to uh >> Great. >> Thank you, chair. U may recall the architect of record Javall Artics. Um after hearing, as chairman said, you still are considered sworn.
>> Yes. Thank you. After our January 12th meeting, uh taken the adisement of uh not only chairman, it was clear that we needed to retain a planner that who will be sworn in fine
myself. And what we did do when we're as we were trying to uh squeeze the project down as tight as we could, we have been able to from the January 12th meeting to this meeting reduce the uh uh several the
items further F uh total building coverage and uh in addition we believe we've got a a project that uh at least is reasonable while it still requires an F variance. We've taken a uh our last
presentation we're at 39.9 39.99% we're now 38.23% two 3% uh 32% excuse me and as a result of that I think uh what we were able to do by taking taking some
square footage out of the first floor area as well as we did wanted to maintain my client did want to maintain part of the mudroom so we reduced the mud room a little bit so that gave us a little bit more square footage but then out of the second floor we took out the balance and we still have a net
reduction of about 1.67% 67% from our last our last meeting. In addition to that, um we took the we have 80 the max building coverage.
We were at pardon me, we were at 25.17%. Our building coverage now is 27.95. And why is that? That's because we put the the mudra back into the application. So there obviously they increased the
building footprint coverage uh from where 23 is permitted we were at 25.17 no hold on sorry hold on maximum building coverage what you had proposed was 27.72%.
>> I believe and now you're at 27.95%. 27 I I think actually am I correct on this conference what he has testified >> we're actually the total building coverage that 27.21% 21%. So that's actually >> for the record.
>> 2121. So it's actually been reduced. Okay. >> So those two coverages we also have as a result of conversations with the homeowner and I'm just going to present go back to the T1 sheet which is the
site plan. We because the the current driveway is only a single car wide and we have a relatively tight uh s front yard setback. What we did was we we're seeking to expand to a twocar wide uh driveway so we could at least bring two
cars in off the street from that perspective. That is doesn't require variance but it's exact to make sure we had that for the record far as far as the the site plan is concerned. Um the
the second floor as I stated earlier the second floor was reduced. What we did was we we took a bathroom out of the second floor and we put a lunchroom up there as a result. So we still have some space, but the net result was a reduction in the total square footage of
the second floor in that particular area. So in summary, I'll be certainly happy to present any of the uh any of the architectural plans if if it's if any of the board want to see it, but I'm just
giving >> It's a nip and tuck. Nip and tuck. >> What was your square footage initially uh that you were at the original application? I don't I don't >> way back in the >> well like let's put this way where you last time you were
>> the original application we were at my >> 45 we talking about the January >> yeah January square footage >> the January square footage we were at I have those drawings right here. Just
have to sure. Go back to my page. Your your question is building coverage. >> Uh correct. >> Okay. Building coverage was at 1878 is 27.72%. >> Right. And you're 1843. What was your
chlor ratio back then? ratio was 39.99 >> square footage >> and the square footage was 2709 >> 2709 questions >> quick question um so what a charming neighborhood with your garage how come a
garage wasn't attached to the house when you had this v this old variance back in 2016 >> well the back I think it was 2016 the homeowner had sought a variance for and add added the uh
>> garage attached garage. Just wondering why it wasn't attached because everyone in the neighborhood has an attached garage. >> Well, I you have to speak to the owner of that architect chose to just put the other thing that I know of is that the garage was underneath the basement.
>> So, they moved it out. >> So, we moved it out. So, we created a onra garage which makes perfect sense. Mhm. >> And I guess once upon a time there could have been a reason for making the attachment, but that wasn't done at the time. But in this particular >> just wondering why it didn't attach in
the first place. Okay. Thank >> so I'm going to I'm just going to basically be certainly happy to answer any questions. >> Yeah. So any other questions from the board? Any questions from the audience uh regarding this application? >> Okay. In this case, I'm gonna ask the
unplanner to come up with my dead. So, so you're new, correct? >> Yes. All right. So, we're you in your right hand test tonight. >> Yes. >> Please state your name, address, and affiliation.
>> My name is Thomas Reichi. Last name is spelled R I CCI. I'm a professional planner with Stonefield Engineering Design. and our business address park New Jersey. I'm an applicants planner. >> Uh Mr. Your qualifications please if you
could licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm also nationally certified by the American student certified planners. I have testified uh on front of this board before as well as over 100 other land use boards throughout the state of New Jersey. Uh licenses and certifications
are in full force in fact. >> Thank you very much. Your qualifications are accepted as state. Thank you. So, I'm just going to recap a little bit about um the application in general without going too far into the specifics. So, this is really it's an application for for single family
edition. Um we're in the R six residential zone. It's permitted use and the area is is all single family um dwellings. You're in your your typical single family neighborhood. Um now the applicant's home is a tutor style dwelling and typically tutor style
dwellings have very steep steep um roof pitches. So the proposal is basically to and I'm going to share um an exhibit that was a photo exhibit that I believe was previously presented just so I can refer to um the top photos of the
existing dwelling. So really the gist of the application. >> Okay. Wait, hold on. >> Sure. Um, this is the photo board uh with the elevations in the center, >> right? Correct. So, we marked that as P1 for reasons I don't need to get into.
So, were you referring to P1 for your testing? >> That is correct. Go ahead. >> And in P1, the um top three photos show the existing dwelling. Uh the nature of the application is essentially add a second story addition and fill in um
some of the space around the roof lines and where the chimney is. If you notice on the architectural elevations, the um highest point of the roof never actually goes beyond the height of the chimney. So I'll refer us back up to this top photo once again. It's essentially
filling in um a lot of the the the negative space or the void along these roof lines and along the chimney. And that's really the what creates the F variance. Um so we're here tonight for D4 F variance. 36% is permitted and
38.32 is what's being proposed. um that has gone through a series of revisions basically trying to um balance you know the applicant's needs for their home and also trying to respect the zoning ordinance. So 38.32
is what we're presented today. Um now this is lesser than your typical the threshold of approval is lesser than than your standard D1 use variance because the use is allowed. Um so the focus is really on the increase in the F. Um particularly we look to the
Randolph Town Center case. That's what the New Jersey courts have found as um the appropriate threshold for F variances. And pretty simply put, it's can the site continue to be um can the site accommodate the problems associated
with a little bit more floor area? In this case, the increase uh to 38.32% F. So in residential in non-residential applications a lot of these theoretical issues um relate to intensity. Um F is very
typical control for commercial um buildings because they regulate um how many customers you can fit in a building, how many desks you can fit in an office building, how much traffic would go to a site. Um, in residential applications, the intensity it we we understand that you're building more
building massing, which which is compliant with the height, but the intensity really remains the same because it's still a single family dwelling here. Um, so it's really an internal metric on um this interior space of the building. But I would say that the one most common problems that
we we can focus on or that we run into with F applications, specifically with residential, is how does this building mass look with the surrounding buildings? Do are we building a home that's significantly larger than the surrounding homes and would it push it
would it be something that would be out of character? That's usually the the the most common problem with uh with F applications for residential. Um, so we looked at this and I'm going to pass
out um I have a 24 by36 exhibit and I'm going to pass out the same exhibit exhibit but in handout form. >> Thanks. >> Okay. So we're going to mark this as P3. So while I am passing these out for the
record, >> is this is this a a colored what is it? This is colored aerial. This is an aerial and it shows the FS in the surrounding neighborhood. >> It was prepared by my office
>> that's dated March 12th, 2026. Thank you. >> Need to say sorry. >> I was overwhelmed by the colors >> and I'm sticking to that by the way. So, I'll start with the colors. Um, so
the colors basically red is is a non-compliant F in the neighborhood. Um, per the zoning and green is are dwellings that do comply. I I fully acknowledge that these homes were built
or it's highly likely that these homes were built prior to the modern zoning ordinance, but I like to use this as a baseline so I can understand what's happening in the neighborhood and what the prevailing F is. Um just a quick
little background on on how we do this. We we get we start with the imagery which we use a company called Neurap. It's highly high highly detailed uh imagery. We scale it into AutoCAD and then we measure the building footprints
based on that aerial and then we take those building footprints and lot areas. We cross reference it with the um tax card tax records from the town and we can get the square footage pretty close to um uh what what's uh exists on the
property. Once again, a lot of these homes were built in probably the 30s. We don't have the site plans, but we can, you know, we can get the square footage pretty close to uh what's existing. So, >> what's what's the what's the plus or minus? Do you think
>> because there there clearly has to be a plus or minus >> plus or minus >> like you know is it is it 1%? >> Yeah. So the so like what the average F is what the model produced what how right how close they are to what it really is if you look at you know tax
records >> I would say less than 100 square feet like we could get it pretty close. So if these dwellings are 25 26 2700 square feet we get within 100 because the property card it tells you all of the areas that they assessed and we we
subtract out things that aren't included in F. We calculate things that are included in FR. We cross reference that. Like I said, we scale the we scale the area as best as we can and then we measure the building footprints and we can get it pretty close. Like I said, it's it's not a site plan. It's not an
architectural plan, but we can Yeah. >> Well, 100 on 2500 square feet is 4%. >> It's 4%. Yeah. So, I do have these ones in light colored red. there are 30 uh be
29 Canterbury it's 36.8% 8%. I have it as a non-compliant, but I do want to, you know, that's kind of one that I would say is too close to call. And then once again, 60 Wellington is 36.1%. Um, but I will say for the purposes of
this exhibit, we see, you know, 40s and up to 50s. I mean, these are much higher than the 36 that's allowed by ordinance. So, if we look to the right side, I got some numbers here. I'll start um with the FDI analysis. The neighborhood
average is 42% and the neighborhood median is actually 44%. Once again, proposed is 38.32. So substantially lower than than the um average and the median in the neighborhood. Um and then we kind of took it one step further. We looked at
the the home size in the area. Um now home size is is not going to be proportionate like F is to your lot area. is just the size of the home irrespective of the lot area and we see the same trend. Um neighborhood average uh 2751.3
square ft, neighborhood median 2685 square ft and we're 25.96. So just kind of an extra safety blanket. were not only proportionate to our lot size, lower than the F in the neighborhood, but we actually this proposed building
or proposed dwelling, excuse me, is smaller than the average size homes um in the area. So, the question is is can the site accommodate the issues associated with an increased F? As I mentioned, it's not something that's um it's still a one
family dwelling. It's not changing the use. It's in line with the neighborhood character. I think it's actually a little bit less as we see uh based on the exhibit than um the existing zoning scheme out of the neighborhood. So, I do think that it absolutely can um accommodate any of the issues associated
with the increased F. I think a big thing to note is that it's compliant with the height, too. So, it's not a dwelling that's substantially taller or even out of zoning compliance. It complies with the height. We're seeking a C variance for
the building coverage. Now C variance are treated under a different standard. Um the board can look at the C variance in two ways. The C1 way would be if there's a hardship and the C2 way would be that the benefits of the project substantially outweigh the detriments.
And I think that this the C variance for building coverage could be granted under that C2 benefits versus detriments. So 23% is permitted and 27.21% is proposed. Um the building coverage
increase comes from the area. Uh I'll flip back to the plans. Really it's driven by the space in between the existing garage and the existing dwelling. I mean, we're putting the the second story addition and in order to do that, they're filling in the
space between those two structures, which as board member brought up, I think is a really good point, is connecting the garage to the actual dwelling, which is every garage that I saw in this area was incorporated into the dwelling. So, that is something that
is being increased, but I think once again, it it's substantially similar to what we see as the prevailing characteristic in the area. Um, so that's the positive criteria of the variances. Now, the negative criteria, it's a two-prong test. Um,
that there won't be substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the purposes intents of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. So, starting with the um master plan or the zone plan, uh, I
found some goals that were, I think, very relevant to this application. Uh on page 48, recommendation three, it says, "Evaluate as necessary the effectness effectiveness of existing land use regulations to ensure that new
development and additions to existing homes are compatible with the prevailing neighborhood context. Specifically, review the R six zoning to ensure that new construction is not excessively bulky in relation to the existing
neighborhood context. And I think we we we align with that goal. I mean, we're we look at the neighborhood. There are homes that are um a little bit larger than what's being proposed here. And I don't think that we're proposing anything that would be out of character
um in this section of this R six zone. With regards to going against the zoning or the zoning scheme, um once again, I think the exhibit pretty much tells the story of of what's happening out here. um were or in line with the character of the neighborhood or even less than um
those medians than the median average in the zone. So I don't think that um it goes against the um R six zone. Um now interestingly the purpose of the R six zone actually says to provide a range of lot sizes for single family dwellings.
the development of vacant lands in these predominantly builtup neighborhoods shall be compatible with existing development patterns. So once again, the intent of the R six is make sure that development is compatible and within the context of the neighborhood and I think we have that. We've seen that here in
the exhibit. So I think we're aligning with the R six. We're respecting what the master plan is trying to prevent this overdevelopment in single family neighborhoods. So I don't see um a substantial detriment all but good or to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. So those are the positive and negative
criteria um aspects of the application. I think that the C variance could be granted under the C2 benefits versus detriments criteria. Um you have a more functional usable home that's more in line actually with the aesthetics and and massing of the neighborhood. And then I think with regards to the G
variance, can the site accommodate any potential issues? I think I think we absolutely can here. It's a really modest increase. Um it's going to have more functional space. It's not increasing the intensity respects the height um restrictions. So I think this is um an application that can be
improved. So I that's all I offer but I'm not happy to answer your questions. >> Thank you. Uh any questions for the board? you know are those um houses those number above the northern now they all add it after all they
initially build as that big >> my it's hard to tell I I tried to look at a lot of these houses and search back for previous approvals only goes back so far um they look they're big colonials they look like they were built in that
configuration in that size and that was probably prezoning ordinance When I looked at the the n the historic imagery of this area, a lot of these homes were built in like 1935 and they and the footprints are the same as what they are out there now.
>> Yeah. We don't see a ton of applications here and that's maybe why like in this this area, >> you know, because they were built out. >> Yeah. >> Like back then probably all the way out invisible room. Yeah. Just room. So, uh,
any other questions? Any questions for the public? I'm sorry. Did you >> Yeah, I have a minor one. You're aware of this, right? Your bedroom three has to walk all the way through bedroom two to get to the to the bathroom. >> Oh, yeah.
>> This seems a lot. It's not a It's not a decision point. I don't think >> I don't Bedroom three here. >> Yeah, >> there's a wall here. Well, it's light.
It's a That's a hallway. >> It's a hallway. >> Yes. >> To get to the bathroom. >> The bathrooms you have to go through one of the other bathrooms. >> Well, thank thank you for that. >> They're okay with that. >> The homeowner. Yes, we we had originally had a bathroom here. >> Yeah, I saw. >> And we do have a full bathroom on the on
the uh first floor. So the homeowner said that's acceptable then because it was more important to have the laundry. We actually have the laundry tucked over here in the corner. We made a legitimate space out. >> Thanks for noticing. >> Uh any other questions? Any questions
for the public or um anything further? I I think we're we made our presentation and the board. >> So just because again we have six uh eligible voting members and it's a F
variance. Um would you like to the board to deliberate the vote on the application? >> I believe the answer would be yes. Uh I I first I haven't heard any any commentary from from the board. I'm not the attorney, >> but that that's that's part of the the
question. Yes, you usually >> make the decision now whether you want the board to deliberate vote or not given the fact that you don't have a full complement of seven board members to get five affirmative votes. You'd have to go five for six instead of five or seven. >> I understand you want to ask your your
client and make a decision on that. No, you're not. No, we're done. >> You have to listen. That's how I used to do it prior to >> based on let me stand up think based on the the fact that we we've heard the board in the past we obviously
represented that by a planner I think was given a significant amount of testimony I think the homeowner is prepared for us to proceed very well then I'll close the call portion uh or go to your lost. >> I'll go first. Um I drove by your house
this afternoon and it actually was striking to me that it's so much smaller than all the other houses in the neighborhood. It's like like oh it's a cute little cottage. Beautiful charming neighborhood. I love it. And I appreciate first of all I appreciate this. That was pretty cool. Um and it does look like your house even visually
without having the numbers is anecdotally smaller than the other neighborhood. And I appreciate that you've listened to what we had to say and you modified your architectural plans to come down. I would be comfortable supporting this >> second.
>> I like this a lot too. And even even if I adjust everything for 3.7 or so percent in the wrong direction, you still look okay. And I appreciate the fact that you listened to the previous meeting and made some adjustments. um
you know my bedroom comment side I feel like you you've done what you >> so I struggle when I see an oversized lot of the zone is this one is substantially oversized and we're still looking at F but um I think the lot um can accommodate a little bit more even though you're getting advantage of that
extra 700 square feet on the lot, you know, you're still going above and beyond that. Um, but I think it's done in a way that's not going to be super impactful on the street and it's not going to uh be so imposing on the neighbors. So, I would uh I would support the
applications. >> I agree. >> In that case, do I have a motion? >> I'll second it. >> And this is a motion to approve both the F variance and the building. >> Yes, sir. >> Correct. Thank youelcome,
>> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. Yes. >> True. >> Yes. That's all. >> Yes. >> Me Robert. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck with the project. >> Thank you very much.
>> Much appreciated. >> Next up and lastly this evening, calendar 469 26 down. I know. My heart I don't make it. Good evening.
Both of you. >> All right. So, you're both talking. We'll swear you both in. That's my point. Okay. So, who do we have tonight? I'm the homeowner. >> Okay. And you are? >> My name's David Andrea.
>> Okay. Both of you raise your right hand. >> Tell me where from the testimony you're g the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. Please uh state your name and address for the record. >> Samson Y 25. David Andrea, New Jersey business
address 715 Cardi Avenue RN Y Jersey 07032. >> Okay. >> All right. So, who would like to speak first? >> Uh, I'll speak first. >> All my qualifications. So, why don't you
tell us a little about yourself? >> Uh, I've been practicing architecture since 2005. Um, I've been licensed since 2016. I I own and operate ED Andrew LLC. Um,
which started in 20 2016. I've been licensed since then. Uh, licensed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and good standing. Um I haven't been in front of this board but I have been in front of numerous boards uh previously such as
Cwell Mountainside Westfield and Township Madison Broadway and Chester. >> Thank you. Your qualifications are accepted. >> Okay. Uh we are presenting proposal of a small addition um to a property in the R
six zone. Currently the lot it's 5,000 square feet. So it's 1,000 square feet under the minimum lot lot size. Um same thing with the lot width. The existing lot width is 50 ft whereas the required is
60 ft. So, right off the bat, for for the modest edition that I'm going to walk you through, those are the main things that are that are really hurt that are really hurting us in terms of uh building coverage, F and combined
sideyard setback. Um, so I guess just to walk through the plan on the um on the first floor, what we're doing is we're proposing to round off the left rear corner just to make the living room a little bit bigger. >> Like one fat.
>> Yeah. I didn't know if I could walk away from the mic. >> That's We're right here. This is the existing sort of Lshape. We're rounding off this corner here just to expand the room. On the second floor, directly above
that, there's existing three bedrooms. It'll still be an existing three bedrooms, but over the existing office and expanded living space, we're going to do a nice ma master bath to make it an official master master suite on that
uh left side of the house. um in in doing so um in elevation in the front elevation right right now the little office in the front uh left part of the house it's a one-story area
so now it's two um but if you look at the massing of the house as a whole um we're still conforming to the to the setbacks on on um on the left side of the house where the addition is and We're also angling the roof, keeping it
two two floors only and maintaining the the height restriction where it comes from 18 ft up and you have to slow it back.3 for every foot. So, we're maintaining that um in terms of the height and by default it also kind of keeps the the scale and massing of the
house in line with existing. Right now, it has a finished attic space when that's what this big dormer is here. So there's an existing finished attic. Um and when you calculate I guess the square feet of that um the areas of that attic where the ceiling height is more
than 7 ft tall it's adding to the F um in terms but with this it kind of because this part is still lower than that part I think it still keeps balance of the house without making it look like
an enormous type of addition. In my opinion, it's not something that is visually unappealing in any way. And because it's keeping in mind that the the left the leftyard setback, I think it's it's a responsible approach. Um
there's a there's another part of this also, which is a detached garage, um which I'll get into, but I just wanted to to just go through the uh the setbacks really quick. Um
the right yard step where we have 12 ft required we're at 7.76. So the right yard is an existing non-conforming but we're not touching that side of the house.
On the left on the left side uh we have an 8 foot and we're uh there's an 8 foot minimum but we're proposing 9.35. So the left the left uh sideyard setback conforms
but the combined setback because we have an undersized spot whereas 17.5 ft is the 35% of the width we're at 17.13. So we're we're in violation of the
combined setback by literally 4 in. Um so that's where this the combined setback you know variance permission come comes into play there. Um and then in terms of lot I mean let me
just I guess I'll go through the the detached garage. Detached garage um is going in the left rear corner of the property. It's going to maintain the required
three-foot uh set back from the side, three-foot set back from the rear. Um, and it's because the existing property had no garage at all. And the owner can can tell you more about it, but recently he's had over over three three breakins
within the last couple months. One of them actually left the night. they keep trying to take his car and every time the cops come they're like, "Well, a garage will help." So, so we're weighing the thing. We know that the garage itself adds to the F. um
which is sort of uncommon from other other like zoning ordinance that I've seen but the the 326 326 square ft for the minimum size garage based on you know the parking
space of 9 by19 where 2 feet on each side is required for clearance to open the doors and then one foot in the front one foot in the back is required that makes the the minimum clear inside dimension 13x 21. And then once you factor in the
actual foundation wall and structure of the garage itself, that's where we come come up with the footprint, which ends up being about 326 total square ft. Um, it's within the height, it's within the the setbacks, and it's just a very like,
you know, modest looking onecar garage that would maintain the same like decorative elements that the existing house has. The existing house has a lot of nice like decorative trim elements. It has wide overhangs, uh, wooden platform siding. It has nice nice flares
where the siding flares out where the second floor meets the first floor. It's got a lot of nice detail. Um we're trying to maintain that detail with with the addition and still keep the uh proportions of the house very appropriate. Um
and then what you know now that you know the whole I guess part of the project in terms of the the overall footprint what we're asking um the building coverage
ends up being where 23% is permitted we're at 27.2. Um, I don't know if it's a hypothetical argument or not, but if this was a 6,000 ft lot, it will conform. Um,
lot coverage maximum 45. Um, we're proposing 51.1. Um, if it was a 6,000t lot, it would also perform. Floor area ratio. I know it's it's something that's that's
difficult to ask for. Um existing is 35.7 which is right under the 36% maximum. And once you factor in the garage and the additional um it's 109 we're only
adding 109 square ft to the first floor footprint. Uh but once you once you factor in the first floor, the second floor, uh master bathroom plus the garage, it ends up being a total of um 48.8%
which is only 2400 square ft total. Um >> Right. But what you would be allowed if you had a 6,000 foot lot? >> No, you wouldn't. >> Not for the F. You would be over no matter what. >> Be over 300 and some square feet. >> Yeah, you'd be over no matter what you did. you're removing
>> it' be over by the garage by the amount of the garage >> just the garage only third floor even third floor >> even if um even if Samson say you know what I just need the garage only because the you know for security reasons we'd still be over the F no matter what we
did so we're we're trying to at least come before the board and say let's kind of show them you know the the general items that we're looking for it doesn't appear to anything out of the norm or anything
above and beyond and really just speak to the numbers and what we actually are and kind of take it from there while we're in front of you. We figured why not why not ask for what we need and get some kind of feedback um based on that.
Um trying to think of if there's any other major major concerns or points but related to the FAR very very similar to the uh the previous planner's argument in terms of density um impacts on the on the existing neighborhood the systems.
Um it's still a three-bedroom house. It's remaining a three-bedroom house. We're literally just making the living room a little bit bigger and we're adding a bathroom upstairs. Um the garage is more of it's a necessity, but we're still maintaining the 25% rear
yard open space requirement. Um it's it's set for the back of the property. It's it's uh you know maintaining the setbacks required for that. And we are removing the this the shed which is an existing
65 square ft. that's going to go away just to do whatever we can possibly to reduce like the lock coverage in general. Um plus the shed say the thing falling apart anyway or >> yeah it's pretty much crippling so
>> so we're just going to remove that anyway clear up everything it's going to feel like a nice open open lot for as small as it is it's it's still going to have a nice open feel in my in my opinion. So obviously um
you know you're not a planner and you have a lot of variances here. I'm not totally sure you cleared the threshold of the Bruce. Okay. While you can already use C1 for some of this stuff you have the poor error ratio then is
not I mean C1 gives you 2100. You're welding you blew right through that. So that's but that's allowing for a 6,000 foot lot right which you don't have. So you so if you bite that apple, you're up to 2100 and you're going to keep going from there. >> Yeah.
>> So my concern is where you're not meeting the C2 either. So I don't know if you have any type of planning there. Someone's going to see testimony about the proofs of this case because as far
as I can see here, you're not you haven't made a compelling argument as to the positive and negative criteria of your Florida ratio. You have to have a garage. That's not, you know, per the or that's per the ordinance. >> I mean, the fact that you don't have one now is fine, but if you're develop
property, you got to have one, >> right? >> So, everyone has that, right? So now it comes down to what are you going to do in terms of your C2 criteria to say that somehow there's a better plan as as our attorney
has gone through now a couple times tonight. Um but the zoning plan and master plan to get to 48.8% F. >> Right. Well, uh um the requirement that we need a garage in general brings us over the the F.
>> Well, is that what it is? >> That's what you say it is, but is that what it is? >> Yeah. >> Well, okay. Well, what about other things you're doing to the house? So, like it's it's you know, >> chicken the egg, right? >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. It's the fact that the the lot the
lot square footage is so small that no matter what you ask for it, it's going to be over the F. So the question the question >> well I get that >> but it's a matter of how much over, right? I mean you're you're going over by a rather substantial amount, you
know, which F just speaks to massing and that's the bottom line. When you when you look at a property that's 5,000 square feet and you go to 48% that's going to be a big massive issue. Okay. Garage or no garage. So
I need a little more meat on the bones I'm saying here. So why why we need to go to 48.8%. to justify that type of massing because that third floor is going to be noticeable on a property this size and that >> well we're not um we're not adding the
third floor at all. >> Um we're only adding the second floor and we're keeping the third third floor which is the finished attic. We're leaving that completely alone. Um >> this is only the second floor. This is
this is the addition right here. Um this is all the fisting >> right? So, in terms of massing, it it's still >> it's it's not um we're not asking for anything. Three stories. The massing is
a is a modest ask. Um and it's something that that's needed to at least get that extra space on the second floor. Um and I could show you the existing house. I don't know if you want to call us an
exhibit. Um, but right now the the little piece on the left only goes up one floor. Now we're going up a little bit higher, but we're still lower than the existing roof and the existing added door. Why don't you wait a minute? What's
>> Why don't you mark that as A1? >> What is that? >> This is is a photo of when he purchased the house. Is that how the house currently looks? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay, we're going to mark that A1. Can we Can we have that? >> Does he want to keep that for
sentimental reasons? >> No, I don't see any Kleenex coming out. Pass the thing around. >> So, quick question. Sorry for my attempts to all attempts to clear my airway. Um, is the roof changing at all or that staying the same? >> No, the roof changes a little different
then >> that that's at like an angle, but this is all the same. This is all the same. So the roof is not >> this is this is new. >> And we're and we're just angling the new roof here >> to keep within the height restrictions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. That was a great >> Yeah. So in terms of overall massing, we're not really adding much mass to the house at all. >> Windows the same size. >> Yes.
Yeah. We're keep We'll keep this nice and balanced. >> We'll have this lined up with this balance. And this is sort of one and another smaller. >> So, for the record, how much square footage you add into the actual house itself?
Uh we're adding 109 square ft on the first floor and on the second floor we're going from 67 to 9004. So
we're adding maybe 220 square ft on the second floor and 109 on the first floor. Roughly we're only adding about 300 square ft of living space. Um
109 square feet of playground. >> Right. It's a double stack. >> Right. Right. >> Without that what the effect >> um existing F is 1783. >> Proposed new F is 2437. So it's less
than 1,000 square feet. Um, >> I'm just saying how much of that? >> Oh, that's only the garage. >> And the and the garage is 326. 326. >> But that's not >> that's enough. >> Oh, that isn't enough.
>> So, what's the F percentage without the garage? >> 35.7 >> 35.7 existing. That's the existing garage. >> Yeah. So, no. So the question is
>> yeah if you didn't include the garage >> yeah um going up% increase 6% from the mall >> you add 6% you would be asking forish if you didn't have the garage
>> right if we did the addition only no garage I have my my scenarios here addition only no garage is 42.5 or something. >> Okay, that's a big increase, right? >> Yeah.
>> Um and if and if it was a 6,000t lot, it would be 35.4. Now, no addition garage only 42.1%. And it would be 35.1 if it was a 6,000t lot.
Um >> Well, yeah. I mean, congratulations, but you don't get to you don't get to build. I don't have like there's there's a point of hardship, >> but there's also you have to look at what you have. I mean, you know, if you have a 7,000 square foot line, you
wouldn't have any problem. So, so you got to look at the massing speaks to the lot size. >> Yeah. So, so like in the other application that we had this evening, they they did two things. The first time
they appeared twice. the first time they were here. It provided photo boards showing how the proposed house would look in relation to other homes in the neighborhood to provide sort of a
neighborhood view uh visually via photographs. The second time when they came back, as you saw, they provided via professional planner a floor area ratio analysis showing the FS in the surrounding neighborhood. So, for
example, if I can, if you had a plan, if you had a planner, the applicant had a planner that presented proofs that were competent proofs that demonstrated that the average F in the neighborhood was
50%. right? Given the smaller lots that may be compelling to your case, um the applicant in that case also went back to the drawing board as the chairman likes to say and reduced the F deviation and
reduced the building coverage, >> right? And eliminated. So those are the things that typically the board looks to for the applicant to meet you know his
or her burden. So the other thing concerning me about your drawings is you know that side of that house right now sort of gives an a and sort of a an appealing look in terms of elevation. So you have a smaller part and a bigger part. Now you're essentially just squaring that entire side of that house off. So now you wind
up with this square box of a house on this small lot. So it's it's not going to have that same feel and look as having some sort of change in scale. You know, you just basically square this thing off. I mean, it's not I get it. You're looking for the room, but you
know, it's losing a lot of character. >> Well, when you um when you look at it from the front elevation, that left corner already comes out that far. >> It does, but it doesn't go back that far. part second floor. >> Right. Right. And you don't see that.
You don't see that part unless you look at the house from the side. You won't won't necessarily see it. Well, the neighbors in the front, but but this is like what you're going to see from that left side. And by squaring off that
corner, we're literally we're only we're only adding eight feet. Um we're only adding eight feet to that corner in that back corner. It's it's a relatively small it's 109 square feet of footprint. It's a small
very small piece. >> I get all that. Problem is you're you're you're all of your variances are on the extreme level of extreme. Right. So, and you really haven't provided much testimony as our uh attorney who's probably a lot more eloquent at
expressing it than I am. Um you haven't done it. So, you know, I think now I'm not here to give you advice, but you may want to have a planner try
to sell these proofs and speak to the positive and negative criteria of balancing your C1 and your C2 on this property and maybe revisiting it and saying, you know, what do we need? It's what we want.
Right? That was um my I guess my my initial concern is I know that when F variances we um we we had correspondence with office and we said for a
for an F request do you need a planner? You know they said no. Well, no, it's it's never up to the zoning officer. It's never up to the board secretary. It's never up to the board as to whether
you need >> anything. If you need a planner, an architect, an engineer, an appraiser, right? It's up to the applicant to meet his or her burden of proof, right? >> So, the board is not going to say,
"Yeah, you don't need that or you do need that." I mean, we don't know anything about the application typically and once you're presenting it um trying to actually help the applicants provide the board with enough information so
that it can make an informed decision on the application that may be in favor of the applicant. Right? >> If we can get there, the board can get there. So that's why the chairman is is recommending I mean even you know, just
to show photographs of like what what's this neighborhood really look like? because the negative criteria for whether it's the D4 F variance or all the bulk variances, you know, is there substantial um detrimental impact to the
neighborhood and the zone master plan and the zoning ordinance? And by providing things like photo boards and F analyses that as in the last application, it can get you that potential. No, now I know now I think I know how to how to approach this too
because without officially having you guys deliberate, at least I'm able to hear your comments and your thoughts and I appreciate that and also seeing the previous planners testimony. I already got his business card.
So you were clear as to where we were going to go with this. I'm not I'm not a planner, but you know like the All we can do now, you know, for now is at least we presented what we had to. We got very helpful feedback on how we
need to move forward with this, but ultimately >> Okay. So, um then we need a new date and I'm assuming >> Well, I mean they do the first proposal again. So, they're going to love
So June 22nd. Can >> I mention one one thing real quick? >> Sure. >> If he if the owner is so is concerned primarily about the safety issue and he just wanted to say the garage only.
Is that even worth trying to get an approval for tonight? because he feels like his back's against the wall with this. >> You want this? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so you'd have to make an application for the garage. You know,
you can't just, you know, bifrocate it. >> It can't be conditional. Say here's the >> here's here's the plans. >> Here's the thing. >> If an applicant's allowed to kind of say, okay, forget about this and forget about
that. However, if if that's your application and you want the board to consider that, right, you can't kind of get that and then once basis come back on June 8th of the 22nd say, "Well, now
you gave me this. Now I want some more." That's >> bring you to even to get your you know, you're talking about this is it would still be require zoning relief. So, by the time you get it, you have a 45 day appeal period before you can kind of get going
on this thing. But I'll be honest with you, those drawings, I'd still want to see more on that garage. I mean, I'd like to see what you're doing, your landscaping, you know, not just chuck in a garage in the back of yard. Like, it the drawings have to be more complete if
you just want to do a garage. So, you know, if you want to scrap I mean, I don't think we can come back sooner if it's just a garage application anyway. >> No, I don't have anything. So we just don't we don't have the sketches packed. So if even if you take it down to a garage application, it's still gonna
have to come back. >> So June 8th or 22nd is your choices. >> MJ, do you have like ring cameras or just like safety things in place? >> We have cameras all over the whole house. I have literally last I'm a
little bit shooken is last night we had someone try to break in >> to your house >> to our house we have three police reports on Cypress Street. >> Oh my goodness. >> And I'm just you know >> I'm very grateful that everyone's here and giving a lot a lot of good feedback and I'm willing to sacrifice you know
the the bulk of the issue for just kind of a compensation for just a garage for the time being. Um, and if we decide to kind of continue with the actual extension squaring off the house, then I will submit another formal application. But no, my wife is just trembling at
home and um I just, you know, she couldn't even make it here because she doesn't feel like leaving the house and uh we're just asking for a single car detached garage. >> Yeah, like I said, unfortunately that's not what that's not what this application is for. But is there some
sort of, you know, mediation that we can kind of come towards, you know, because like, you know, we're here now and I know it's late. I be honest with you, the to to depart from what you're asking for just to a garage. It's just too far a departure. I mean, you know, we have
to see recal proper numbers. It's not just rip out everything and just go for the garage. I mean the calculations all the same. >> I mean it can't be it can't be rough numbers >> right? I could tell you the exact calculation put them on the record and
kind of say conditionally forget the whole addition part >> but I you know just start doing that >> the garage but on the on the application itself on the cover sheet there's a breakdown of how we pay for the lot coverage. So
if you take these existing numbers already and just strike off the addition, do you have the exact numbers? >> I mean is is there? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean the problem is that there's a lot of issues that require a variance and and to kind of do calculation. It's one thing if you know somebody just needed a um imperous coverage variance
and we have on occasion where the one isolated variance done a a recalculation let's say on the fly if somebody said okay I'll take 100 square feet off of this patio so you know can you now vote
on my applications but this is a little bit more than that that's the that's the issue here. >> Yeah, like I said, the drawings are fine and all, but they're just not that complete if you just kind of your garage application. I mean, they're really not.
You know, even from this perspective, we have zero drawings of how this garage even sits on the wall. >> There's one. >> There's one. >> It's there's one. >> So, yeah, like that's not really that's
a survey, >> you know? I mean, it's a >> I can be honest with you, the answer is no. I I want to see them come back with a proper application >> and and that's I think it's the only thing that's fair to the board and um
and us to make a proper decision. It's you know this isn't I'm not doing it this way. There are other things too that would wind up becoming involved in this if we approve this. We have other nonconformities. It's just >> can I make a suggestion?
>> Sure. that um given the applicants and just so you understand that one of the things that boards like this are not allowed to do legally is to take an applicant's personal circumstances into
account with regard to assessing a development application where they're not allowed to do it. Even if they want to do it, you have an incredibly compelling story. What I'm suggesting though is that, you know, if the applicant decides
that they just want to pursue the garage, right, legitimately for legitimate reasons, it would seem to me that that would be even though they'd have to come back and provide some new calculations and maybe,
as the chairman said, maybe show how it's, you know, situated on the lot a little bit clearer. Um, it doesn't seem to me, Eileen, that it would be something that we we couldn't address
kind of quickly. >> Okay. >> In terms of the calendar, you know, given your circumstances, >> right? So, is there a way we could, you know, you know, get a half hour somewhere? I mean now now by the way if it's
determined that you want to do more than just the garage then not going to be able to do this and you know >> so the other thing too is like I want you to think this out. I realize you're in a bad situation with this garage okay and I realize the car situation and and
the you know all the stuff you're dealing with but I'm hoping that's temporary okay that that that issue can kind of resolve itself. Make a good decision. All right. Don't just come back for a garage if you really want to do a proper project because to come back
again and again and again, it just not only is it costly for you, it's not necessarily the best way to present it. You know, presenting this as a package the way you're doing it right now, it makes a lot more sense. So, you know, when you look at the timing, if we approve a garage tonight,
it's okay. Yes, you're you're technically going to be two months ahead of where you would be, but it's two months, 60 days. It's like I said, if we can get you on quicker for a garage, that's fine. But I would tell you that if
we did decide to go for the garage only and you want to see more >> and and you want to see a little bit more context, um can you just give a little bit more insight in terms of more how much more um I guess site or landscape information are you looking for? >> Well, it's it's it's really just a
matter of making a drawing up that shows where you are. That little thing down there is fine. >> What we have the footprint, the driveway, pave extension to make it wide enough for the car. And literally that's that's all there is to it. 3 foot here,
3 ft there. >> I don't know. Are are you looking for more? >> That's fine. I just want to see a recap. I just want to see a recap on the property. >> I just wanted to to make sure that the information shows enough in terms of >> You're fine on your information on the site. >> Definitely. We definitely want to see a recal on everything.
>> I agree. I mean, I I understand. >> So, that's what it comes down to. >> You want you want to see some landscaping or not? >> Yeah. I mean, look, the landscaping is one thing on the back of the property. You know, if you have fencing or anything else, I mean, that's really what you want to kind of show. Um, but at the same time, like I said, you have
to do a recap because chances are you may sub have to subsume other things into this that are non current non-conformities. >> So, that's why you want to make sure you get it all covered here. So, we approve a garage thing. That doesn't mean you get it at all. So, anyway, if we just do
a garage, what do you think? I'd like to stay away from that uh tennis club. >> That's on the 27th. So, do April 13th if you want to. It's going to come back
just for a garage when you think. >> So, yeah. So, April 13th. Okay. So, you have less than you know, whatever it is, 20 business days to get this done and you have to get it to us two weeks out. Two business
weeks out, you know, so 10 days out. So, you're going to have to hustle it in. >> Well, there's not much to do. >> I I agree. Yeah, I agree. I mean, that's up to you. Like, I don't know what your schedule's like. So, >> does it have to be noticed? >> No, >> no, no. We're reducing as long as you're reducing it. >> Um,
>> do you think it will affect his chances to get anything else in the house if he's already? No comment on that. Um, so does that date work for you? >> It works for me. >> Okay. So then, uh, I'm back on that date. No further notice.
>> What date is >> and and and in the meantime, if for whatever reason he he decides, you know what, we're going to come back officially. They'll ask for everything with the planner. We'll let you know. >> Then you're looking if you want to go the whole >> then it'll be in June. >> Correct. Yeah, that's what you're
looking at. I was I suggest making that decision sooner than later. >> Yeah. >> Because you know the next meeting will fill June up. >> So So if you if you can get you know if you decide this week later this week >> Yeah. >> Let Eileen know that we we're going to stick with the original plan and
>> Yeah. If you can get it April 13th for now to hold that spot, he'll get you a more like official answer >> ASAP. Um, but I at least appreciate you got you giving him that option because, you know, like you said, hopefully
that solves the security issue, even though >> I don't know if it will guys try to break into your garage now. >> I don't think it's a temporary thing because they tried in December 2025 and
they got carinated and they got released recently and they're back. >> They come back. Welcome to Essex County, right? >> Um >> and they're breaking into the house because that's where the keys are. >> Yeah. You know, >> so that being said, um that this case
will be moved uh to April 13th. If there's any um anyone in the audience tonight on this case, that's good. >> No further notice to be provided by the application. Um,
you guys are all set. So, we'll see you then. >> Anyone have any other comments that have not been this evening that would like to have a motion to >> adjourn? They don't care about