Yeah. Yeah. You're glad. [clears throat] >> In the city. >> Oh, really? We're good to go. >> It's record. Okay. >> Okay. In accordance with section five of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter
231, public law 1975, be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the Bulletin board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Melbourne Board of Education Education
Center building at 700 p.m. on November 17, 2025. John >> here. >> Here >> Joseph >> here. >> Um, okay. We have no the minutes.
>> There are no minutes. >> There are no minutes and no memorialization. Um, okay. So, moving right along, we are going to start with um calendar 4049-25. The property location is 51 Silver
Spring Road. Do we have those applicants here? We're going to testify. Could you just raise your right hand, please? >> Swear everybody in your right hand. Do you swear from testimony about to give and take proceeding tonight's proceeding be true of truth? >> Yes.
>> Yeah, I do. >> We'll start with you. Your name for the record. >> Hi, my name is Ken. My first name spells as Q I A N. My last name spell is H E. >> Thank you. And my name is John. First name Yu E. Last name John H.
>> Matthew Flynn. F L Y N. and Douglas Miller from AHM Architects located at 281 Main Street in Mil. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening. Uh first of all, thank you so much for considering our application. My name is Jang and this is
my wife Ki was the applicant for this application. Uh we're relatively new to this community. Uh we moved here about three years ago. Um and uh but ever since then our entire family have so much fun memories um fun activities and
every of us are making a lot of new friends here. Um and I do personally enjoy the barbecue and ice cream days with my neighbors. Um and our family feels like finally we found a place that we everyone of us love and we do want to
stay for long term. Um and uh uh and then we grow our families. So this year we just have our second uh baby born Zoe. She was a little girl and a little bit seven months over now. Um and uh uh
there well there's a lot of happiness, joy spreading over the house. Uh there are also coming a lot of frustrating moments making us think about make some changes to the property. So that's what we are >> right as as my as my husband mentioned
our family has been growing and our space in our house is limited ging the size of our family and our uh son Leo who's going to elementary school next year he has never had his our room since he was born and he has been sharing the
same room with my husband myself and our baby girl we haven't be able to set up a proper nursery for her because there's no space and she's in the same room with my mom and also what considering my husband and I are both working from home
most of the time and he has been working from the basement since the beginning was four. So given all that challenges, we're uh looking to have another bathroom for the family and a study room. So to support our work from home needs >> and uh we're fortunate to work with dog
and Matt uh to help us develop a plan that is not only translate our needs to uh to be concretized plan but also uh uh fulfill the being respectful and appropriate for the neighborhood. Uh with that I hand over to doc and thanks
so much for your >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Could you just give us your qualification? >> Sure. Yeah. >> Thank you so much. >> Yeah. Douglas Miller from AM Architects. Been a licensed architect since 2001.
Made many presentations to this board as well as numerous boards throughout the state. Uh my license is current state. >> Thank you. So, good evening. Uh, yeah, my clients came to me with a goal, as they stated, improving the house for their growing family and their work from home
lifestyle. Uh, let me briefly describe the project to you. Um, our lot here, these are the same plans you have before you. Our lot is 70 approximately 70 by 113.75 ft or 7,963
square feet located in the R5 zone. It's narrower and significantly smaller than required for the zone where 75 foot width, 125 foot depth and 14,500 square ft is uh required. So a little over half
the size required for the zone. So certificate size on our existing house, the way it's cited on the property, the width of the lot, the depth of the lot, the lot area, both sideyard setbacks, the sideyard setbacks combined, the building coverage, then the lot coverage
are all existing and non-conforming. Basically, the only thing that is conforming is the building height and the front yard setback. So we had an uphill battle trying to design a plan that would be conforming. Obviously, it was not possible. That's why we're here. It's a typical split level home designed
in 1950. We're requesting C bearcances. Uh one for building coverage. There's no change to the building footprint with the exception of a portico added over the existing front. Um sideyard setback up to 18T. Um sideyard setback above 18 ft
and a combined sideyard setback. These variances are kind of reinterted. If we ask for one, we need all three. Um it's just because the nature of where our addition is. Uh you know they're all just interconnected. And then we're also asking for a devariance for core area
ratio. Um this is all to expand the house on this section of the house the right side um over the existing footprint uh to create a little bit more space. Um those barances are required due to the narrow undersized lot the hardship of having all the existing
non-conformities as well as the house rotated on the site. It's odd. It's rotated twisted a little bit clockwise. So, the front yard setback is greater than the rear yard setback. Uh, which, you know, presented challenges with the way the sideyard setback is interpreted.
Uh, let me walk you through the other other plans. These are the floor plans. Over here is the existing lower level. It's made up of a a kitchen, dining, living room, a garage, and a sun room at the rear. The only change on this level, as I
mentioned, is just the portico over the uh front stoop. On the second floor, the left side of the house is all existing, three small bedrooms with two small bathrooms. And we're proposing to add this level over the existing kitchen, dining, living areas. It consists of a a
primary bedroom with closet, their own private bath, and a work from home space. >> Next page is the existing elevations. It's a typical split level. It's really nondescript. It's a split level you've driven past a thousand times. There's
millions of these houses that have been built, you know, throughout this neighborhood and all the surrounding towns. what we're proposing, but I think something that really elevates the house, make something. >> Sorry to interrupt. Are you guys able?
>> Oh, there you go. >> Okay. Yeah. So as you can see uh I think the >> change. >> Okay. Yes. If anyone in the audience is here for this application and wants to see you can move up here too. >> Okay. Sorry.
>> That's okay. >> Yeah. I want everybody to see what I'm talking about. Uh yeah. So, uh you can see on the the lower left is the proposed front elevation. And what we've really done here is tried to create something a lot
more attractive. Uh we used a variety of materials. We used clapboard siding. We used nested gables on the right side. Uh we use some small roof peaks uh over these existing windows on the left side
to create a more attractive balanced composition. I I feel the changes really enhance the curve appeal. We also have a brick base and a brick water table and I think that gives a lot of textural interest to the facade much more attractive than what's there now. And
these variety of materials as well as the trim band and stepping the roof lines go a long way to break down the scale of the house to make the house feel smaller than if it was just one big box. Um, and before I turn over to the
planner to go through all the variances, you know, I didn't go through all the details of all the variances needed because I think that for me to go through all that and then for him to go through that would just be kind of uh, you know, taking too much time. But I would like to say that I think that what
we're proposing here, uh, the property can really handle the deviation due to the unique makeup of our lot and the surrounding neighborhood. Um the section of the town is going under a lot of transition as other areas of the town have become so much more expensive. The
cost of relocating has really become become unattainable for so many and so more people are choosing to renovate and expand in this section of town. You can see you know a lot of houses are are being transformed and we're working on a few of them right now. Um therefore I
think the additions proposed very being modest go a long way to maintaining and improving the immediate character of the neighborhood as well as you know looking at the site plan and the zoning calculations. There's really no good way
to expand this house without bearing relief. I feel the benefits of what we're proposing are going to far outweigh the detriments. And we're not creating any of these setbacks, these non-deformities. We're just trying to figuring out the best way to deal with it. So, let me turn it over to our planner, but I'll open it up. Any
questions from the board before I do that. >> Any questions? >> You said that you're trying to um you have a whole bunch of varian right here, right? Have you looked into tweaking it to at least eliminate some
of them versus the whole kick, so to speak? >> Yeah, basically all the variances. The building coverage is existing. Um you we're just having a portico. So I think that's really diminish dimminimous. It's it's very very few square footage uh for that and I think it goes a long way to
improving the safety of the house. Putting a covering over that front stoop, you know, keeping it safer for people to walk in inclement weather. Um adds a lot of visual interest and depth to the house right now is very slablike and flat. Um so I think the building coverage uh variance is is so small
because what we're building is on top of the existing footprint everywhere else. So, we're not changing the building coverage. Um, sideyard setback because of the way the sideyard setback and the properties angled. If we pull the second floor in
to be conforming on that right side, it would take away uh so much of the usable space that there would be almost no point of doing the addition. The rooms would be very narrow and we would lose the functionality. we couldn't have that work from home space and my client would
still have to be in the basement because as you know in these split levels the reason they were built is because there's was more economical and you only have a small basement under a portion of the house and so you don't have storage space. They have a larger family and it's only three bedrooms now. So like
they my client had said there's no space. So yes, we did look at other ways to answer your question. We did look at other ways to do it. it there just no good way to to accommodate their goals while dealing with the nonconformity of that right side existing non-conforming
setback. >> Do you know maybe this is the planner but do you know how the height compared the proposed height is it's 275. >> Yeah. how that compares to the surrounding. >> I think it's it's fairly consistent. If you drive through the the neighborhood
of and is you drive through any neighborhood that has done a renovation on split, this is the number one most popular [clears throat] addition is to build up over that kitchen area. We didn't go too steep with the roof pitches, so we tried to keep it um as low as possible. So, of the houses that
have this addition, I think we're we're fairly consistent. Any other questions? Any questions from anyone in the audience? >> All right, I'll turn over to our planner that time. [clears throat]
>> Good evening. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, just your qualification. >> Sure. uh education comes from Rucker's master's degree in planning and public policy. Professional planners license in the state of New Jersey. AICP license is the national lensure for planners. Both
are in good standing. I believe I've testified before this board, although it looked somewhat different when I did that a couple years ago. Um and over a 100 other boards across the state. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, just to jump right in
here, um we heard the testimony. We saw the proposed um addition in uh our architect's plans here. When we look at variance applications like this for home additions, there's really three main things that I look at from a planning perspective. Um one being the current
home itself. um two comparing that to the neighborhood at large and then three comparing that to the what the zoning um contemplates for this zone. Um so here importantly I think our architect mentioned it we are substantially
undersized property. This zone calls for 14,500 square ft. We have about half of that at 7,963 square ft. Um and so for that reason, like our architect mentioned, many of these vances are existing conditions.
The side setbacks are existing non-conforming conditions. Um and again, that's that's a factor of not only the undersized lot area, but our lot width is also a little narrower than the zoning um anticipates for a property in this zone. Importantly, if we were a
14,500 square foot lot, which again is the minimum that's contemplated in the zone, um our F would be just at 18.9%. We're allowed to go up to 30%. Um and so the only reason that's important is that I think that the zoning ordinance
contemplates a certain sized home in the zone. Um, regardless of lot size, um, this is still going to constitute a smaller home in the context of zoning. Of course, like I mentioned, I did look at the other homes in the in the neighborhood here and the existing home
at about 2100 square ft is actually the smallest home in the immediate area. And so basically what I looked at were the homes that are along Silver Spring Road between [clears throat]
Laurens Drive to the north and then Troy Road to the south. So that basically constitutes the block that we're that we're in. And I looked at the homes on each side of Silver Spring Road. And again, the current home is the [clears throat] smallest home that I
found. And I found that based on property record cards, I I have capability to see um basically the the existing home sizes through those property record cards. And so when we look at the proposed home with the addition, we're still not nearly the
we're not even close to being the largest home in the area. We're right in line with the average of what we see um again along this stretch of Silver Spring Road. And just to give you the numbers there, I calculated the average home size to be
28 or 2821 square ft. And that's factoring in the existing house. Um whereas we're proposing again a uh uh 2,752 square ft. So right in line with that prevailing average. When you're driving
up or down Silver Spring Road, we're not going to stand out as being something that's excessively large in the context of the neighborhood. Again, we're right in line with what we typically see here. Um, another important thing to note is that sometimes when we look at undersized properties, a question that
might come up with some boards is, well, are you part of a a pattern of other undersized properties? In this case, the the simple answer is no. Um and so for that reason, a small undersized home on this property would actually stand more
um stand out more than again a typical sized home. Um so with that as sort of the backdrop as our architect mentioned, I'll just walk you through the variance relief. Um we are requesting an F variance of 34.5%
whereas 30% is the requirement. Again, the existing home is 2100 square feet and we're bumping that up about 640 square feet to 2750. Side setbacks. Um, we are requesting a
side setback for the portion of the home that's up to 18 ft in height. Again, that's an existing condition, 10.4T whereas 12 feet is required. We're just extending that side setback going up. And then addition in addition the side
set back above 18 feet um which would constitute the addition um again 10.4 ft since we are just bringing that wall straight up versus the required 13.3 ft and then an extension of that would be the combined setbacks where we're
requesting 31.9% versus 35%. And then finally, the building coverage at 18.9% versus 18% required um or permitted. Um here we're looking at uh again just covering that
port to go. So we're not extending the the building footprint and the development footprint whatsoever. So like I mentioned, what I did as part of my analysis was again I looked at the surrounding homes to tie all of that um all that relief into the statutory
criteria. So I'll start with the C relief. So this is the setbacks as well as the coverage. I think we can look to the C2 balancing test. All the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments. Um to do this we look at the municipal
land use law. The purposes of zoning. Why do we have these controls in the first place? Um purpose a promotion of the general welfare. We heard that this is a very small house um in its existing condition. We are providing a more livable home, more on par with the rest
of the neighborhood. It doesn't only benefit this homeowner, but any future homeowners that would be looking to reside in this neighborhood would would benefit from having a more typical sized house. Um, but to that extent, I would say that having a home that's more in
keeping with the neighborhood is to the benefit of the neighborhood at large. It's better than having a abnormally small house um in the context of the of the neighborhood. Purpose I of the MLU is desirable visual environment. I think
this was the heart of our architect's testimony. We are, I would say, substantially sprucing up that front facade um over the existing conditions. Again, that's going to be the to the direct benefit um of the streetscape, the visual impact of this property. Um
purpose M, efficient use of land. So again, obviously we're working with the existing footprint of the house. We're not getting any closer to any neighboring properties. We're not getting any closer to any property lines. And of course, we are within the height limit of the zone.
So the flip side to that is the negative criteria. No substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. Um again, we're not getting any closer to our neighbors. We're within the height limitation. Um really I think all said
even with the um proposed addition, this is not going to stand out as an overly large home. It's still relatively small in the context of the area. It's not going to overpower the street. Um and for those reasons, I would say it does not have a substantial detriment.
So to flip over to the F variance, the reason I like to go through the C relief first is really because the F sort of takes into account holistically all of those other requirements for setbacks, coverage, and the like. It's sort of a global view of the massing um uh as a
whole of this home. And so I think really the positive criteria carry forth for the F variance. We are vastly improving this property, making it more typical and um making it more uh in line with the other homes in the area.
[clears throat] In terms of the negative criteria for the F, I sort of hinted at this, but first I'd like to just also put on the record um this town does have requirements for front setback. Obviously, we comply with that. We also have requirements for unoccupied rear
yard. We comply with that. Um, so the addition is not going in the back and I think our relationship to our neighbor in the back is going to remain unchanged and unaffected. Um, and to that extent rear setback is remaining compliant. Building height is compliant and there's
also a requirement for front yard coverage um, which we're also compliant with that as well. So, like I said, not bringing this home any closer to any property lines. Um, like I said, I did look at some of these other homes in the area. um
basically along this block as well as across the street from the block. And maybe one of the easy ways to to uh look at this is if we look at the three properties to the left of the house and three properties to the right. Um of
those six properties, four of them have excessive F and two of those are even on much larger properties than ours. Um, so I would say that again that's just sort of an example of how this is not going to stand out. Um, especially when we look at those immediately adjacent
properties. Um, and then just reiterating, like I said, I did look at the average home size in this immediate area and we are right in line with that. Um, really all said, there's going to remain a lot of other homes in the area that are substantially larger. Um, and
this is really going to bring this home right up to par with what we would like to see, I would say, in the neighborhood. Um, so if the board needs any more detail or has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> Probably should have asked this to the architect. Is there anything in the attic? Will there be any living space in
the attic? >> There's no living space. >> Okay. There will be a floor. Does that add to the F at all? >> It does not. No, the attic is very small because it didn't maximize the roof pitch. >> Okay. And this is going from a three-bedroom house to four. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah, that kind of just brought to my mind another thing maybe to note is that the building addition is over the existing singlestory portion of the house. Um, and just while I'm sort of brainstorming here, the side setback
that go that gets greater as you go up in height, it's important to note that the other side that the addition is not going to be on, we're going to have basically that setback extending all the way to the envision. So to the extent we do need setback relief, there is nice
open space on the other side. >> Um I had a question about the windows and so I don't know that might be the architect. Um, but right now on that side, uh, where you're going to be doing extension, I believe there's like one side window and then chat and then there'll be three
>> three windows on the right side >> on the on the right side on the upper level. >> Correct. >> Was consideration given to the neighbors and and how far that'll be and how close it would be to >> Yeah, I don't think it's inconsistent with the neighborhood. You know, we need to get some natural light into those
rooms and the windows. We we kept the larger windows on the on the front of the house and and kept smaller on the side. >> Matt, you said you looked up and down for the uh neighbors on the the same side of the street on Silver Spring. Did you look at 57 Silver Spring? That in
your notes? >> That seems to be something that was done recently. >> Do you know where that is? >> Bear with me for one second. Yeah, that would probably be I'm guessing probably lot 17 or maybe lot 18. 17. >> Yeah. So, I think that's two doors down.
>> It's green. It was It looks like it was done recently. >> When I say recently, given my vision in the last 10 years, >> yeah, I I don't know when that was done. >> Not bad. I mean, you said you me looked into a couple different that that exceeded their florio ratios. How did
you determine that? >> Yeah. So, like I said, we look at property record cards, which is, I think, on file with the building department and DCA. Um, and it looks at first floor area as well as second floor area, and if there's a third or partial third floor, we look at that, too. I add
those up and then compare that to the lot area. >> Did you look to see if that varianes were issues for the neighboring properties or anything? >> No, I did not. Matt, with regard to the property that is, if you're at the front door of this
house looking at Silver Spring and you look at the property to the left, I think maybe lot 20, >> right? Right next door, that's the one that's going to be most potentially impacted by the addition. >> Right. >> Um, did you take a look at the F of that
house? You said that four or six properties closest have excessive F. Is that one of them? Yeah, that's one of the few properties that are sort of in line with the lot area that we have. And that property, based on my calculation, have an F of 38% which is a little
higher than what we're proposing. >> And that home size, I got 2,959 square feet. So that's a larger home. >> Thank you. >> Another question. any of the hardcapes, the paved driveway, the walkway, the concrete patio, would any of them affect
any of the variances if you reduced the size of those or would they be not really helpful? >> No, because we're not requesting a lot coverage. [cough] >> Any other questions from the board? >> Any questions from anyone in the audience?
>> Thank you. Does anyone in the audience have any comments? >> Um, Mr. Miller, are you done with your presentation or >> Yes. Uh, thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. As there are no more questions, I
will open it up to board members. Just to remind the board that because one of the varants is required is an area ratio variance. It is a form of D variance. It requires five affirming but you have to have at least five of seven board
members but would be for approval of that. You may wish to separate. >> Yeah. >> Does anyone want to start out? >> I can. [clears throat] Um, you know, I mean, I think that as a
board we never like to see um variances for F, but I I do think that there is real hardship here. I mean, this house is basically the lot is basically half the size of what it was supposed to be. Um, and you know, to have a house that's
kind of not up to modern day standards. Um, and you know, an applicant that wants to make it that way, you're you're kind of left with no other option but to ask for variances. Um, I personally think that um, everything was really tastefully done. I think that the
property and the neighborhood could absolutely, you know, handle this kind of um, addition. I I think that it'll actually add to the streetscape from, you know, the current um, aesthetic of the house. Um, and I could I could
support the application. >> Yeah, I agree with those comments. Um, I think uh there's real hardship here and I think this house as proposed would not in way stand out in a neighborhood line with other homes in the
neighborhood and and I think frankly the streetscape will look a lot better with the plans that are proposed. So, um I think given the hardships um and I think what would ultimately be a much better outcome, I
would be supportive of the application. >> I'm going to say ditto to that. I visited the property and met the homeowners briefly and I would say that there's several homes in the neighborhood that look like they've done very similar projects. So, I think it would um fit right in. What you've done is very um very attractive. I think it's
going to be an improvement. Um these are modest asks. I don't like to see a number of variances but because of the lot as others have said I think you didn't do much towards so I would >> I think the design and the testimony both well to the application I agree
>> anyone else >> okay um in that case why don't we go to a vote um would would someone like to make a motion for the um C variances. So that would be the sideyard set back um
up to 18 ft in height above 18 ft in height by side yard set back and building coverage. >> And just to remind the board that the millennium was provided by Mr. Flynn in support of those variances under both a C1 argument as well as a
>> so moved. >> Second Gary Rosen. Yes. >> Regina Trill. >> Yes. >> Soul. >> Yes. >> Nino Roberts. >> Yes. >> Steven Cohen. >> Yes. >> Joseph. >> Yes. >> Jessica Black. >> Yes. >> Um, would someone like to make a motion
for the board area ratio? >> Dear. >> Yes. >> I will make that motion to approve the application. >> Second. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Troulet. >> Yes. >> Beth. >> Yes. >> Nino Roberts. >> Yes. >> Steven Cohen? >> Yes.
>> Joseph? >> Yes. Good luck. >> Yes. >> Good luck. >> Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> I was thinking about your as Thanks for >> you know I love So this was
therefore I was like >> [laughter] >> It's just like [clears throat] >> Okay. Um, next up we have calendar 4052-25, that's 78 Myrtle Avenue. Um, we have one
board member who refused for this application. Um that I believe and I I should have mentioned this earlier but if anyone in the audience is here for another application and you want to come you know forward um so you could see the
presentation please feel free to move forward. Yeah. >> Um okay so we'll get you to swear you swore from testimony given tonight's hearing for the truth by the truth >> your names for the record.
Stream s i a r a d l a m a i. >> Yeah. >> All right. Great. >> Well, good evening everyone. Thank you for your time. Uh I know we're all busy. I know I am. Uh spend a lot of time uh heading back from the city today. So I
appreciate all of your time. Um my wife apologizes. She can't be here because she stuck in traffic. >> Um I I promise she's much better looking than I am. So you guys, you know, me here instead. Um so we've been in
Milbour for about 10 years now. Um about seven, eight years in the current house we're in. Um we have two girls, 10 and 12. They both graduate Wyoming Elementary. Love the area. We've been there for almost eight years now. Uh a
lot of friends, a lot of good neighbors. Um, and you know, in general, we just love the neighborhood, right? Had really good friends there. Um, so when we bought the house, uh, we didn't build it, we just bought it. And at that time, you know, there were things that were built very well, things that weren't.
Um, the deck is one of those things that we're finding out as we're, you know, enjoying the space outside, but it's not the best, right? It's kind of warping a little bit. There's a couple of railings that are missing. Um, so in general, it's not as safe as I would like. Um,
the the other issue with the deck is although we have a lot of shrubbery in the back, we don't have any trees. So, you know, there's no shade on the deck. >> I didn't hear you said the door slope. >> We don't have any tall trees in the backyard or just a lot of trees in the backyard. So, just there's not a lot of
shade on the deck. So making use of the deck during the summer, the kids, the dog, and you know, our aging parents who come and stay with us for, you know, extended period of time either from Virginia or elsewhere. Um, you know, we all like to enjoy using the deck during
the summer and just not possible during the summer just because there's no shade. Um, and then um, you know, it's it really kind of keeps our ability to kind enjoy the deck. Um, so what we're, you know, essentially what we're asking for is, you know, I I need to rebuild
it, but along the lines of rebuilding that would ask for a modest enhancement. And that's where, you know, I guess I'll turn it over to uh Tim over here to do his magic hopefully. >> Uh, but thank you very much for your time. >> Look forward to it.
>> Here comes magic. >> We've seen [laughter] many times. >> My name is Tim and I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey and New York. I've been licensed for about 30 years. My license is in good standing and I
appeared in front of this board on numerous occasion and many other boards in the area and I hope you guys would accept me as a license. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. the um so the site 78 myrtle
it's our six zone it's a big lot it's 10,875 right only 6,000 required so the I guess the immediate question comes up is what's the story how do we need a building coverage variance and the real reason is
because since the deck is out of grade we've considered building coverage and I guess that's a relatively new thing or But the whole deck has been counted in building coverage.
>> Deck is not counting building coverage. >> Yeah, >> I know. I'm sorry. Say that again. Can we >> I mean the [clears throat] deck it's not counting building coverage. It's counted as part of the principal building setback. >> We conform to all setbacks.
>> The pergola. Yeah, that's building coverage. the the pergola the >> pergola portion that's covered is >> that's simplify I'd like to hold off on my case let somebody else go and come back with new numbers if I could do that
because the numbers on the numbers that we have at the entire Is there >> you know I mean I could even just maybe I'm wrong. I could actually continue. >> I just don't buy the numbers. >> They delete the Well, they didn't
actually come to me in this case. >> Well, hold on. >> Oh, you know why? because probably the used to have the patio >> below >> and the deck is so that >> okay so let's take it the deck is open >> it's it's building coverage because
>> because it is covering the patio >> so that portion of the deck that covers the patio the whole patio is or the >> whole >> there's an existing patio below the deck Yes. >> Also, and our intent is to redo the
patio and also to redo the del. And as part of that work, our building coverage in this case, just so I'll just skip right to the numbers. Our building coverage in this case is
about 28.9%. Whereas 23% is actually allowable. >> That is really I'm looking at attachment F you know on page 23. What what's the existing building coverage? >> The existing building coverage is 28.1%.
and the proposed is 28.9. >> So what's the difference in square feet? >> It's 80 um 84 square ft of >> additional request for building.
>> Did I do that wrong? >> Say 84. >> I I said 84. I hit. >> Okay, good. >> I thought Regina said I >> So, yeah. So, you're going from 28 existing is 28.1 to going to 28.9. >> 28.9. I'm looking right at attachment
FMP, >> but it was already pre-existing. >> Pre-existing is 28.1, >> right? >> Already nonconforming. >> Correct. But conforms just [cough] conforms to all sideyard setbacks. it um
it's just failing on building coverage because the deck is included in building coverage >> for this application >> and it's really I guess because the patio is below although the deck is
open you know it's a normal deck >> do you know when when the deck was I like when the h was was the deck the the deck that's existing was that constructed when the house was constructed and if So, >> I would assume the house probably about
10 years ago. I'm going to say the the building was renovated about 27 2017 >> but there are no variances that were >> no variances >> but the deck may you know I don't know that may have could have been there
before the deck actually looks older eight years if you really think about it the deck It's falling apart like almost to the point where you need to be a little cautious to get on it. >> And the patio, you don't know when that was. >> Patio is a paper patio. Looks to me like
it was built about 25 years. >> Wow. >> So, what are you getting for those 84 or five feet? >> Well, we took a little more >> getting you're getting the rounding of the gas. >> Yes. Yeah. We took a little more depth >> and that depth is what triggered our
[clears throat] rear yard unoccupied which is our second variant tonight. The rear yard on occupied is really going down by the same 84 square ft or going from
24.7 existing to 24%. Whereas 25% is required right it really um
the vantage for press is for 1% or 109 square ft of where you're at. I just would like to go on a little bit and come back. Is that okay? I just want to show a little bit.
So on the site, the intent is to is to build a new deck with the patio below. And one of the ways that I was hoping to
alleviate this added um building coverage and also this reduction in rear yard unoccupied was to buffer the site on the left side up at the face of the building and then also on the right side
to the property line so that you couldn't see into the rear yard. The rear of the property itself is actually very well buffered. And I just want to go to an exhibit here which I guess I'll mark
as M A1. There's photos of the site that I took um about three months ago. And if I start on my the um the board is really four photos of the existing site.
In my a photo, I just want you to see the gap that occurs between the two houses. It's relatively wide. The, you know, especially for the R six zone, the gap on the left side there is about 11
ft to the property and then the neighbor is about another 10 ft. It's actually a pretty good gap there. Remember, this is the R six. It's really only required to be 8 ft. And I'm suggesting that we
plant that area right there with green giant so that I lose this alleyway. I don't know if you had a chance to go by and saw the alleyway and as it how it goes downhill. I could buffer that so that I could prevent that view also like I think helpful to the streetscape. Then
if I come to my photo B, the same situation is occurring on the right side and that's where I wanted to again put green joints back on the back further on the face of the building to the property line so that I can remove that sort of
visual alleyway and um stop my deck at all from being able to be seen as being detrimental to the streetscape. If I go to my the re if you will. >> Are you gonna get to Tim as to whether the planning of those green giants are
going to impact the view from the adjacent properties >> or are they not? >> No, they wouldn't impact. >> This is just for the streetscape. >> Just really? Yes. >> Okay. >> Then if I look at my photo C, you can
see our existing building on the left with the existing deck, the existing patio below. And that same alleyway where I'm talking about planting just to enable to or just to prevent this
prevent you from visually seeing the deck from the streetscape. Really all it D is the back face of the property and the back property line is very well uh shrug at this point. And I think it
doesn't really need anything to occur to protect it from the neighbors behind. I'm going to go um back to my initiative board. What I was really saying is I'm back on
my BOA1 sheet. I have planted in this area on the right side and then over here on the left side so that I could buffer this um buffer this deck addition from this
feature. >> [clears throat] >> Just a question. You're going to plan beginning where and comment on >> on the left side. Just looking at the site, I thought it looked the best to be back about 8 feet off the face of the building. It just looked right just looking at it today.
>> The only comment is Green Giants were really big. You're going to block that alleyway from passage. You're not able to walk through. >> Well, I think there's going to be some passageway built into this. >> Okay. you. >> It's up to you to consider, but just so you get super large. >> I've got to decide between
>> green giants or skip laurels, but everything seems kind of big on this in this site. That's why that's what led me to go with the green. >> And then on the on the right side, the same as a crane, but I pushed it way back here just because I thought it
looked better on the street. Tim, I appreciate I think we appreciate you putting greenery in there, but this this we'll be able to see this from the street. How does this >> Well, I I think that you actually can see the deck from the street between >> Cypress.
>> That's that's the only reason why I was feeling [snorts] >> okay. >> Yeah, >> I'll call this You're right. I got all the same too. >> I linked to it. >> So Tim, can we just take a step back in
terms of what the changes are because I'm just trying to understand >> the difference. So you added 84. So I'm looking at the OA1. When I look at what seems to be proposed on the left hand side, it looks like on the right side of
the gas fire pit that is going to be part of the deck and that doesn't currently exist when you look at the drawings to the right or >> the deck is ending at the end of the current space. deck actually ends right at that >> currently or will
>> proposed it is actually >> that's different on than the drawing on the left it looks >> oh yeah I guess it does yeah but it's ending right from there it's actually 34 ft from the property line to where this
circle is the patio is ending basically at the building line which is about 26.3 3 ft off of the park. >> So what is the difference between the
>> old stairway? >> The existing stairway of the deck is over on this this side on the right side and the deck itself has been extended to the right about
oh probably about 3 ft. So about 3 ft from where? from the existing point the I'm gonna say that the existing deck I got to just draw this >> we'll turn
>> okay it's already exhibit the existing deck is ending I I just >> we're drawing a line through the proposed fire pit area yes we identify >> the the location of the existing deck and how far it extends
>> because what's really happened here is we made the deck about a foot deeper like the this area that I'm kind of cross-hatching. So the crosshatch that you're putting on
A2 represents the additional deck area that does not currently exist. >> That's the 84 square ft of additional space. So, so just a question if you're you
already have uh first of all some oversized lot and you have a pre-existing oversized deck which you want to reconstruct. Did you ever consider reconstructing it to make it conform?
>> Uh we tried to make it conform but we just couldn't fit the functions that he wanted to on the upper deck. The problem with the house is that on the basement level you can walk out, but they don't really want to function out of the
basement. They want to they want the deck to be connected to the livable space in the first floor. So, we're trying to get these functions up on to the upper level in this case. So, it's leading my deck to get 84 square ft
larger. the chicken form. Can you reduce on the patio >> if you're not especially if you're not using it? >> Well, we could reduce the patio, but I don't >> we could easily reduce the page and reduce. >> We could we could cut
>> that area off. >> I guess the part that's covered is the problem. But so as I as I look at it, it doesn't seem to me to be in any way detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Question Tim, another question if I
could interrupt. >> Has this property ever flooded? >> Myrtle. >> We've been there. >> No, you don't know if it's ever flooded. No, I mean I think we've gone through two or
three, you know, unrear storms, which happens every year now, right? >> Um, and we've had like maybe a little pooling in basement, but nothing flooding. >> You mean the yard? >> Well, anywhere. >> We have French cranes in New York.
>> And this will go through engineering. >> Yeah. >> No. don't do um service. >> Oh, I guess they could go to >> there's nothing to do with
>> so we have an over significantly oversized law and so this is not a C1 bar case per se. C2 benefits allegedly outweigh the benefits >> case, right? And so under under C2, you
have to demonstrate what are some purposes of zoning that are being advanced and that you're obviously also meeting the negative criteria and that uh the benefits substantially outweigh the
detriment to the point where what is being proposed is a better zoning alternative for the project. So explain to the board why even though it's only 84 square feet, why is there a proposal
here a better zoning alternative for the property as compared to existing conditions? Well, I I I think the addition of the shrubbery is beneficial to the neighborhood
to block this visual this sort of alleyway between the two buildings. And I I think that there's no detriment to the larger size of the patio itself or the deck. It's it's actually only 84 square feet. It's
totally concealed behind the building. And I kind of do feel that the site has a hardship because of the grade. Like the grade is forcing us to put a deck in that's at a high level. But if the grade was raised in the back of the
property, you could literally like a regular house just walk out the first floor onto a patio or onto a deck. That doesn't occur here because of the natural topography and such. >> But you can walk out of the basement, Tim, right? So there is so there's a
walking >> right but it's a little bit awkward. in the kitchen. All of everything that occurs normally occurs on the first floor. But >> I don't know what >> Well, I just mean you'd like >> are >> No, but you know what I mean. You'd like to live on the first floor. Like if
you're preparing meal, you walk from the kitchen through the eating area out to a deck or to a patio to sit outside. That doesn't occur here. you have to go downstairs. Perhaps we lived in a house
like this once. It's a little bit like I'm going to say very awkward because you're constantly walking down a flight to walk outside the >> but in this case you do have a deck in which case you can walk out. So
>> we just want to make it a little bit larger so that he can have >> all the functions that he'd like to have on him. So, can you explain why? Like if you I don't know if this grill is to scale, but like if you pulled that fire pit to the left
>> 5T I don't would that would that solve your problem? Would it not solve your problem? >> Would it be better like from a zoning perspective to not um to go over as much? >> Yeah. >> Very close.
5 feet is very close to what we're asking. >> I mean, I just I'm having I think we're I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think some of us may be having an issue with the fact that you're rebuilding a deck. So, you could build
it however you want and it's already an a non-conforming deck and now you're asking for an extension of something that's non-conforming when they're starting from scratch. And really the only positive criteria you could give us is that you're preventing some trees to,
you know, like mask the view of it. But I mean, but it's kind of like a self-imposed hardship because you're you're the one creating that view by building a really large deck that is not conforming.
>> Would you you want to take a break? >> Yeah, sure. >> Can we can take a break move on? Sure. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So, um, what we're going to do is that we're not
going to end the case, but you've asked for some time to speak to your client about the case. So, we'll come back to the case. In the meantime, we'll move on to another application. Keep this case open certainly tonight.
Yeah. >> Wow. Put a big screen TV in my house. [clears throat] >> I feel like we're on [laughter] >> this. What happened? >> Yeah. What happened to find
>> There you are. >> Go find. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We at Starbucks. Yeah, that would be good. Another Okay. Is it just you? >> Oh, okay. >> Just you. >> My name is
>> Mr. W. Raise your right hand. You swear from testimony about given tonight's proceeding. Be the truth. Tell the truth. >> Yes. >> Just state your name for the record. >> M. D H A O M UI. >> Thank. >> Great. Um, thank you all uh for the I
appreciate it. Know that it's um uh late Monday night. Um, so I'll try to be um uh brief and to the point. Um, so I've been a resident for uh in in Milbury and Shore Hills for for over two years now. Um, you know, my son goes to Milbour
High School. Love the area. We think um you know, you know, there's um a lot of great things happening. Um the town trip um so I had purchased 28 Avenue about a year ago. Um, I started a property that,
um, I love the neighborhood. It's right across from Straight Park, but um, uh, you know, great location, obviously, great story there. Um, uh, the existing property itself. Um, uh, you know, it's
to be desired. Um, it's, uh, the the lot is on a corner lot, 10,200 ft. The property itself is 960 square feet bunched in the corner. Um hasn't been maintained. Doesn't really fit the
aesthetics of the neighborhood. Um so you know I had the intent to uh uh to uh update the property. Uh you know I think it has a lot of potential. Um uh I I hired an architect, an engineer,
developed plans, uh submitted the original application in um April 1st of this year, went through the process um you know through uh zoning, the fire building, went through the whole process. Um and you know, we were at the
literally at the last step for uh you know, just issuance of the the permit. And I was at the building department just looking at some old maps just random and uh you know discovered that there was a um storm uh water pipe that
is literally going through the middle of um you you would not know that it's there. Uh you know it's um you would think that storm water drains typically go straight down the side of the street. Um and um
but for whatever reason when it was designed um uh the the storm water uh drain it was a it's a three 36 inch um uh street drain that goes diagonally across. >> It's underground, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah, it's underground. Uh it's approximately seven and a half ft underground. So I had my um uh time factor Davis model just to verify that it's actually at that spot. >> Um so you may have seen that um um so um
so after we saw that you know fortunately it was before we got the permit before we started construction. So maybe it was a good thing that we discovered it uh because you know god forbid a construction happen and that tighter up then you know that would be
huge. Um so um so we tried and and that original application was without any variance. Um it was under um you know all zoning building codes. Never had any intention of really coming in front of you all. Um we tried to be really
creative in terms of okay so how can we work around uh you know this hardship. um uh you know when we purchased the property there was no reference um to uh you know that uh play there was no easements that we could find um wasn't
obvious wasn't on tax records um you know and and so you know it was um you know obviously a really big surprise um so with that said we tried to be creative in finding solutions around it uh I had numerous conversations with Martha and the engineer to say hey you
know can we you know build around it um you know and Martha's perspective was well you know she just didn't feel comfortable approving something where you would kind of feel so um uh if you look at when he determined it is it
actively had it on any mapping >> it's not ours I believe right >> that's why I was just getting confused >> uh the um >> the storm the pipe >> I don't think it's [snorts] >> I think it is >> because it didn't appear on any of the tests >> wow Yes. No tax maps. And so, um,
>> it wasn't in your title work. >> Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. I mean, it wasn't on the, um, the township tax like easements or anything, right? >> How did you discover? >> How did you discover? >> I was just being nosy at the building department literally and just asking a
lot of questions because I was just thinking ahead about, you know, things to do. um just so that I really understood the site. And I was literally in front of Martha's computer and she pulled up uh a a map and I looked at the map and I asked Martha, "What is that
line right there?" And Martha told me, "Well, that's a storm line." >> So, it was somewhere, but there wasn't any. >> Yeah. and and and so that I mean like >> you know if I wasn't in front of Martha's computer and if she didn't pull
it up never would have known right so um so I so I asked the title companies to do some additional digging said you know why would this come up in any searches so they did further uh digging and they found um uh a um a record going back to
over 100 years 1950 uh when nothing was built it was like just barely. >> And there was just a reference to the railroad company creating that um you know that uh you know doing a survey and creating that drain and it was it was
purchased like like literally is $1 to uh you know for that easement underground to create that you know a 36 inch storm during over 100 years old. >> Wow. >> Um so you know it took some digging to
figure that out. Um so you know with that said you know my perspective like look you know it's um you know it's you know stuff like that happen it is what it is and so how can we figure out a solution and I tried creative solutions
on well can we build something around it just with sufficient access you know just trying to be creative thinking outside the box and um Martha wasn't didn't feel comfortable approving anything because she didn't want to mark the liability she had here. So, I
understand that. Exactly. So, so practically it's a very large lot, but but it's boxed in because the existing property is in the corner. Um, and the pipe, as you can see in the picture, cuts across the entire like diagonally across the property, not like straight
in a um, you know, nice [clears throat] figure. It's it's literally cutting across the property. So, >> while you're on that, you're the only person at this room that's seen this map. Um, it runs through your property, and I know that the neighbor along Cyprus, uh, his house is closer to the
street. >> Where, based on the map, where does this storm sewer line end? >> Yes. So, so there's like a little ditch where the storm drain goes um through two other properties and into like the
little ditch and just runs off. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Like Yeah. Where the train tracks are and it goes like under the train track. So, so like I was like, so, so I literally walked, you know, um, down the train track and I like went in and like
looked in the sewer pipe and like I put on a light just to see like is it like really straight, you know, just, you know, if I visually like saw where the manhole is, like where I'm at the pipe, you know, at the gutter, you know, like at the little ditch where where the wire
runs off and there's water coming out. Um, and it's literally a straight pipe. Uh, and it's um, and it was built literally like uh, you know, between my house and my neighbor's house and nobody knew that that existed. I spoke to the
my my neighbor to my left who actually used to live in that house before he purchased the neighboring house. He had no idea that was there. Um, uh, and you know the the neighbor other neighbor right behind me, she had no idea there's a pipe going right through her property.
So um so we tried to find a solution. There wasn't a solution to work around it. Um and so just given you know where the pipe runs through the shape of the lot like the the existing property is literally wedged in the corner. The only
way to um uh you know to develop a side a a property that it's fitting for that size of the lot would be to build a pool. So, um, so I'm requesting, so the first variance is really just to
increase the front setback. Um, so by regulation, um, I'm allowed to build up to 31 ft, which is the average front set back, uh, relative to the neighboring houses. Um, you know, that isn't a ton of room. Um, my neighboring houses, uh,
to the left two, their front side backs are about 27 ft. Uh, so I'm requesting front side back of 23.2. to [clears throat] um so you know it's a little bit closer to them but really no closer to any other property that would intrude on
anybody because across the street it's flame so it's not really impacting anything you you wouldn't even notice with the naked eye relative to you know the my neighbor uh houses because they're at 27 so I'm requesting 28 ft uh
you know front side back so that I can build over because that's the only direction that you know the property >> at this front setback that you're mentioning in Milbour it's under sheet it says 32 ft you said 31 >> yeah uh what's um allowed so that's the
average setback >> all right so it's it's prevailing and you could average the >> yeah the prevailing yes the prevailing is 31 >> do you did you do that yourself or did somebody that you hired >> no the engineer >> is the reason he's not here tell
>> because I'm able to do No, >> you didn't prepare that >> prevailing step back. You didn't take those calculations. >> Yeah, they they didn't do the calculations. I mean, you know, I you know, they stamped the um survey and you
know that's prevailing that. So, so typically what happens that we hear testimony we heard from the last application even the second the first application and the second one from a professional whether it's an architect an engineer
professional planner in support of our answers and when uh applicants present plans to us that we're seeking approval for that involve as always is the case for our board se uh variances in your
case for front yard setback for height uh for the patio and the front yard. Um they provide testimony supporting their plans as to why they put things where they did. They are subject to questions
from the board and from members of the public and that forms the foundation for the proofs that the board needs to assess and what's called the positive and negative criteria for variance rel.
>> Okay. >> So, you know, typically if you don't have a property owner and and you're just actually the property owner is 28 Glenn Avenue LLC. You're just the principal of >> Yeah. I mean, I'm >> No, no, but I'm saying but the there's
another rule technically that says that if there's a corporation who is the applicant that they have to be represented by council. This board has historically as long as the principal of the LLC is is presenting they're
presenting as the developer and not as the property owner. And so we let that typically slide under certain circumstances. But here you don't even have any professionals who prepared the plans that the board is reviewing here
to, you know, to present testimony and questions. >> Yes. So the um uh the engineer that did the calculations, they're not here, but obviously they certify the survey. Uh the architect um they're not here, but this is prepared by by the architect um
and it stands, right? of uh you know the uh plans and staff um you know as compared by them um and I'm the owner of the property. It's not like um you know it's a large corporation or anything like that. It's
just me. I mean, are we would be allowed to hear an applicant [clears throat] like like can can they answer? >> No. Or is that going to be kind of >> the applicant did not prepare the plans?
And so typically an applicant who submits plans sealed and signed plans like you did appropriately. Okay. But they have their professionals available to provide testimony and answer questions because there needs to be a
quantum proof presented to the board for the board to assess whether again positive criteria has been met. And here you have an over again you have an oversized lot. So um you know whether the board is going to consider the the
sewer line as a hardship, right? Um, I will tell you that under under a C1 hardship has to do with the actual land itself and not necessarily any structures that are, you know, on the land. Although they the board could find
certainly that sewer line represents and presents a hardship for the applicant, but I don't know what the applicant is going to going to present and don't know whether to they want to do a C1 and a C2. you have a height variance. So, typically for a height variance, you're
gonna have questions of the architect. >> We have a different style house certainly um compared to the neighborhood. And so, typically, you'd be asking the architect questions about that and how it fits into the neighborhood in relation to the negative criteria for both the front yard
setbacks as well as the heights. Um, >> so I I what what our board attorney is saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we as a board are going to have questions for you, but you can't give us
the answers. We need professionals to give us the answers. Um, just legally, we're not allowed to have you be the one to give us the the answers. even if you think you know the answers, we can't take what you're saying. Um, and and and
consider it as part of our decision. Um, so I I don't see how we could continue um this. There are just too many questions that we're going to have and and unfortunately >> so I appreciate the point. I mean un
unlike the legality point of of answering questions. I mean I would presume that as a homeowner and it is >> no in fact you didn't hear what I said. What I said was that you have this property titled in an LLC liability.
>> Okay. There's a rule New Jersey rule that you're a corporation that the corporation needs to appear by an attorney. Okay. Now, this board provides
on my advice has provided exceptions to that where the principal of the LLC is going to present themsself as the quote unquote developer, not necessarily the owner, right? The individual. So, we we
let that slide. However, as the chair said that every applicant is required to provide sign and steel plants in support of their application and they always
present their architect, their planner, their engineer, whoever presented and prepared the plans, they can testify as to the plans. This is why I did what I did. These are my plans. I'm available to answer questions about the plans that
I created, I prepared because you didn't you're you paid for the plans certainly, but because you didn't prepare the plans yourself, you cannot be questioned by the board to give answers as to and for
example in Milbour there's a prevailing front yard setback requirements where you have to make take measurements. Okay, you didn't make those measurements. Right. >> Right. So, we need to be able to hear from the person who took those measurements. We can ask questions
because you're asking for a front yard set. And similarly, whoever created the architectural plans, the elevations for the height, they need to be present to answer questions as to the wise and wherefors as to why does the height need
to exceed what is the maximum uh permitted result. >> Right? So um so my my response to that is um the question on the measurements the engineer would just say yes I did
and and it's stamped and it's proof right I mean these are signed sealed documents that the engineer or the architect had done considered a net gave that answer any expert needs to provide the wise and
the wherefors and explain why he or she put something on on the plants can't say, "Well, I sealed it, so here, this is my plan." That's the answer. It's not that's not an acceptable answer from a professional. They'd have to explain
this is how I created the measurement that led to the prevailing setback. This is what I did. These are the homes I looked at. These are the setbacks that I that I looked at to create this. >> Right? I mean, it's like saying, you know, how to use a ruler, right? But I
mean, literally, it is like that. I mean, because it's a calculation that they did and they're licensed to do it. Um, >> I I think that I I'm I'm sorry. I just I we can't go back and forth with I understand that you're not happy about
this, but we as a board can't we have to follow the law. You know what I mean? So, it despite what your opinion is, we we need to go by the advice of our board attorney. Um, and you don't have anyone
here who can answer the questions that that we have. So, we we can't continue the application tonight. Um, you know, sorry. >> So, if I were to switch it from um the LLC to my own name, is that would that matter at all? I would still need both
the engineer and the architecture to say this is how I >> what you what you would do my the advice is that you list three professionals on your application >> right you you have an an architect an
engineer and a restoration company these plans were created by RA design consultants right >> okay you should have the person from RA design consultants who prepared these plans. They're all signed and sealed.
>> Yeah. >> This person should appear at the at a at a future meeting with you to provide testimony in support of the application. >> So, would you need only the architect or would you need all three that listed?
>> My it's up to the applicant how they want to present their application. My advice is that at a minimum you need the archite. It doesn't seem like well although you do have this this sewer line issue but
but absolutely you need the architect to provide testimony in support of these plans that the board is reviewing. Okay. So would there be so question to the board would there be any issue to only bring the market there? Would there
be a requirement to uh you know have a surveyor say I did these calculation according to how survey >> because the architect placed >> the survey and the and this plot plan on
on his or her plans they would be able to testify to them >> utilizing surveyors. No, they they signed this plan. >> Yeah. >> That and their their plan on sheet Z 100
includes this. >> Yeah. >> Right. So that's what they would be as a professional. There's lensure and regulations in the state of New Jersey as to what engineers can testify to, what architects can testify to. And an
architect can testify, not I can't, you can't, but the architect can't testify to what they have on their plan. And there's regulations as to what they are allowed to include on the plan. Okay. Because it's their paper that they put
on it so they can testify. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, obviously if I had known, I would have arranged it. um you know but I understood that that wasn't necessary so I was incorrect and not essential right u I mean you know the ask you know
but the hardship you know doesn't seem like unusual um nothing that's unreasonable um but but I guess we just need someone that just under my direction that said
this is the design and the architect put on that paper, but you just need to architect and say, "Yeah, I did it." >> Well, we like to question the architect about a number of things that appear in that. One of which is the the elevations that he prepared, which is fair to. So, yes, we probably like to speak to the
architect and I think one suggestion that might be helpful, you can get a copy of the map that that you spoke to Martha about. That would be a great handout for us. >> Yeah, I got it. I thought is Yeah, I got the copy of the map, but it's with me. So
>> be do do you recall when you saw the older map? Was there any what I'm going to call like a dotted line or dash line surrounding the sewer line? And the reason why I'm I'm mentioning that is
that very often when utilities are created by way of easement or or tax map or otherwise, there's an an area that you're not allowed to go within. So in other words, if the sewer line is only three feet wide,
>> yeah, it's 15 feet from the center line. >> But what is >> it's 15 feet. >> 15 feet. So okay, >> so seven and a half on the other side of center. >> How did you know that it was 15 ft? >> Because I had stated earlier that I asked the title company to do digging to find a document from over 100 years ago.
>> Did you make a claim to your title insurance company for that? >> I have not yet. >> I think you should speak to a land use attorney. That's just me speaking as a normal person. I'm not a latigious person. So, you know, >> that's okay. But, but but what would be helpful
as requested is if you can bring in what your title company got for you from 1915 or what have you just so that it's in the record that in fact there was this old map that included the sewer. >> Yes. So, I so I did provide that as part
of the application. I had provided these evidence from over 100 years ago. No online. >> It was in the physical copy. I was required to um post. >> Yeah, it was it was posted. So you should >> Okay.
>> Quick question for maybe I um so when an applicant comes to and they say they want to come in front of the board because an application was denied, is there anyone who can advise them on the professionals they should bring with them? might feel bad for you that you're here and you made the statement that you didn't know and you
would have probably brought someone had you know. Is there any way to advise someone that they can that they should bring some professionals with them? >> Well, they asked if I I wasn't aware of all of this myself. So, um of course I saw them with US.
>> It's not the first time it's happened. It doesn't happen that often, but it's not the first time since I've been on this board that somebody didn't know that they should bring professionals with them. We do occasionally have people that would tell if they exist. They can do it themselves. >> But is there any way to sort of like uniformly say you may need to bring some
professionals with you to help your case? >> I usually do tell people there's key variance bring and and but I was right that when an applicant there's they there's a listing on the application form. Who's your architect? user and and look if there's
no excuse me devariance they often don't bring a point which is fine but usually the person who prepared the plans that you're seeking approval for should >> I don't know that that's general knowledge >> yeah I guess your keyword is usual but
it's not explicit in the instruction that you should learn >> so maybe this you know what this is like the forum for it so >> so what we're going to do now is ask Eileen. Um, are you able to
>> not because we're not meeting on the 22nd, >> right? >> It's called Baller. >> Yeah. >> So, I think the best we probably carry the 12
meeting. Um, >> could there be or is there a such process as you know if if there are questions submitted I can have the architect provide a sign sealed response
>> need to be able to >> have to January >> I don't know if you hear it because there's a lot of being carried But I mean there's a way to know in advance just so he doesn't come back
with an architect if we can't even hear the pace that you know I'd like to get the courtesy of. Do you think you'd have enough time between now and then to >> Yeah. I mean, you know, if I had known, the architect would have came. Like he he he even told me he would happily come
because of the hardship >> and like like he easily could have came if I wouldn't know. So, and there's >> he should have done discussing >> he shouldn't have that a slam dunk. >> It was it was nothing about being a slam
dunk or not. was more about him and the necessity whether he needed that. >> Yeah, we got to figure out where anyway >> that is where it's current because we adopted that date last year. So just to be healthier. >> Okay. So, we are going to carry this
matter to January 12th. We will presumably come back with your architect and anyone else that you you know deemed appropriate to um to testify. And that's without further
notice. Right. >> Right. >> And it will be at this location, the um ED center. Okay. Um, so anyone >> 434
>> 434 Oh, I'm sorry. 434 Milbert Avenue. Um, and that'll be on January 12th of 2025. >> Yes. >> Oh my god. >> New year 26. Okay. Right.
>> Um I'm sorry for you know you have to understand >> no I mean it's sorry to waste your time as well and having to >> you know you didn't waste our time because you going which is good for the board's aware of what's happening now with the sewer line and that's important.
>> Yeah I mean it's just in you know like there's you know we saved a little bit of time but like I mean you know it's just sorry to take up your 30 minutes. So Thank you. >> I think
we're because >> because we because um Milino is refused from this matter. You're going to go last. But this way you want >> you just want to push like you know for a month. Oh,
>> we can't push for a month because I don't have anything available. >> See you sometime. I don't know. >> Sorry. >> I'll stay. I can stay for it. >> No, you can. No, no, no. What? You can
certainly carry it, but I just want to make sure for the record that we're carrying it to potentially a date certain so they don't have to renotice >> or we would have to carry it to January 12th and then we don't have yet
>> and that'll be January 12th just for scheduling >> just for the >> Okay. That's That's good. >> Okay. So So we're carrying um Palis [laughter]
can't read the writing on it. >> We're 4052578 Myrtle Avenue. We're carrying it with no further notice to January 12th, 2026. Um and that is for scheduling purposes only. So we will not be hearing it that
night. We will just be figuring out the date that it will Stop. Let's get She looks so cute. Why is she looking? >> [clears throat] >> Okay, we're going to move on to calendar 4054-25.
The property location is 300 Line Way. >> Just raise your right hand, please. Do you swear from tonight to be the truth? All truth about the truth. >> I do. >> You just state your names for the record. Um Steuart Tenb
and I moved over to 26 years. Love the neighborhood. I raised a child in the school district. Went to a very good college.
[laughter] I thought I had to circle. We are changing the back yard to basically uh redesign the patio so that it looks nice value neighborhood and [clears throat]
actually green space we also spend the house island in the kitchen which the kitchen is very small area. >> Thank you. >> Daniel licensed architect. Um I received
my license in 2001. I've been back to bank primarily design and this time my license still good
and my credentials are degree of architecture undergrad degree. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh this application we uh are seeking one variance for rear yard unoccupied and the the goal is um to
restructure um Steuart's backyard. Uh we recently, if you get a chance to see, we just did a kitchen renovation and we've moved some spiders and changed the flow of the backyard and we've been planning this obviously to to
come before you and the application is that it's existing non-conforming at the moment. We're going to bring it closer to 4 ft. We'll make it at 114 square ft better than it is today. I would say 114
>> 114 square ft of more open space. So rear yard on occupied is a little bit of a brain teaser meaning when you see big numbers it's often bad or sometimes you see building coverage you see a big number
okay that's not good rear yard unoccupied what they want is 25% of your lot to be open the rear yard. So we have a a lot that's a little bit larger than the minimum required minimum
was 6,000. We're about 8,700. So that having a bigger yard requires it now bigger rear yard unoccupied. And what happens with this property is his existing home. That's why I think it's a C C1 para varants
comes into play because of the existing location of the home on the property. So, he's got a a relatively shallow backyard and the other thing that that really hurts us is the driveway and the orientation of the garage on the property. So, they have to drive down
the side of their property, make a U-turn, and get to their garage. And we love trying to solve that, which was an option, but it was a big option because it was a mud room and there were things in the way from just turning into a front basic garage. So, we kind of felt
that um that was well, if we didn't have the driveway, we wouldn't be here. We could have our patio and the space. [clears throat] And we're roughly, just in terms of numbers, uh 20%.
So, you're supposed to keep 25% open. The result would be that it be 20% open. The number is 1751.95 and it results in a a lot a rear yard that's 424 square ft
that we should have more open. The the driveway portion I calculated was about 550. So it seems clearly that the driveway is our hardship to allow them to have a nice patio. think we were planning on something that was about 14
by 23 and we reduced so I think we made some good positive changes to the neighbors in the neighborhood we're pulling the driveway that is awfully long as it's about as ling wait
>> yes so are any are any of these um color drawings submitted to the board what you I would. >> So, so why don't we mark Dan? How do you want to How do you want to mark it? Do you want to mark that one slide?
>> I would like to mark A1 with two slides. I didn't get to the second part. It's got just a series of photographs. >> Okay. So, so this is so a A1. Well, that looks like three slides. >> No, >> no, we're two if that's >> No, no, no. I'm saying we're going to
A1's going to be um >> what is that? >> Three site plans. >> Three site plans. >> Yeah. >> Is that a sheet number? >> V1. >> V1. >> And I get a sheet B1 at some point. >> What we have is B1. So >> Dan Mr. Dubet, you agree to submit to
Miss Davitt um hard copies of both A1 and A2. We get to that. Thank you. >> Can I also just get um clarification about something? Did you say that it's that that it was pre-existing non-conforming that you're making
better? >> Yes. But on the attachment F it says that the existing is 25%. Yes is 25%. >> Thank you for that. Thank you. Existing was over and then as we were planning this uh we realized we have a rear yard
panas. So uh to get this addition done before the winter my suggestion is like let's design this things because we would be we need a varian so the process would be very slow so we're working
uh I guess kind of my advice is that let's get this built and we can reduce the driveway and have a conforming half of the second slide is of existing ones. The first one is existing. Then when we
did our proposed addition, if we eliminate the patio, reduce the driveway, that's a conforming no variance for the yard, but so [snorts] thank you for that. And then the next
slide is okay. Well, now we put back a patio in the face environment function. So kind of came up with a conforming to be able to get his kitchen in. now here to ask for >> the difference between number the middle number two and the end number three
you're also extending the thway right >> uh >> we're making it deeper but let's say we were said okay well we can't go over >> can you move just a little bit to the >> board okay I'm sorry
>> the three of us are there going guys [laughter] Okay, >> that's what it says here. >> Wonderful. >> So Dan, Dan, on B1 at the bottom table, it says rear yard on occupy 18.8
currently going to 16, which will make it worse. Are those numbers just not right? >> Uh where am I? Am I occupied here? This line? >> Yes. >> Right. Uh should be correct. existing and you have so many other
that's >> but that's also different from attachment >> drawing but >> where's the table >> so could you give us the numbers just so we're all working with say existing is 25% and the maximum was
25% so on that thing You know what I mean? >> So his existing is currently 25%. >> Without any categ. You reduced it to 20. You made it 25 in order to get the permits to do the
kitchen. They use a lot of patio. So currently it is >> and so you can get with me. >> Okay. So I'm just sorry I'm very slow immunity level but so what you're looking for
today is we're an occupied of 16% 49 he's looking for a deviation of 424 square ft >> off of what is required. >> Yes. >> Right. But but then explain
where the 114 square feet improvement comes up. >> Yeah. So that's kind of doesn't really Let's >> That doesn't work. Doesn't work. And you're right. It doesn't work. And I guess I went to his house and it's still there. So you think it's No. If this
board said no, you can't have it. >> Well, then we would wind up with what we see here. This is it. >> Number two. That's currently what's existing. >> What we got approved for, >> right? >> Like obviously to make it work.
>> How do you get a car around? >> Well, we we uh it's tight. I mean, he hasn't used the garage unfortunately because of all the turning that has to be done even with what's a chance to see if that's what's there today.
situation >> with the proposal if it's acceptable. The board will be at 23 ft which if if someone wants to put in they drive. >> So you want to pull the drive back. So there's more room.
>> Yes. And then if I may, just to give you some context of well, we already talked a little bit about how the oversized lot actually hurts us and the existing house being pushed back, but more most importantly is is the hardship the location of the
garage. U but then what I think helps our application even further is these are some images that I took. Okay, hold on. Let me see. We don't want Yes. >> No. I would think so. >> No, no. We're we're going to mark the
the photos A2. >> So, explain what A2 is. >> A2 is a series of photographs I took um last week. They reflect the conditions of a house. Uh so, the first slide obviously this
you see the driveway. Then we get to the back. This can you just go back to to the first slide for a second >> on your on the plan it shows a 15t easement
>> that straddles I guess the property to the north and your property. Yes. Explain what that is. Uh it doesn't say what kind of it is water drainage. >> Yeah. We've got this um
15 ement. >> Okay. Are you I mean I'm just looking. It looks like that the Are there any improvements that are being proposed within that easement area? >> No, it removes the black top.
>> Okay. Sorry. Yeah. >> Um, so the site is very well screened. One of the things we'd like Stuart say to testify to that he would maintain the landscaping that's there and records. So basically they planted um
these evergreens not too long ago. The expectation is they'll probably grow double in height by by the seaf and the same thing on the right side which is heavily well screened. So, it's a going to be a very private backyard
negatively impact anybody by having patio right outside the sliders. I hope the site was very well screened from the neighbors and I didn't see any reason that there be a negative impact
as this obviously positive burn. that >> um >> um does anyone from both? >> So just to clarify, so what what are you asking for like what specifically want
to change asking? We would like to be able to have a patio 14 by 23 >> close to the house. It would be a platform that steps down to the patio and then be able to expand the driveway uh this 4 ft which will yield us 23 feet
in case someone did want to access that drive. Okay. But that gray Yeah. The gray area will be pavers >> and the the gray area you're taking you would be taking away that >> I'm going to add. >> Oh, you're adding >> You're right. >> You're right. It's like Okay. Well, you
kind of >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, your the proposed rear yard unoccupied will be 20%. >> 20%. >> The existing is 15. >> The existing which is confusing. The
existing is for me >> like recall. >> They brought it to >> How about the 10 like the three year ago existing? What was that? >> Yeah, that was big. That was uh 18. So it was larger. >> That's worse. >> So the whole thing was great. I wish we did had done this before we did the
kitchen normal but then there was a an emergency. [laughter] >> Okay. Okay. So, so really I mean you are reducing or you're you're increasing the amount of unoccupied from before you
started all these projects >> reduced reducing it. >> Yeah. It's less of a deviation from when they started the project. >> That's just not reflected in here. >> Right. I didn't want to and I started my
presentation the wrong way which is >> okay. We have a performing lot. It's not great. Any other questions from board members? Anyone in the audience with any questions? >> Anyone in the audience with any
comments? >> One last question. >> Yeah. >> On the the right side of the image, it said like part of lot 16. Um, can you just clarify? Is that just the lot is just the part? We just the lot line and
why the green is in which looks like it shouldn't be. I just clarify what the line was. >> Well, for sure this is our line. I don't know of some older subdivision, but Stuart, do you know anything about that?
>> I have no idea what that is. >> Is it possible it's the old file path lot number? I I think this is >> Yeah, because >> this is our property. >> But then there's this space that shows up, >> but actually the lot is 25. So that's
all >> number. >> So the the larger trapezoid shape is the lot. >> Yes. But you can see from that, you know, how much front yard we have and and kind of best yard.
>> Yeah. >> Um, okay. I'm confused. I'm sorry. I was up to you late last concert. So, if if it's 25% 25% is allowed. What are we asking for? >> Now they're at it's currently 25. They want to go to 20. >> They want to reduce the amount of
>> they want to expand. >> Got it. It was the size. Got it. Thank you. >> And this lot is oversized. >> Yes. >> And is there a hardship? >> Yes. Because that's bizarre, but that having a lot of
>> I did a calculation there were 6,000 ft for >> whatever we had before. I think 25% of that would be >> so the the larger lot actually >> no more questions
none from the audience no comments uh any comments from folks >> yeah comments I think it was made confusing because it felt like a two-step process. >> Um, >> yeah. >> So, I think I understand now and yeah,
part of me is like saying, well, like you knew where you were going. You should have done the process the right way. But I think I understand I appreciate the hardship. I do see the shape of a property front yard is larger and wider and thus to get the percentage in the backyard can be hard. And I could
appreciate the testimony about the garage we were facing. But >> I think it helped. Yeah. >> Yeah. I will follow up on that. I agree entirely with that. It felt a little too >> out of sorts and pretty good with numbers. That being said, I do like the
rearfacing garage pretty much par maintaining that rearfacing garage because think of front facing garage lately. >> Um but you know and the other factor is that compared to the existing three years ago you are creating more occupied
now. So I >> and I think sometimes we um make suggestions of like well why don't you cut off a little bit of the driveway or a little bit of this like there there is nothing here that you can cut off to still you know from the driveway um you
know perspective where where you would be able to get a car into that garage. So, um, you know, that's not an option and I think that there's definitely a hardship here. Um, so I don't support [clears throat] this application even though it was done kind of roundabout
way. >> Um, would someone like to make a motion? >> A second. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Rollins. >> Yes. >> Cohen. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good night.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Well, yeah. All right. Who's ever >> affirmed testimony about the given receiving be? >> Yes, I do. >> Yes, I do. >> Just your names. We'll start. >> Timothy Clive, Rich Keller,
>> and Steven Winter. >> Thank you very much. Um, good evening. My name is Stephen Winter. This is my wife Stacy. Um really appreciate the board as you can. Uh we've been homeowners in town for about six years. Uh we have two kids. Our daughter Cameron is 10 at Washington School and
our son Gavin is seven years ago. Uh when we bought the house, we knew we probably wanted to put their pool in one day. Um and now that I think they're a little bit older, we bought at the right time. Uh so we engage Rich and Tim in the process to try to work through that project. Um due to the way that our sort
of backup house is set up, there's no real easy access to any bathroom because we don't have a walk out basement and if you sort of walk in kind of walk through everywhere. So we thought a good solution to that put a small cabana at the rear of the property um have a bathroom and a changing room adjacent to
the pool. Um and then we we spent quite a bit of time with Rich and his team over several months to try to reduce as great greatest extent possible any variances. And so we kind of went through all that process. Um, and then the current plan that we have, we're left with a single request for building
coverage variance that I was hoping could help address. And if the board has any questions for us, happy to answer them now or after the presentation. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh, Rich Keller from Casey Keller. I'll be presenting both as uh
primarily the planner, but I I'll also be answering any questions as engineer as well. I am a licensed engineering planner for the last 35 years here for this board as a planning board about 110 boards for the state of New Jersey. I've also other offered planning services uh
professionally to the borrow of Caldwell planning board adjustment. I was uh the engineer for uh the brow of sorry Long Hill for three years. My lices and so that >> Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, as indicated, um, this was this was an interesting process and kind of the ones that we like best because it was a a good client who didn't want to come through this board. And so, um, we, let me give you a little bit of information about the property.
Um, the property itself is located on the uh, on the southeast side of Troy Drive. It's about 360 feet from Washington Avenue which I'm sorry from uh from um Great Hills Terrace which is
to the sorry um get that right. Yeah. About 360 ft from Great Hills Terrace and about 360 ft from Athens Road across on the other side of the street. The property is uh 152 feet wide
sorry 152 feet wide. 211 ft deep, approximately 27,800 square feet. Uh it's located wholly within the R4 residential district where 20,000 square feet required. So it is again an oversized lot within built. The um the
property uh slopes up in the rear from the rear of the house. It slopes up about 8 feet to the to the from the patio up to where the proposed um cabana and um covered patio and pool are located. The property then continues up
uh grade to the properties that front on Great Hills Terrace. Uh that's about another 10 feet from the back of our property to the rear of the houses that front on the Great Hills. Overall, there's almost 30 ft of grade change from Troy up to Great Hills Turk behind us. Um, as indicated, this was kind of a
an in architectural term as a sharet process. Um, where the uh they're dealing with a very good wellknown pool um and heartscape contractor who like all of them designed something beautiful. Had patios. It had um all
kinds of outdoor spaces and we got it. It was over on building coverage. It was way over over on lot coverage. It was over accessory coverage. uh it was very close to going under and rear unoccupied and it was really not something that was ever going to get approved. So, um, when
we first got on that first Zoom call, uh, with the clients, um, it was made very clear we'd like to swim this down to not go. We clearly want a pool. We size the pool down, we'll size the patios down. We'd like to not require. So, we went through that process,
probably through three different uh, Zoom meetings while we were um, sort of designing on the computer at the same time, and we came up with a plan that's here for you today. We do need variance relief for building coverage. I'll explain all about that. Um, but the uh
the basically the existing yard is terrace. If you've been out there, there are two walls that um come from the lower patio up into the rear yard. And if you go to the rear yard, it then continues up another about five, six feet uh up through the back property. We elected to put the not um really change
much of those retaining walls. We're adding on to them, make minor modifications. Um, we put the pool on the right side of the property. Um, more than the required 12 feet setback. Um, and then we, um, to the rear of the property, we have a cabana, which is
really a bathroom and a changing room. And I'll go over a little bit uh, of the architect's plans. Tim Fussy is here tonight. He can talk about the materials or some of the scale. I'll talk about some of the height I think is the most important thing. And then certainly Tim
can answer any questions. the um the the placement here. Um the cabana, we go over the uh the proposal. It's an 18 by 36 pool which is about 648 square ft. Got a one foot coping around it. On the
left side, we have a 10 10 foot uh uh 10 foot 9 in 10 foot 8 in, excuse me, patio that gives way to an 8ft patio between the back of the pool and the um changing room, bathroom, and then what what's called hose covered patio. And so the um
bias on the right leaving the furthest away from the neighbors on both sides and it's also at the rear of the property again more than 12 feet about 14 it's actually uh a little more than 12 feet to the uh to the chimney. The main structure is about 14 ft off the
rear line and we put that we nestled it under a retaining wall so the back of the uh the property is natural grade and we're able to hunker that uh that proposed structure down. If you look at the uh the architecture that's uh on Tim's
drawing, just to briefly go over, if you're looking at it from the back from the from the rear of the house, you back up towards the backyard. The right side is the part that's 126 square feet that contains a changing room, a bathroom, and a small storage area for, you know,
pool full floaties and and noodles and chemicals, etc. can be stored in that area. So that is overall 10 foot6 by 12 foot is 126 square feet under roof. Uh that can be done fully compliant. So that does not push us over on building
coverage. So but there's also a patio next to it. And so that uh 22 foot and change by 12t deep uh uh roof extends over the patio with a chimney at the back nestled into that retaining hole as we indicated. So it hunks itself down.
overall scale of the uh of the structure is from the uh from the downhill side it's 11 foot 10 to the peak. So um using average grade from from the average grade we're actually 11 foot 9 in I'm sorry 11 foot 8 in is the overall
height. I would point out that on the uphill side which is shown on the lower elevation and this again this is Tim Klesy's drawing number two as part of your application package on the uphill side towards the neighbor from the ground to the underside of the eve it's
actually 6'8 from the ground to the peak which sets back at the center of the structure it's 9 foot4 and the chimney is another roughly another two tall taller so where 18 ft of height is permitted on a cut structure It's very
understated and not only is it low in stature in height, but then suppressed into the ground by two feet. So, it has even less impact on the neighbors behind us. I'll actually introduce uh our a exhibit A1. This is uh the winter residence
annotated aerial photo dated November 17, 2025. Uh the base map is a near map. uh.com image taken from March 3rd, 2024. We always take it in the winter so you can see the property the best. And you can see the location of the house and
the pool and the cabana uh the covered patio and the and the uh the bathroom to the nearest uh residences. Again, 120. It's uh about 10 foot of gray change up to the uh nearest house at 15 uh 15 great hills. about 128 feet back.
Directly behind us, there's some trees is 163 feet to the rear of the property at at 17 great hills. Um, these are properties that require only 115 ft of depth. So, clearly we're quite a good distance from uh any of the neighboring properties. There's really no negative impact.
Property next to us is large and extends behind us. And again, you can see the properties uh that front on Great Hills. and see the relationships between our proposed structure and those local dwellings. >> Yeah. Think to the left of the property.
>> Pardon me. >> Just go up a little bit right there. >> Yeah. So, right in here, there's >> there pool on the neighboring property. It's a kidneyshaped pool. So, you can tell was done in the 80s, not not recently. Um a
kidneyshaped pool in the back of that property. This is an unusual property because it it extends beyond behind our park. And I would point out consistent with what's recommended by municipal landings law. My my client did attempt not in writing did attempt to purchase
uh portion of the rear of uh block 22 and they also approached the owners of 17 to see if they could buy a little portion of that just to get a little more area coverage over. Uh both of those requests were ripped off and you know with with no um no um
uh with no animus, but just to say no thank you, but we're we're going to keep our lot. But you can see that there's heavily wood. Again, this is a lot of deciduous trees, but you can see even evergreen trees. This is from March. Uh we're well buffered to all the joint property behind us, including the
property that comes behind us uh wrapped around us. So, the variance relief requested um is the maximum building coverage where 14% is permitted. That's 392 square feet. We're proposing 14.7
which is 4,96. We're over by 194. So the breakdown of the uh theund 100 I'm sorry the 126 plus the 204. Um so the water the bathroom was fully compliant. That was only 126. that
left 78 ft available. The decision was made to it would be less impactful to the neighbors to extend that low roof over the patio uh rather than keeping a patio with multiple umbrellas on it going with a pergola on top of it. So it
allows it to sit um under that roof line which picks up some of the vernacular materials of the main house. So there's an architectural dialogue between the cabana and the house itself at the back of the property. The uh
so our variance releases for 194 square ft and it relates solely to the covered portion of the patio. Uh we see this is a C2 variance. Again it's not a C1. So we're not we're not arguing this a hardship. We need to demonstrate hardship as indicated by the plan this
evening. It's a balancing test. We need to show that the benefits outweigh the detriment. We need to still advance some of the purposes of the land use act. Talked about the negative criteria two problems and certainly uh we think that uh C2 applies um the purposes of the
land use act under 4055 B2 that we're advancing section that is an aesthetic improvement. We think it would be aesthetically more attractive to put that cover patio under a low slung roof that matches the same roof over similar
materials to the back of the house. Cohesive architectural vernacular and that's uh that would certainly be um a better condition either an open per still structure that doesn't build it uh or or as a series of
of umbrellas that sit at the back of the property. We think it's uh it advances aesthetics. Um with regard to the negative criteria, we don't think there's any substantial judgment to the public good. The area can clearly not be seen from any of the surrounding
streets. The existing uh proposed uh landscaping and topography uh as indicated on A1 limits views from the neighbors. Um the neighbor to our right uh there's significant evergreen coverage between us and their property or more than the uh 12 feet off as
required. Our uh pool equipment is located in the center of the property. Um the original uh pool guy had it way in the back. We nestled it right into those retaining walls in the back more than 36 feet from all property lines and a fully uh approved and permitted
location. The structure as I indicated is only 11 foot 10 in high where 18 ft permitted by nestling the structure into the hillside. The uh the height um is only 9.33 feet and as I said it's 6.75 ft
goug line. Uh the rear of the h the houses to the rear are between 8 and 10 ft higher than ours. So they would look over us anyways even if they could see through the landscaping. The chimney that's at the back of the structure actually helps to reflect any sound that
will come out of that, keeping it from the back, which again plenty of distance. I don't think there'd be any negative impact from any noise, but it really the chimney does project. So there's a the potential for a TV. It's shown on the plans to be located over the over the fireplace. That again projects sound if at all back towards
the house. Certainly not towards any of the neighbors. The um we think it's uh certainly not an overdevelopment. The allowable lot coverage is 35%. We're at 31.4. So, we have an additional thousand square feet of lot coverage we could put put on this property over by 1003.
Actually, um you you picked up something on the last application that that we always um whenever we see a property that gets narrower in the back, we worry about rear unoccupied. This is not as drastic as some, but we're also well over on the
rear yard and occupied. So I think it's certainly not an overdevelopment property again more than thousand square feet of coverage left. We are coming in right at the permitted accessory coverage. Um with regard to the uh no there's no substantial difference to the
intent purpose of the master plan. Um you know again if you read through um the master plan the overriding goal is the first one is to encourage perfect land use that promotes the character small suburb of the highest quality. Um, we've seen a lot of pools go in since CO. Um, they're elegant, they're well
done, they meet the setbacks. We just have this issue where we think it's a better alternative to put cover over that patio rather than do umbrellas or something that's less unified. Um, so we think the plan as proposed actually advances the purposes of the of the
master plan, makes things more attractive. Uh, we think it's uh it's always nice when I get a client that says we don't want to go for a variance. We don't want to ask for an extra 3 ft of height and whittle it down. We don't ask for we don't want to ask for large patios on both sides and then make deals
with the board. We want to put it on a diet come with the most compact plan we could which is what we did and then uh and one thing we felt strongly about is a better opportunity to cover that patio go through the variance for 190
features. That's my testimony here to answer any questions and I'm here. Just a quick question. Are you going to have any lights under that covered patio? >> There was arsenal of lights, but it's uh there's the ability um to nestle them up under the roof and they're down facing
lights. So, they would be they would be up um down facing lights built up into the roof line facing down on that and that's permitted by code. We're certainly meeting the sideyard side. >> And if but if there was no cover Yes. No, you would end up um well if you did
a pergola per the lighting pergola or you can do um downward lighting around around the patio downward but um again I don't think there's any negative impact of that because you're so far the neighbors >> well the neighbors are is it say 12 feet from the property line I don't know the house >> it's 12 feet to the chimney 14 ft to the
property line 128 ft to the nearest dwelling um to the right which is actually a skew >> and in the back how much from the cover patio what is the distance to the from the covered patio. It's 163 for the house directly behind us. Again, in in a
zone that only requires 110 ft about 150 ft, excuse me. Um 173 feet to the house at uh at number 19 great hills, 128 to the one that doesn't look directly into us. I would point out that
there used to be a lot more buffering when they built the house at at uh at 15 Great Hills. They did remove a lot back. there's still a fair amount of evergreen material that's between us and them. And again, we sit um the the back of our property sits 10 feet down. So, they're actually looking right over the roof
line from from 15 and 17. If they could see through the trees, they'll be looking right over the roof line of our post cabana. And if those lighting, if you're looking over the roof and the lighting is three feet down facing down, certainly never >> it's just back far in the yard, the lights, which is where my head started.
That's sort of atypical. Um and will they be on a timer? or lights out. Actually, I know we have a new lighting when it's used. >> I think they would be when if if they're using the pool at and there can't be any um other lighting.
They're using the pool at night. Um they may be in bad need and the covered patio. Will those slides a time or just walk through for a minute the you put on your plan that there's there was an
additional drywall installed for future rear yard improvements. on your drawing number one, if you could just walk through how that any draining from the proposed improvements would get to that dry well. Seems pretty.
>> Well, we actually what we're doing is we're picking up um there's an inlet at the back. We're showing actually um should be here. Maybe they're not. We would be picking up the roof leaders from this whole area and directing into the pipe that comes down on the side. um
it's shown faintly connects all the way through to the existing drywall system. So the um we when we did this development back in started in 2017 the house was finished in 2019 we anticipated a pool going in so we added an additional drive.
So, but it Yeah, I don't see the on the plan that it connects, but you're representing that it will connect to >> Yeah, the the cabana and the covered patio >> 100%. It all Well, it all flows downhill anyway. So if any any negative impact my client but yeah we'll be required to
submit a full grading plan at the world conseration district uh as a as a condition of any approval this board >> you just used the term we I were you part of the original >> I was yes >> okay so if you have a vision for a
future pool then why was the house designed at the building coverage of Well, it there was some left over. There wasn't there was none left over. There was >> some left over. >> Yeah. Well, there was there was [cough] um what I say there was uh
>> right it was at 33.3%. >> I just so the house that was originally built was from a builder that just from so when we purchased the house that was already set when we told the builder, hey, in the future we might want to put the pool in. suggestion was supposed to
do the drywall in the front so that drip above our front yard if we did a pool later. So that happened after we already purchased the house but it wasn't completed. >> So the building coverage hadn't changed. >> No thank you. >> I'm sorry to make that clear. Yeah that that was not done the the builder with
independent was it was >> yeah when you said we I just Okay. Thank you then. And then just for the record, Rich, um the we're in R4 zone which minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, correct? >> We're at 27,871
which is about 40% more >> which would probably explain why you're under on every other thing that you mentioned including >> right so it's it's oversized lot for the >> it is over. Yeah, let's start with that. Um however, as I said, there was some building coverage event and we're not
the largest lot on the block by any means. We're not the largest P on the on the block, but um we still think again there's no hardship and I don't need a you wouldn't expect a hardship on a property this size and the C2 variance is flexible C2 variant that was created
by the framers of municipal landing for this specific reason. We can show times when um it's a better alternative to go with something that required for variance than with something that might be [clears throat] Any other questions from the board?
Any questions from anyone in the audience? Any comments from anyone in the audience? >> Tim, are you do you need to present or >> No. >> Um, board members,
>> what do you think? >> I'll go first. Um, beautiful house, beautiful lot. I'm struggling with the covered patio because um, I'm concerned about quite honestly the precedent is that's what also which we shouldn't be thinking of present but but I'm thinking
of it. Um, the lights um was a cabanas that's got four walls. So that's going to contain the light, but the the patio just has a ceiling. Doesn't have anything to contain the lights from like the neighbors. And you're pretty far back in the yard. Even though the houses are 194 ft away, they may not always
stay there. They may want to pull in. So, I actually am concerned about the covered patio from the lights. I mean, you're asking for variance. There's no hardship. So this one's off >> there
particular aspect reopen the hearing and ask for some clarification regard to >> offering screening landscaping particularly what's in the back there. Okay. I mean, I'll just I'll I'll just before I do that, I'll say that I you
know, there is no hardship, but um I think that's what Rich was has was been saying um and that's not the criteria that this application is being um presented under. It's being presented under the flexible C2, which you know
kind of begs us to ask those those questions and answer those questions. Um but if you do have you know issues with the um lighting I mean do we want to open >> only because it's a luxury and not a a
necessity. Okay. Is it important reopening? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I just spoke really briefly with my client. We'd be happy even though there's quite generous landing behind us. We would be happy to put in um along the property a stagger row of green giant harbor bite. Um here we
don't have to worry if they get too big. We're happy if they do. Um, so we would do that along the back line and then we would agree that any lighting within the the um that covered portion of the patio would be recessed downward. So that there's really no there is room to
recess those lights here, but um so that'll [clears throat] shine down and there's no way that they can be seen from you don't see the source of the bulb even from 5t away and certainly you'd never see it when you're above the line of the roof. But we'd be happy to stipulate that the only lighting inside
of that full voltage lighting would be in the form of recess lights. >> And does the current code address anything about exterior lighting going off this time? >> I mean, >> we're happy to comply. Well, certainly I mean right
>> I don't think we'll get up very late if there's anything we can do to stay >> the kids teenagers. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean if if there was a preference gets down to enforcement preference to you know we normally don't
put them on timers on residential uses is when they turn them off when they bed at 9:00 they turn them off. But we can certainly put something in where they will be turned off no later than >> Well, I don't know if we can we can enforce that, right? I was going to say I don't know that that would be
>> my clients are going >> I don't know about the who may buy the house in the future but they're certainly fairly restrained any keeping the lights off whenever possible because if any if it affects anybody in the neighborhood it's them looking back up and I would be bitching who left the
lights on get back up there and turn them off inside the house >> inside the house as I said you could also I Even if they didn't have the covered patio, you could still put landscape lights just like any of the rest of us. Keep our landscape lights on
all night. >> Given that it's recessed into the roof, given that they're lower than the houses behind them, given that there's going to be landscaping in the upper lighties. I I just And they're very far away. They're the initial way. I don't see how
this would it just seems unlikely. >> Well, he just promised to everybody. So, even without the AR but then I think with the AR provides I just think they're still likely somebody
[laughter] just to confirm that [laughter] the any LED or other future lighting and television is going to be facing the house. >> The television will be facing the house. Yes. That's one of the benefits because if we if we didn't have that, you'd probably
sell the television, but you put on the back side of the bathroom, which is facing the side. So, I think it it projects sound and light back towards us. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think for me personally that this meets the, you know, flexible C2 criteria. Um, you
know, when I when I was first looking at it, I was thinking like, oh, well, maybe you could take away some patio and put on some stepping st, you know, put stepping stones, but that's not what this is about. It's not about the accessory, you know, coverage. It's about building coverage from having a
covered patio. And when you think about the alternatives to having a covered patio, it would be umbrellas. You know, kind of what's the lesser of two evils? I mean, if there's a storm named Rose blow over, you know, go, you know, kind of pretty and, you know, bad
weather conditions. Um, you know, it's a I I think it's tastefully done. Um, and I think that, um, you know, I I think that it it it meets the criteria for the C2 variant. So, I would be comfortable approving. Um,
>> I agree with that. I don't don't like that. Also, I just don't think there's a big ask in terms of the amount of the ovary. Uh, you know, I mean, my OCD says you could even cut off the edge of that cover, so it aligns with the rest of it.
I don't need to get you frankly, but it does make a little bit, but uh, but I think it's not really a big ask, so I don't I'm not concerned about it. I had the exact same thoughts you did
Gary about cutting back but yes [clears throat] what you're looking to do in there >> we we we had alignment but we were over a little bit on accessory coverage so we trimmed down that so but we we did we
did a furniture layout in in the bana we didn't really want so I I share your OCD I'm a Virgo and not a good combination Um would someone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion with the modifications as expressed that the
harbor by DB may uh installed or done and planted state interest motion to approve conditions discussed for staggering ary along the rear property line and any
lighting for the uh covered patio. It would be recess under television just does that get added or is that just up to you? That's I mean it seems like a reasonable thing to to maintain if while we're at it while we're concerned about the neighbors. So >> that any television will be facing the house.
>> Thank you. Thanks. >> Second. >> Yes. [laughter] >> Glad you were just complimenting. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. That's it. You have permission. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> I don't know. Sure. I would not >> know
Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean like literally >> this is a Wait, was this >> more annoying? >> Yeah, >> right. Yeah.
>> Uh yes. Okay. >> Everyone raise your right hand before testimony to give the truth. Yeah. >> Your names for the record. Robert Forbes. Hi everyone, my name is Howie Wel. This
is my wife Jamie Wel. We appreciate your time regarding our property 28 road. By way by way of background, Jamie and I are both native to New Jersey. We've been members of the Milbourne Shore Hills community since 2019. We moved from the Glenwood section into our new residence in the Nwood neighborhood in
the summer of 2024. We have two daughters, an eighth grader Zoe at Milburn Middle School and a third grader Emmy at Bart. We're committed members of the community and schools, having served as coaches of our kids sports teams and as a class parent and other volunteer
opportunities PTO. We knew a couple of years into our time at our previous home that we would need additional space for our family. After close to three years of looking for a new house, we moved to our current home in Nwood. We love the community. We love the proximity to downtown Milbour. We feel fortunate to
be there. That said, despite loving the house, there have been a couple of things we can't change. The lack of the backyard and the lack of usable basement space. For that reason, the project we have in mind is adding a screened in porch to our minimal outdoor space in the backyard so our family can enjoy it
throughout more of the year. This would not require us to expand the footprint of the house only to add marginal space to the rear. This would stay consistent with the look of the rest of the house and keep to the character and size of other homes on the block. And with this project, we're simply hoping to make the
space more usable for ourselves and our kids as we look forward to being there for years to come. Thanks for your consideration. Let's turn it over to our architect, Robert >> Port. everyone. Oh my good. Um, so Robert Forbes, architect
for architects. I uh graduated in 2007 from NGIT with a bachelor of architecture and licensed city New Jersey in 2014. I've been practicing in the area ever since. I've been for this board on multiple occasions. Uh also most
recently summer Matt is going down. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so here we have um 28 Arthur Road. It's lot 8 in block 1206. It's in the R six zone. It is an oversized lot for the
zone, but it is a corner lot. So it's 7,826 ft where 6,000 square ft is required. Um, it's a colonial revival built in the 1930s. It has very understated um, simple detail and it's a longer
building, but it sits well um, on the street, which I think really helps it kind of scale into the neighborhood. And as I get into what we're proposing, um, the screened forge along the right side wrapping kind of the back right corner of the the
back of the garage. Um, there is an existing patio there that's a little bit underutilized. not in the greatest shape. It's kind of an uninviting space in on the property. Um there's almost no real rear yard on
this lot because the building has been pushed all the way back into that back corner really to comply with the front yard setback. So that's the challenges of a corner lot. This lot is wide almost I think would probably average around 110 ft in width. um if you did the front
and the back because there is a radius there as you can see on sheet BA1 um but it's only 50 feet deep. So um the challenge is when you get these kind of longer skinnier houses is there's a lot of circulation and a lot of time being a
little bit more coverage um than they would otherwise have with a deeper house. Um, so we are asking to add a 361q ft porch over some existing patio space. We're not increasing um the patio
size. We're actually not even covering the whole patio because I'm should bring this over here. >> You don't need that. >> Oh, perfect. I hadn't turned it around last week. Um,
we're pulling in from the property line 5 ft to allow us to maintain and replenish the kind of skip laural shrubbery that's really buffering the two properties. Um, so where the side setbacks required to be 8
ft, we're proposing five feet in this back corner. And that's really to kind of just try to give them a inviting outdoor space that everyone wants to enjoy with their families. Um we're also set back uh 40 39 ft from the front facade. We're way
back. We're behind this existing fence that's there. It's very hard to see this to see this um screen [clears throat] and porch. And I think it's also um nice to show that we are not saturating this site at all. Um, we're actually under lock coverage where 45%
is allowed. We are only at 41.27 and we are remaining unchanged. There are some features to the house like there this existing um porch in front of the garage which is it's got a column on it so it is
counting as coverage. It's hurting us a little bit but it's driving those roof lines down that I feel like really helped to make it look more compatible with the neighborhood. So, we don't want to start trying to remove some of this these features and some of these coverage is to reduce our numbers. Um,
that a little bit too floor plan [clears throat] in this kind of unverified space on GPO2. Back here is the existing kitchen. Here's the mudroom access to the garage. And here's where this kind of wraparound
patio is doing. some of the guys went there and saw it. It in need of kind of being reactivated. It's in need of kind of, you know, modernizing it and cleaning it up. So, you can see we're maintaining this kind of shrub wall here, these skips. We have an access
door to the screen porch from the driveway side through that fence that's remaining and outward to this kind of walkway that goes across that the kids could play in the front part. This is just a roof plan showing how it
kind of very cleanly wraps around the uh the house. It's a hip roof because we we're trying to really keep the the roof low. We we realize we are getting closer to the property lines. We're trying to keep the roof low. The gutter lines at about 8
and 1/2 ft and it's sloping up to 12 feet. uh really sitting down low as you can see from the purple side. We are going to screen it. You can see the streams in there to be able to use it more often.
There'll be down lighting in there. You can see the little screw GP. And then I did prepare an exhibit photo anyone.
>> I took these photos this morning. Um, so photo A is just showing the kind of the front side of the building. You can see that kind of forge over the garage doors. I was referring to see the existing fence that's there and uh the
rear of the forge would be set back from that as I said almost 12 feet back from that where we're going wrapping around here you can see this kind of great buffering between the neighboring lots
as I kind of get behind that fence on photo C you can see this patio is kind of in need of some pair photo D. That's the access from the mud room. That's that walkway where that door we're doing. Again, you can see the
buffer between here and the neighbor's house. I took um there's a photo a house we worked on about 10 years ago at 2 road that's right that's literally right around the corner. It's right here. The site is here. It has again this is a
front facade wraparound course but I just want I thought it would be interesting show that this kind of style porch is in the neighborhood on a similar style home. I think it really adds to the look of the house. And then what I think is also interesting in this area that I took is
we're not at a point in the street where all the houses are kind of stacked together. the we're kind of at this irregular point in the streets where we have we're facing kind of forward on the sidewalk here along with the neighbor right so we have two side yards there
after we build the porch we'll be about 25 ft apart after the porch is built again in the R six zone where 8 foot setbacks are allowed so there's there's a lot of light in the air between all of these buses even though it's in the R six zone because of how the roads are
all together. Um, where here, this one that faces on Hawthorne, we're kind of into the rear yard, we'll have about 25 ft also there after the porch is built. And we'll have about 30 ft to this effect on a diagonal to the porch. So, there's still a lot of space between all
of these structures, but you don't always see the R six kind of. And that's uh really >> So is there access to the voice directly from the house? >> Yes, there is
through the mother. So this is the existing kitchen here. And this is the garage. And there's a mud room. That door that I showed in that one picture is right there. That's the access option. >> So those skip laurels are proposed. They're not currently there.
>> Well, they're currently there, but but they are going to kind of be replenished. They're going to be removed and replenished as needed for the construction. >> And they're going to heat this, I assume, so they can be used in the winter. >> There's a couple infrared heaters that are being installed, and there's three
of them. kind of facing inward in the ceiling. They'll be out of view from >> and this will be like a family room or just extra space. >> It's not really a family room. It's really trying to serve as they really have very little outdoor outdoor living. It's just a very uninviting kind of
corner to have that patio over. Yeah. >> Um, so we're just trying to activate that corner, give them make them want to go out there, enjoy an outdoor meal, uh, watch some TV or just socialize around the couch. It's not the family room. The
family room's um, the living room in the house is over here. It's not going to be ever It's not going to be enclosed. We're not proposing to enclose it. It's going to be an open. >> You said that in the documents. Is that binding? They said in their documents they're never going to make this an
actual >> whatever is in the application materials on the plants to >> do something that deviates from those >> um along the side you're putting in or I was in that I went in your backyard
yesterday um I rang a bell um >> you're welcome anytime. [laughter] Um, but what you're proposing, you're putting the extension or the covered screen porch and then you have three feet to your boundary and in that space.
Okay. So, you have like 3 ft of it could be taken up by the the skip laurels >> and you have an existing fence. Is that yours? >> If you want to touch your fence, it's online it looks like. Yeah, pretty much.
It looks like the one on this side is theirs. The other one is close to it. >> It was there when you purchased it. >> It's just that doesn't there's not much room there to even maintain your basic. Um, so I mean part of the reason that we picked that 5 ft um is it's kind of
similar to your accessory ordinance, the 5 ft, like if there was a detached garage and you had to kind of maintain behind a detached garage or um so there's there's enough room to kind of get back there, get the leaves out,
walk around, maintain it. Not something that like if you're gonna walk as a family, you're gonna go through maintenance. >> Yeah. >> What's What's the existing building coverage?
>> The existing building coverage is 1,96 square feet. >> 24.35%. >> Say that again. 20 what? 1,96 square ft or 24.35%. We're 23% in the lab. So, so you're over
already on existing. >> We are over already existing. >> So, um what's the delta between the 24.35% existing and 28 97%
proposed square footage? 361 square ft is the square footage of the porch. >> I'm sorry. 361 28.97%. Please put on the record um why it is that it's being composed at 361 square
feet and not a smaller square foot. So, the the square footage of the porch is really being driven a little bit by [clears throat] um the two uses that we're trying to get out there for them to use for some outdoor space. It's It's not a very
deep. If we were going to do a new porch on the back of the house, it would be probably 15 feet deep. Okay, this is only um 10 foot seven interior space on the right side and
deep on the back side. So, it's a narrower space that needs to have a little bit more length to accommodate these multiple functions. And again, like you want to have a sofa outside and a table outside to sit at. Um
so that's really what's what's governing the size of the porch. two ships. >> So, not to steal Robert's uh OCD, but why didn't you make it straight with the house? Um the corner
it sort of goes over >> in the front here. >> Maybe that's just because that's the shape of the patio on this the guess it's the back >> in the front. >> Yeah, in the back. >> Yeah. >> Oh, if I went straight here. Yeah, it's like that would give you actually a
little more space to navigate around the world, but it's just it's not it's not in line with how >> you So, it pushes out for two reason. It gives us access with a door that way, but also allows a function to fit there. Otherwise, this would be nothing more than a covered kind of pathway to this
single space that you could program. You couldn't get these two functions then. >> So, you examined looking at that, but you didn't find it feasible. It's not feasible to get these two. No, >> I think they would like to be able to be in this part of the porch.
You know, it kind of see the kids are going to go this way to play hard, I'm sure, because they kind of play in that front corner that's 40 feet off the road. That's kind of where the best act, you know, active play area is. Is there anything in your presentation
as why this is beneficial for the master plan? >> Yeah. >> C1 or C2. >> Well, I I I was going at C1 for the hardship of the of the lot corner lot and the sighting of the building being really pushed back into that corner.
However, I think you could approach this from a C2 standpoint, too. Um, I think there's no negative impact to the neighborhood. It's really pushed off the plane. It's really hard to see from the street. It's really hard to see from any of the neighbors with the with the
landscaping and shrubbery that's in place and going to be maintained. There's no kind of harm to light and air ventilation because of how I explained the roadways that are there and the way the houses are aligned. There's still more than adequate and more than normal
space between the houses for this zone. Um, and I think it's important for the positives that they can modernize this space, update this house, you know, update the the older housing stock that I think like it
a lot of the newer houses that are built on a lot like this that are a lot taller, a lot bigger, look so much bulkier and have more mass than this, even if it would conform than this older home that's longer, understated.
simple detailing. So I think I think you can approach sort of C1 and C2. Any other questions from board members? Anyone in the audience with any questions? Any comments from the audience?
I'll close the public portion. That's what everyone thinks. >> Yeah, I'm I'm I be supportive of the application. I think that I think this is a better use of that space than the and the patio. I I live in this neighborhood. I know there's not a lot
of space. Generally, when you have a backyard, you don't really have a backyard. Um, and so I think, you know, I think it's probably a better better way for the family to enjoy the property that have the small amount of space that be there outside as a patio or
otherwise. Uh, and I think it's sectioned off enough from uh the other homes, then I think it would work. It's obviously pretty close to the property line, which is not great, but I think that's always a
problem in that neighborhood. they're always right on the property line. So I I would be supportive. I think they established the criteria for the various >> I appreciate the context and but um I
think I was struggling with it like the prior application building coverage is just getting at it. Um but I think both the testimony um just regarding the you know the corner lot um and the the existing setting of where the the building the home sits um and I think
yeah hearing your context on the in that neighborhood and understanding it helps. So I think I could be supportive as well. >> I will go to the other side. >> Um it's already over on coverage. Uh we're just exacerbating it. It's I think it's
beautiful house actually. uh that went around the thing. It looks great. As far as like them putting a patio up there, just refurbished the patio. It's becoming another section of the building. Um this is pretty substantial. It's heated. It'll be three seasons at
that, you know, at minimum. So, it is an extension of the building itself, I believe. Um and it is real close. I mean, nobody objected to it today. doesn't mean that the next person who lives there might have not that I could object at this point, but that it's just
not what that's supposed designed for. As far as a corner lot, not all corner lots, just the fact that you're on a corner is a handicap. I mean, this building is set far enough back that essentially your corner lot, your your size of fronts become your rear yards. That's just, you know, that going into
it. So, I am against >> I I'm on the fence for this, but I I'm probably more on the side, Mr. Cfield, because you do have an oversight lot, and I know that is a hardship, but it's just kind of odd. It's an odd request actually to screen in the patio. Um, I'm
not sure I've seen that before, but I am a little concerned that we're asking for building coverage, which I think we should take fairly seriously, and it is really tight back there. So, um I think I'm entering on the side of of not approving this side. I would feel
better if you bunk it back a little bit to get a little more room. I don't think your people are all going to survive. You're not going to get enough sunlight, but that's not for me to decide. Mino, do you want to give your opinion?
>> Yeah, I I guess um on what I can see um you know the I don't really know the area that well and you know can actually go there myself. Um but just the fact that it's it's very close to the property line and I don't know where the
other properties like you know they're building it from from um you know the property that we are discussing here. Um I feel like if we can reduce the delta a little bit like so 361 square foot is
the delta between existing and proposed. Um if that shrinks to me would be you know more of an acceptable um proposal in my mind. So I'll probably go with Joe and I'll go.
>> Stephen, would you mind giving your opinion? My opinion is uh I wish I had screened in the porch and I don't. >> I like them. I'm going to go yes. >> So, you know, I was there um I was there
earlier today and I was a little shocked by just how tight this space was. And it's funny because when I was looking at the plans before I went over, it just it seems on the plants like a lot more space, but then once you get back there,
it was hard to even, you know, imagine like I I I walked around a little bit. I'm like, I don't even understand, you know, the patio because it does feel um like it's like it's, you know, it's pretty tight. Um, you know, that being said, I mean, you you you there's a
patio there anyway, and you know, the patio's, you know, as of as of right, I mean, you know, you could fix that up. Um, I don't know that I'm so bothered by just putting um a screen on it to to make it more um to make it more usable.
again, you know, either way you could have a patio or, you know, you know, make it a little bigger and then, you know, add add the have the screened porch. Um, I would hope that the um skip laurels would survive. I mean, we could
put in I guess a um law that they should be maintained, right? >> Um, so if they die, then you would have to replace them or you'd have to figure out some other method. um of screening. But I mean I I I have to say this is
absolutely a tough one. It's not an easy yes for me and it's not an easy no for me. But I guess I' I'd be leaning more towards um you know approving it with the condition that those skip laurels be maintained. Um and if not skip we need
some other be maintained for legitity. We have no problem doing that. I mean, we want to maintain the greenery anyway. >> Um, so would someone like to make a motion?
>> I would make a motion to approve the application uh with I guess provision that the landing plantings are made. You have a second. Second
>> D Rosen. >> Yes. >> Regina. >> No. >> Yes. >> Roberts. >> No. >> Coin. >> Yes. >> Joseph. >> No. >> Black. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Robertson
really wasn't a >> [laughter] [laughter] >> I didn't ask permission. I might Right. Gary better [laughter] one way.
What are you doing? >> Oh yeah. Right. But anyway, yes. just like give us a little >> actually. Oh, the insurance. >> Oh my god. And then
I was doing >> everything. Sorry. All right, Danny, you ready? >> Okay, last up we have calendar 4057-25. The property location is 44. >> You swear from testimony about to give it proceeding. Truth treats
the record names. >> Stefan may s e m a i l a >> Daniel. I think he he needs to get sorry.
>> Okay. License is still good in fact. Uh again practiced over 20 years in town here and primarily residential architecture and you're report. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. So we have >> I don't know if you wanted to say a few words. You want me to jump in? >> I can I can few few words. So first thank you very much for your time. Appreciate the your time to consider this project. Um I my wife apologizes
she could not make it tonight. Um so we've been actually the first time and the last time I was in this building was exactly 13 years ago when we moved to Melbourne from Europe. and you can still hear my heavy French accent.
>> Uh does not come with a system. Um and um so we our two sons actually got graduated from Melbourne uh high middle school and high school. Um so we um got
the citizenship in 2023. Uh we both work in Morristown. Uh we love our neighborhood. So we're here for quite some time and that's why we discussed this project with um Danny who came up
with much >> estimate >> there's another project that's undergoing another >> the difference between this one and the previous one is that this one we uh we agreed while we were designing not
even go for the permits that we would do this as a lattice structure per um but they felt that they're going to get more use and more function and be pleasing if they could now uh instead of
pera have a covered roof uh well a the aesthetics but also the functionality and the way we've designed it. So basically there's one variance needed building. The existing house is currently um
existing nonconforming. It's it's currently 76 ft over on building coverage. And I apologize it's not working. But I if I could explain the house it's a corner lot. It's an zone. It's slightly underside.
However, it's a it's a ranch. doesn't necessarily seem like it's overbuilt on this property. There you go. Um, so if I may, um, put
these into an exhibit. We call them A1 A2. Thank you. And I will I >> uh Yeah. So here's the corner lot. Um, >> yes. Zoom out, please. That's the right term.
>> So what what is what what is 81 and what? >> It's a V1 V2 which you have currently I just put some thoughts on it and then a series of photographs and Google is wait
V2 going to represent A1. >> What is B12? >> Oh you have your the two sheets. >> So but you marked them up. You marked it up. >> I marked it up. >> Oh, okay. >> We have. >> So, why don't we mark
B1 and B2 as A1 consisting of two pages B1 and B2 >> as a series of photos. Yeah. A2 will be the series of what is it? Six photographs.
>> Nine. >> Nine. >> Two Google map images and the rest photographs I took recently. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So go based on >> so we go right ahead.
>> Thank you so much. uh the only variance that's required is building coverage and like I mentioned it's an existing nonconformity so anything that gets done to this house would require being in front of the board one thing that we would just like
to come out and say that because we're adding more building coverage we would testify but on record that we will never ask to close it to increase the which is significantly under size primarily because of the ranch Um but we
would testify here tonight that we would maintain the landscape in which exists on the property. So that's I think one of the things that makes this um certainly no negative impact to neighbors
significant amount of landscape there that exists that will continue to grow. And so we would like to testify that we will as a condition of approval of you know maintain the conditions of those giant giant giant bodies. And so as a
corner lot it's incredibly private feeling and only because of all that landscaping. So this is a if I take you to A2 this is a Google map image and from this I was able to quantify a
little bit of the distances. It's 156 ft to the nearest home on Western and 60 ft this way. And it's very very well swing all the way around the property. So this is
a really nice image. This is uh if you're looking down the side of his property to the left of these arborings is Western. If we look at this, this is an image that I took from Google Maps which shows that I don't think this house is
significantly overbuilt for the property. So by allowing the additional building coverage which is if I tell you about numbers we are seeking we are seeking
14.3% where 13% is the requirement. So, it's an overage of 310 square ft, which is a 10% deviation, but that also includes the additional 76 the house is currently over on. So, the
net delta on those two things is about 233 ft of new building coverage. And that's allow to allow us to build this beautiful roof structure, which I do think will be way more attractive than an open pergola. And and the reason I
say that is because of the design of how we've done this. So there's an existing existing extension to the first floor which is a family room and it has a gable roof. So we're looking to build
the structure 11 ft off of the house and there's a brick chimney there that exists. So he's going to have about 9'8 in of covered area and it's just for a dining room table. Having heard the previous application about the TV, we talked about that we would testify there
will be no TV uh put on this brick chimney and lighting recess lighting um that would function as this thing. So there's an interesting story that of course he went he bought a Home Depot
gazebo at some point in the we all like to have the cover and that blew away. So, it was exciting to think of something more permanent, obviously, I think more aesthetically appealing. It just kind of organically grows out of the first floor um addition that exists.
So, very modest um ask. And one other thing that uh we forgot to mention is that we spoke to the neighbors and that uh they well I think this neighbor here gave us support um on
Western. So yes, the one that has had the biggest impact for us with this year and she was very supportive. She came to us on Sunday and she said, "Yes, I'm absolutely fine." Especially because Western is actually lower. The slope is
this way. So actually we are over there the house actually they with the trees and so on. So there is no >> Yeah. This this photograph on the lower left is um I'm on the western and I'm uh
the mayor's house to the right and the one I don't know if it's a swale address or western address but the house is lower elevation and the screening that exists already is very very very um so I think obviously by um
maintaining keeping what what's there um there's no impact negative impact to neighbors or neighborhoods by allowing this. So, we ask for your uh we ask your approval. >> Was there a pool? Do I see prop? >> There's a proposed pool that's being
built. Well, it's not part of the application, although it's part of the project. Uh we are doing a deck and a pool in the back of the house. >> Oh, where's the pool going to build? >> The pool is going to tell it's kind of sitting there now. It's
>> This is built. >> Oh, it's inside. >> Okay. It was like the sun was setting >> and the reason that they chose for this deck structure versus inground is because the >> slope to the backyard and then the elevation change from
>> Oh, so it's part of the deck. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Since the deck is projecting from the first floor, that's included in your building coverage, correct? >> The deck is not building coverage. >> That's the roof. >> It's the roof. Thank you. >> It's the roof. Right. So lot coverage
we're wearing where it very well below the maximum allowed but uh where we get close which we designed to was the accessory use coverage. So there could be no more uh structures and patios in case we wrestle and came to the board as
permission. So yeah the one building coverage. >> Sorry you already said this but I did couldn't get my pen open. Is the lot oversized or undersized? >> Undersized. Slightly undersized. >> Thank you. Maybe not even slightly. 23
43,000 21373 and minimum requires 49. >> So like more than 600. >> So if the lot were appropriately sized, would you need the variance for this? probably not because we're only uh what
run the calculation. Um 49,000 times uh% 29,000.13. >> Thank you. No times 23. Yeah, I didn't do the calculations. >> 43% is the building, right? So, that
would yield us 6,670. And where am I? >> No, it's 13%. >> I'm sorry. The It is 13%. I gave you wrong information. That was on the last
application. 29,000 times 413700. We're good. We would not need the >> Yeah. Well, yeah, just you're asking for 300 square feet. You're 600 ft short. >> Thank you. >> Little easier. Um >> anyway. Okay. Thank you.
>> There's also which I don't come across often, but there's a very very large way that takes away from the calculation that we could use. So although it appears that uh you know I guess the property lines you can see
are into his lot. So this is the right away although this is the property line. So that will be vital. So this cannot be used. Uh if we use it, we do not need >> the right away.
>> You're saying to the center line of the rightway, >> right? >> But that's subject to an easement for the public. That's same with every >> No, but it's not uh your most property lines are inside the right way. So instead of your property line being here, be here. his property lines in the
right. >> So >> that's not >> that's so anyway that >> that's not right. >> Do you have a fence back there? I was trying to remember. Do you have a fence? Are you going to be required to put in a fence because of this pool?
>> Yes. >> The the the fence will be around the deck. So um Okay. Because of >> Okay. So, you won't be coming back to us asking for a variance for >> No, thank you. Now, the the pool and and the deck is is approved and formed
zoning wise. Um, >> so yes, fence. No, >> the fence is part of the deck. So, it's very interesting. So, >> have access to the from the backyard, >> right? So, you have to have the gate before you get up the steps and then the >> Okay. >> the railing of >> I mean, I don't build it.
So, we know we don't need additional fencing. >> If it's in a deck, you don't need to, >> right? Because it's interesting, uh, because we're elevated, that counts. And so, I guess the rule is 54 in or so, >> right? So, the thing the deck here and
then we have a 3ft railing, we're good. As long as egress to the steps, >> what what criteria are you >> see? I think that the uh the uh obviously good for the family, no negative impact to the neighbor. So
definitely teaching no hardship. >> Any other questions for board members? He used the hardship of the last size. >> Yeah. Right. just >> he can or cannot use
the right >> you cannot use that to determine any of my number building coverage lot coverage FA >> and does your application include the lighting I'm sorry I didn't notice it that they will be reassessed and pointing down >> we would love to do whatever language necessary
>> oh okay so it's not part of the application already so we need to add it >> add it the testimony that we went to Reese's Lighting and I mean I I drew I don't know if we I drew lights on the columns but that was anything
>> we can also your landscaping would be maintained >> I think that's important three conditions that the applicant agreed to were recessing for maintaining the landscaping on the property and that
this area will not be enclosed if there Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> I don't see anyone in the audience. Any questions from anyone in the audience? [laughter] >> Yeah. Um and obviously no comments from
anyone in the audience. So, I'll close the public origin and um ask you all what you like to start. >> I'll start quickly. Um I went to the property just as the sun was setting, but I was able to see it and saw saw
your inspection people and they were a little alarmed. But anyway, that's okay. We're all fine now. Um but at first I was like, yikes, this is tight and this is going to take up the whole yard and this is so close to the setback. But I have to say that that I I believe there is a hardship on this property. It's
undersized lot. um already and um the you you address that you're going to be mindful of the lighting that it's going to be down. It's going to be uh maintained maintenance of the hedge. So in light of that that I think there is actually a hardship here. I would be in
favor of this. >> I'll follow up. Um I was there yesterday. I saw you working hard doing this landscaping. So um I think it's pretty modest. I think it's um I know that the western does slow down in the back so it's not going to be really an
impact for the neighbors behind. I don't think there's enough growth back there. So I would be supportive of this. >> I'm going to add with the conditions that yes that we discussed. >> No, no, I'm going to say my approval would be contingent on those conditions.
Right. Go. Sorry. Go ahead. There it is. Okay. Great. It's an awesome patch, by the way. Remember when you planted um I was just going to say to make a motion and make a motion to approve with those three
Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. still on. >> So um there's no one in the audience to bring up any matters that uh are unrelated to tonight's agenda. So would
someone like to make a motion to close this meeting? motion. A second. >> All in favor? >> Do you reuse the >> No. Good thing we're
>> at Christmas decorations >> actually. realize something.