##VIDEO ID:9FEX8_CKFio## good we're good okay wait wait that one all right we'll just talk really loud okay um right we'll give it a try in accordance with Section Five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advis that a notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bton for Town Hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Town Hall at 7 p.m on February 3rd 2025 yeah let's turn off all of our mics Jo ping here har Rosen here reg Tru here B sa here David Bradford here Joseph pfield pres Jessica here okay this is noer we need to take the open Office up raise your right hand get get right in repeat after me I state your name I state your name I name IO Roberts Solly swear or affirm sbly swear or affirm that I support the Constitution of the United States that I support the Constitution of the United States Constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I would bear true faith and Le to the same and to the governments established in the United States and the governments established in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people I do further ply swear or affirm I do further Solly swear affirm that I will faithfully impartially and justly I will faithfully impartially and injust Le perform all the duties of the office of zoning board alternate number one perform all the duties of the zoning board alternate number one according to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability so all we got congratulations thank you we got okay um so we're going to start with uh the approval of minutes from jary there I did not circulate okay um well then I'm going to we're gonna get to the new business but I just want to announce to everyone we're going to do um a a slight change in the order from on the agenda um we're going to start with calendar 43-24 that's 34 Winding Way after that we're going to move on to calendar 421 that's 24 that's 35a Spring Street and then the last application that we'll be hearing tonight is calendar 39914 okay so we're going to start first with um calendar 3950 d23 um this is Ash Sharma from 29 wind way and the applicant is requesting a onee extension okay raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony about to give in tonight's proceeding do the truth whole truth nothing but the truth I do just state your name for the record thank you so Mr Sharma you have submitted a request to the board formal request to extend the variance approval for 291 way uh which was approved by the board adjustment on December 18th 2023 and was formally memorialized on January 22nd 20 24 um and if you just explain to the board the reason for the extension request so been working with the contractor for you know trying to get the plans finalized and du to actually add extensive uh work related travel for the last year and because of which there have been some difficulty in getting the permits and all those things filed so I'm hopeful this year that I will be able to get all those things done submitted and be able to start the construction and for how long are you requesting one year hopeful and but I'm hopeful that I should be able to get that per in the next six months or sure sure so the application um involve uh renovation and expansion of the single family dwelling on 29 Winding Way was numerous requests for variance relief um excuse me granted relief for building coverage granted relief for front yard setback granted relief for floor area ratio and it's up to the board as to whether they of course a want to Grant or deny the request and if you're inclined to Grant the request the ask is for one year but certainly this board has granted um extensions for less time than that depending on the circumstances up to the board thank you um I I would just start by saying that I would be comfortable um approving this request but I would be more comfortable approving it for um six months just due to the fact that there is an F involved so if anyone wants to lay in you know I think that S I guess the question I would have for the applicant is is you had a year I know obviously you had some difficulties in being able to finish the plan but you really need a little year can you do it in six months well I'm hopeful that I could do it in six months but the year was just in case if some other situation arise to have that option well we said you had to do in six months you you think you not be able to do I mean we already in February so 6 months means like I would have to get started I guess by end of August or so I could try again the board really strongly feels if the board strongly feels I mean I I would try we would he have to be finished in six months or just start po permits get started with the construction so just to get started and when we just REM we typically um Grant these requests for a period of time it's less one year it's basically to make to sort of keep the act on a shorter leash just to after six months they're not ready to start you have them come back and explain why you're still not ready to start construction now it's a year and a half after I assume work has been done you're working with got yeah I woulds you need more just a quick question another point of clarification have any of these variances changed in regards to the ordinances in the township time to change any of these ordinances since that's I don't believe so I wouldn't do you know the only thing that may have changed is the front yard setback I I don't know that he would that he would require a setback at this point but everything else Remains the Same as far as the percentages he would be requiring addition just to be clear you're still working with the Architects on finalizing the building the construction drawing I do your points about you know six months I I could be I could go either 6 months or 12 months if it gives more Comfort I would be okay with that but okay whatever long ability to come back does someone want to make a motion make a motion to extend I second oh wait 395 -23 long six months I'm so sorry sh yes George Aang yes Gary Rosen yes Viria TR yes be sa yes Joseph corfield yes Des yes okay so six exion thank okay next up we have a 34 Winding Way for S you find he I don't know yes certification I don't have me I will put that on the record right I guess we could just indicate that shandre Joe and Jo have listened to the respective tapes to thank you good evening members of the zoning board my name is ridar I'm here as a licensed architect representing my client Mr Singh Mr git Singh I have a bachelor's degree in architecture I'm P card certified and I hold an active license in the state of New York New Jersey and Maryland I've testified before many boards in New Jersey my professional address is 81 Falcon Road Livingston New Jersey thank you you you were already thank you thank you um should I describe the project right from the beginning or go straight away where we stopped last whatever why you uh because it's been a while why don't you remind of what happened last thank you and a little bit about sure so the subject property is 34 Winding Way Melbourne the property is located in R six Zone lot is 11 block is 1712 it's this application is is about a colonial style single family detached home it's two stories with unfinished basement five bedrooms three bathrooms and doesn't have a car garage right now so we have been before the board before in uh 2024 December and uh where we were proposing initially a two- story Edition we had the one car garage on the ground floor and then on the second floor we had a recreational room and um our ask was about the setbacks the F we heard the board's concern there were a couple of concern in terms of the massing the square footage of the project Edition and we are now we've come back with the revised drawings the drawings now show one car garage that's proposed which is attached to the existing home it's a 286 ft of addition overall height is about 15 ft I'm sorry before you said the height you mention this s yes 28 six the proposed exceed your finishes would be vinyl and backboard siding with asphal shingle roof um I can review all the variances that are in the application with the proposed addition did you eliminate any of the variances yes we did why don't we start with the variances that as sure so earlier our our addition was more than 18 ft that kicked in couple of sight setback uh variants uh we got rid of the second floor so now it's just one story the overall height is 15 ft so we could get rid of one of the side set bags that was for more than 18 ft so um we comply with the sidey setback I first wanted to mention that with this addition the side setback is 8 ft and that's the minimum required on the side where the proposed addition is coming coming the each side setback for the building more than 18 ft is reflected on the left side of the house and the right side the left side is the one where the proposed addition is coming we are compliant with the S set back which is a the right side is the one which is a pre-existing non-conforming condition and it's about 7' 358 again it's a pre-existing non-conforming condition we are not doing any addition on that side the side where we are doing the addition is 8 ft uh which is compliant the other variance uh is about the combined side yard setback which must be 35% of the lot overall 26.6 feet minimum uh with the setbacks that we have we are coming up to about 20.1% Which is less than 35% so asking for a variance on the combined side set back we compliant with the height we compliant with the red set back uh the building coverage is also comp also complies as is 20.5 the required is minimum is 20 uh maximum is 23% of the site area um the maximum lot coverage U is 45% of the site area and we comply with it ours is 23 29.3% Which is less than 45% of the site area the last variance which I want to talk about is the F variance and and uh with the addition which is about 20 and um 86 86 think here square feet uh we trigger that F variance it basically comes out to be 2.2% of the uh variance request and the minimum allowed is 36% so it comes out to be uh 38.2 proposed overall maximum maximum maximum proposed what 38.2% overall so last time you were here I think what you were proposing was 41.3% terms of at that so it's 249 Square F feet more than what's allowed so just if I could ask another clarifying question so the documents we have um that are actually on the website are they correct or are they old I sent it this morning so they should they put up that's what you put up okay this this this one uh no these are the old forms the document that yeah so the the plans that you're relying on now what's theion of those um It's 121 2025 and everything is bubbled and uh there's a Delta one next to it which shows all the changes I got that right there are two vares one is the combined sidey set correct which is I guess you you need to be at 35% but you are at 20.1% 20.1% correct this F Beyond 2.2% required 36% that turns out be9 249 sare ft and um the the third one is which actually is a non-conforming condition it's not something that's triggered because of our addition is the side yard setback um I'm not sure whether this would get counted as a variance now because we're not doing anything on that side so it's a grandfather situation talking about the s on the right side yeah 7358 yeah but that's not counted as a variance that you're requesting because it's preexisting preexisting so just combined step back and yes so we're not asking for four variances now so this is just two all right so all I just want to make sure because what's online has four and our agenda has the FD is also much higher than what they asking for on that yeah those were the forms that were submitted have access toet Oh you mean this um anything else um I just want to talk about the two key factors uh that for which we asking the variant one is the irregular shape of the lck it has a unique Topography of the site where oneir of the site is has a huge slope at the back and that is something with along with a 15 ft easement at the back and uh these situations they create a unique situation for us not to locate a detached car garage in the rear of the property which could have been one of the cases for its location uh and that kind of the steep slope prevents us from it's kind of creates a design challenge for us in terms of locating the garage uh second is a lack of car garage and all the homes in the neighborhood they either have one car garage or a two car garage and when my client bought the property he did not have any U car garage currently he Parks his car on the Asal driveway he has two kids it would be good and helpful for him if he gets one car garage so that he can access his home inside from the carage and it will make his life much easier um I also want to point out about the um from the aesthetic standpoint this it's a very moderate Edition it's uh it's going to merge with the Aesthetics of the uh neighborhood the style of the home relates with the neighborhood and uh even the character of the house merges well with what's existing on the street and uh adding one car garage with be quite a helpful uh situation for my client and plus would increase the Aesthetics and overall look of the straight um I want to go with the negative criteria I don't see any substantial traffic increase due to this addition it's not hurting the property value of the neighborhood and uh in fact this addition would improve the value of the property U it would increase the Aesthetics of the house and fit well with the neighborhood design Style um it doesn't create a substantial detriment to the public good desid would not create any further drainage issues because it's the uh the rainwater lines would be connected to the existing U storm lines hence no substantial in impact and not a detriment so in conclusion I respectfully asked the board for the approval of the variants as it would allow the homeowner to at least have one car garage and in turn also maintain the visual balance of thank you thanks just a clarifying question this house used to have a garage didn't it is this the one that if I'm recalling correctly it used to have a garage but it was but did this homeowner make that change that they built them so it was long back before he even bought the property when he had the property when he bought the property it there was no car garage I think what might have happened is that the earlier homeowner would have done work without permits taken over that space that's our assumption so when he bought it it was I think 20 2020 when he bought the property that that time there was no car garage so but there used to be one it was the house was built with one and then the previous homeowner it used access humor me here because you're asking for f what would happen if you restored that garage to where it was it's the access first of all is from the side it's a side add access to the uh to that future room it's a recreational room which well now integrates well with the whole design of the house so it's it's now very difficult to kind of remove it and bring it back to a garage now right but I guess you put I guess that living space in the basement it's just that it's it's it is in the basement the garage was in the basement well was on the left side get the kitchen so the previous garage was next to she left side on left side it was slab on grade I don't think it was on the basement it's where the one of the family room is now you can flip your page to a1. yeah so that was the that was the family room and the driveway is where the is on that yeah that's the where Bo the car in that particular picture there's a car right there right yes yeah and just to be clear you took off the Second Story right this is purely being used as correct just bare minimum what he can and especially we reduce the size of the one car garage we bought it to 22 ft 13 22 by 13 ft which is just bare minimum just so that he can have at least one car garage and you're not you're not allowed to park on the street overnight is that correct I I think so again that's something I would like to check with him but he currently pars on the RightWay of the property yes um how is this property compared to the others in the neighborhood in terms of is it an oversized lot or an undersized lot or just right so the lot is uh the standard lot size is 6,000 square ft uh ours is 11,000 but we have a unique situation where at least oneir of the lot is has a steep slope something that cannot be used at all in fact he will be putting a fence in the back for the safety of his kids because that's something has like a 15 20 ft deep slope with the East Mo so um I don't know if I answered your question no you did thanks you mentioned the lot the garage is Sprint 2 by3 how high is it 15 15 ft is the maximum height and we were very aware of that because if it goes beyond 18 ft it triggers a side yard setback which we wanted to avoid so bare minimum whatever we can do to just have um in terms of the square footage in terms of the height so we don't we respecting all the variances and we don't trigger any additional variances in our application any other questions from the board do anyone in the audience who has any questions question is there any proposed um drainage like how the water will just run off the so uh yeah I mentioned uh the roof drains would be connected Underground to the existing St any questions from the audience any comments from the audience I'm the public por um MERS just remind the board VAR that requ I mean I'm a little bit torn about it I I I do appreciate that I think you scale back signicant Gage I think a little too much mass it is a largish house for that space the neighbors so I'm not wor about additional area being added to the I do think having a garage is not unreasonable as I I think I would not be supporting this eliminated some time ago and then now that's back taken the advantage of the additional space the whole that's not the case so I think you know I think you um uh scale back the projects specially to at least be a minimum of what you need um so I mean think I would be a about the m I would say this is quite a modate ask after couple round of modification and um it's basically meeting your your needs that you don't have right now so I would be supported than I think I don't think that based on the testimony I heard uh I don't think the current owner should be penalized for something that was taken away a garage taken away by the prior owner uh and given that it is it's not a nice to have I think a garage is a necessity I I think I could be supported as well and given that there is also steep slope at the back which has been thoughtfully considered and decided against that it cannot use that area uh adding this while it does increase massing is significantly less than what was originally proposed with two two levels so with this one level garage I could be support of the I'll follow up on that I I could be supported with this as well as far as you being able to scale it back from what it was initially with the Second Story on it that was that went long way um I the reason I mentioned that the parking overnight you can't park your car anywhere in town overnight so it's almost requiring that you have some offsite parking or street parking and the garage would make a big difference here um like shandre said as well the lot is I mean it drops way off in the back of the mod in St step Cemetery there so it's it's there's a lot of it that's not really usable um so I could be support of this with the side guard uh combined side guard variant as well I'll go I'll go next I'm a little bit concerned about how close you are to the neighbors with this but I don't see any neighbors here complaining quite frankly so I'm guessing that they're they're okay with this for um um and you have scaled back a lot which we which I appreciate my only concern be lighting but it doesn't look like you have Lighting on that the neighbor side correct no we did uh so it's only on the front where the door is right and it presumably wouldn't have a light shining in the neighbor right so it's a garage so um so I don't love it but I I'll be supportive of it because I feel like it's it's a hardship that he doesn't he moveed into a house that doesn't have a garage and uh there's really no other place to reasonably put it than you yeah I mean I would agree with all my fellow board members there's a clear part ship here with the property um Ian anyone who's been back there it is a steep drop off um completely unusable land so I do think that it's deceiving to you know that that it is an oversized lot but it's an oversized lot where really a lot of it is not usable um I I likewise don't think it's fair to penalize an applicant um you know for for something that they you know a problem that they didn't cause so I think it's unreasonable to expect that someone is GNA go and tear apart you know a chunk of their house to you know when they didn't they didn't decide to you know uh take away the garage in the first place um I'm happy to see that the applicant um has scaled back the garage and turn it into purely a garage and the minimum amount that you need to park a car in and we have ordinances in this town that you need a garage you know you're not allowed to BU the house without a garage circumstances so I think that that's um you know helping the the you know master plan of the town as well that you're giv back garage um so I would be in in favor of this too um would anyone like to make a motion I we should probably we're gonna I guess divide it into two we'll do up there I don't know if you do based on coms okay all right then we one sure I'll make a motion to approve calendar 43-24 second shre yes Geor yes Gary Rosen yes vir TR yes Jose yes Jess yes thank you so much thank you for your timeck okay next up we have calendar 42124 35 a Spring Street and the applicant is our Richard skck from my own Law Firm on behalf of the Apple ha Wang and CH gal as you mentioned chairwoman 35a Spring Street it's block 901 Lot 21 qualifier c00 a it's one half of a two family home unfortunately there is no garage here thus there's no place for bicycles Lawn Equipment the old coffee maker boxes Sports equip that sort of thing so we're asking for a shed permission for a shed it's 200 square feet in total that's the sum total of this application the dimensions are 12.5 by 16 we are over on lot coverage and building coverage so that 200 square feet is an increase of 2.5% on building coverage and lot coverage I have my Roth he's both an engineer and a planner to go through the plan and offer some rationale based upon both the C1 and the C2 criteria for the new board member we're gonna be talking about the criteria c-1 and c-2 those are the buckets if you will that the legislature has told us the proofs that we could come in or the reasons so we're going to have just a little bit of testimony on both of those uh two uh types of buckets of criteria so with that if I could uh qualify Mr Roth do you swear from testimony about to G tonight's proceeding be the truth whole truth by the truth yes I did just state your name for the record sure Michel Roth Last them spelled r engineer and Mike can you provide your qualifications as both a civil engineer and a planner sure um I'm the owner of uh my company I've designed and managed several projects throughout the state just like the one I'll be talking about tonight that's on the board there I graduated with the bachelor degree of science uh from n n jit um I've also licensed PE and PP in the state my full licenses are a good standing um I've been before several lus boards previously however this is my first appearance before this board I look forward to uh presenting this project toight you've been qualified by these other boards I know as a civil engineer and also as a planner on some applications that we worked on together over the years that is correct yes okay chair I would submit Mr Roth as an expert planning and Engineering okay Mike you wna uh just call out the sheet number why don't you go on that side I think it's gonna be a little easier so I'm referencing um the zoning plan just GNA don't want to be too too loud in here uh with the mic um so I'm referencing the the zoning plan dated uh November 8 2024 this plan um was um um um submitted to the board therefore I won't mark it it's part of the uh application package uh what you see here is is two views we're going to start with the left view which is what the property is uh today um existing conditions so the subject property is Lot 21 of block 901 located at 35 Spring Street the area of the lot is 7,991 square fet and consist of a two family dwelling that's labeled as 35a for the West unit on the left side and 35b for the East unit on the right side uh located in the R7 Zone District uh this project is for 35a Spring Street which is the left side unit um the existing dwelling is set back 11.9 feet from the front property line 8 ft from the East side Lot line 7.3 ft from the west side lot line and 81.2 ft from the rear lot line um access to 35a Spring Street is by the existing dryway that runs along the left side property line um and connects to a rear parking area uh behind the building um as mentioned uh there's no um uh um garage on the property today there's no other structures besides the existing dwelling for 35a the sides and rear of the property are bounded by white board on board fencing to Pro that provide privacy to the neighboring properties and the existing building coverage is 25.7% which is a pre-existing nonconformity condition as the maximum is 25% the block coverage is 58.8% which is also a pre-existing condition as the maximum is 45% so that's the current conditions on the property the existing conditions we're now flip to the proposed condition which is the right view uh the project is proposing a a shed which is shaded uh at the rear of the property uh the proposed shed is 122 fet by 16 feet with an area of 200 square feet the shed is proposed 9 feet from the left side property line and 4 and2 ft from the rear property line which complies with the minimum 4 foot requirement uh the shed is the only uh proposed change to the project uh no modific applications are being proposed to the dwell in or other site features uh therefore the project results a just a very minor 2.5% increase um to the pre-existing nonconforming building coverage and lot coverage so therefore it brings our building coverage up to 28.2% and the lot coverage up to 61.3% and variances are um requested for for each of those items which are only two variances we're asking for and Mike in my opening statement I said we would offer some rationale under the C2 criteria that's where there's benefits to the public can you talk here about how the uh application has benefits to the public and the furtherance of those goals that are set forth in the municipal land use law sure so to satisfy the C2 criteria the development proposal uh promotes purposes of the ml which include Purp G to provide sufficient space for this use as the proposed shed complies with the setback requirements and perpi for promoting desirable visual um um as the proposed shed will uh color of the shed is proposed to be white that matches the color tone of the property and is also consistent with the dwelling and fencing on the property okay would you um offer an opinion as to whether at least some story is generally appropriate for a single family unit or a duplex type unit here yes and particularly for this this lot there's no opportunity for storage on the property today uh we feel that a detach shed is best suited for for this typ used to provide storage for this homeowner and that would serve that goal of zoning which says uh uh there should be appropriate uh densities and appropriate uses for a variety of different types that is correct okay uh can we add some Landscaping here also to uh have at least a little additional public benefit we talked about that yes yeah so um there's there's current Landscaping in the back part of the property today uh there's trees on pretty much all four corners we're going to propose uh two two more shrubs to further um you know benefit the uh the backyard and and and area and and mitigate that increase in building and imp C we also talked about the C1 criteria uh the chairwoman referred to that uh by a common name called hardship but really refers to physical characteristics of the property is there some rationale under that also would you say uh with your planners had on yes absolutely the hardship component to satisfy the C1 um uh criteria is the uh location of the existing dwelling and driveways it falls on the property where there's really no room to add any attached garage or feature for storage as it would impact the rear parking area which also serves as a turnaround area uh therefore we feel that there's a C1 um part of the project component to it and uh the balance of the C1 is you're not supposed to propose anything that's so oversized that sort of out of character would you say that uh this proposed shed is uh reasonable and size certainly given the one right on the other parcel there and in the neighborhood yes absolutely yeah especially for these types of lives that are somewhat narrow but deep it's it's very common to have some sort of detached uh garage or or structure or shed that's separate in into the rear dwelling and we're actually smaller than the one on the other unit uh that's on the same it's not the same tax parcel but also 35 spring correct corre where a there b they have some sort of existing uh garage there which appears to be a little bit larger that's correct anything else Mike and the negative criteria here you see any um no um I feel that the project results no uh substantial detriment to the public good um again we meet the setback requirements for the shed it's just two minor variances for that slight increase in in coverage for for building coverage and also for LW coverage chairwoman that's the basics here fairly simple application uh submit it's a a reasonably sized shed a reasonable compromise on on what is a a tight situation is it a prefab shed do you have a picture of what it's look like now you got to get swor in here stand up and yeah hold on right right hand here do you swear from testimony this proceeding truth truth truth yes I do why don't you come over here closer to the how have you pic picked out the architectural so the the plan is to duplicate what my neighbor has just to make things consistent and make it like a whole one prodct property so it's most likely it's not going to be a prefab so it's going to look like the one on the on the unit B yes but it's smaller smaller okay um is it materially smaller it says 319 Square ft for is that an accurate number Mike do you have the number so that' be 50% this would be 50% smaller right yeah yeah the proposed shed on 35a is is 200 square feet but the one but this says the one on B is 319 that's correct so this one's materially smaller than the one correct the one is it like same height I I think measure is like 15 ft so it's a 15 foot to I'm curious uh I know it's not your property but you're saying that you're trying to you know make it consistent with 35 Fe um did did you are you did they come before the zoning board to get oh I spoke as my uh unb owner that's where we agreed oh he he didn't come to the board I we did a little research it's it's it's very tough to do research here on what's happened because of the way the ordinances are cataloged you have to know the year which is impossible I think it was an old Hors shed of something of of that nature that has been there for a very long time my opinion for what it's worth but you can't just give the address of the block and lot and try to get a resolution unfortunately oh come on Miss DAV we've done it you get a thing back tell us what year I'm like well I don't know what year this was we account I did a back I did a a search to the STL portal I did not see any permits for anything to be built so I don't know if that just was has been here for quite a while unfortunately he took all I yeah I don't know did I did I serve you up was that fair Miss davit did I I'm gonna here okay Miss D so um this is a condominium right this property there there's a condominium but there is a separate uh deed for each parcel well right that's okay but the question is if if it is a condominium is this intended to be a limited common element of the condominium no it's not going to be a common element I don't well if it's if it's condominium there's General common element and limited common element so I just want to know for resolution what is it I'll have to let you know but there's a there there is a condo association that has certain responsibilities but in researching the project there was indeed just for 35a to my client and his wife so they don't own shares a Condominium Association in that regard I don't think it should make a difference for Lan use purposes but I didn't set it up so I'm not I'm not sure it's it's relevant but I can let you know uh I think they're going to be responsible for it because you're not responsible for the other yeah thean covers the like common items but we each cover our own sites what is in lot on the property I believe those are single family dwellings that have Frontage on not sure what the street further north is to it but they they're essentially back to back loots you know how far those homes are from the property line the neighbors's homes to our property line I don't have a survey of that property I don't I don't know uh so in the back of this property kind landscap isn't there a fence back there Mike yeah there's there's a board on board privacy fence you can't when you're back there in the backyard you can't see correct yeah there's a is there any landscap in there just on the neighbor's property or our on this property yeah there's ask but yes on our property there's existing Landscaping there's there's four trees one in each Corner as we mentioned in testimony we're going to add to that we're going to propose two two more shrubs on the property nothing problem no Landscaping in the back that would minimize the ability to see The Shed from the the houses behind correct that the shed will extend above where the fence is but it's going to be a nice white shed that kind of matches with the white board on Bo fence so in terms of a visual impact I don't really see anything the Landscaping will be around the property line or will it be around the shed to do that're we're probably G to put it along the side uh property uh along the the left side property and then along the the right side that kind of splits the condo units to provide a balance for the property there's there's trees on all four corners so we figured we'd provide a nice balance there by providing those other two and the lot coverage is I me it's it's substantial your addition is not adding a lot to the current but you're up to 61% did you do any analysis of lot coverages in that uh not in terms of analyzing each property uh we did look at the um uh aerial imagery of the entire kind of streetcape and uh we feel that we we kind of fall in place with what's what's there and again based upon the geometry of the lot um narrow a lot but deep lot one of the common themes I came I I realized from that is that majority of those lots do have detached structures to the rear because that tightness doesn't allow a lot of room for attached garages and in our case it would impact our U turnaround area behind the building I think it may have been an old horse barn a lot of those I could be wrong but well sort of rehab but over time a number of the houses a number of the houses back there have uh what appear to be older sheds in the back but professional engineer was talking in terms of cover you propos any typ ofor water management uh there's there's no further storm water being proposed I I'll describe the drainage patterns uh right now in the prty today um you know the lawn area um located at the back flows towards the driveway comes to the street uh where it enters the the street drainage doesn't impact the neighboring properties that's what's going to happen in the future once the shed's built so there's no impact to the uh the neighboring properties in terms of drainage and then those couped shrubs that we're can propos are going to also help offset that that increase the tree that's in the corner the like when you're facing it on the left that tree is staying right that's correct this may require um it will by the engineering department for their and I believe their number is 198 200 square feet so you might have to lose one square foot otherwise you might have to do just keep but that'll that'll go through engine it will and they'll determine whether they want if they want any kind of manag okay what material is going to be on the service for the it's it's a SL on and will the should be raised elevated at all just slightly more questions about the back how close will this shed be to the fence so it measures uh 4 and 1 half ft to the rear property line but and then to the to the fence it's about uh 2 feet approximately two so my concern is The Neighbors on the back there will see this pretty I mean it's going to exceed the the fence line by quite a bit um you and I would feel more comfortable if you could move forward and put some Evergreens there so they could block the view from the neighbors two feet feet you're not going to put anything maybe that's question is could you move it forward a little bit and try to put some I mean the trade won't survive back there because there there there's a fence and there's a you have to move you have to move the shed up a little but I'm just thinking about your neighbor's view from the back people that are back here probably aren't going to want to look at the back of the white sh how high does it extend beyond the F so it's a it's it's a slope sh so on the low side it's the same height as as a as a the fence how tall is the fence ah I I can't remember it look to be about four the fence in the back Mike do you remember uh no it wasn't the he isn't on the survey I don't recall I don't think it's is there a basement in this existing Tru yes it's it's inside the entrance is from inside so you have a is it a combin basement that you share with the the C Association you each have your own basement yes so you have storage uh it's indoor storage yes so I have to go through my living room the kitchen No Time room so for the coffee maker yes lawn yeah yeah yes we would we would agree to a condition approval that there' be no storage of coffee maker 15ot height on it shed that's a big shed right I I can't even I'm sorry I can't remember how tall 15 ft is my gas uh my neighbor's shed is it tie as the ceiling um no okay that's I'm 6 and probably Le eight I got that number wrong 15 shed is enormous yeah you have a little room to keep it a little lower yes we'll keep in line with my neighbors but I don't think it's 15 feet in height okay probably like eight yeah got that number what's is there a requirement for the height of an accessory structure be 18 feet tall my point is that a 15ot t all shed that's only 12 and a half by 16 is going to look very odd yes it's it's it's a one story structure so I guess it won't be a 15 just a question I mean both the lot and the building coverage are over by a lot right I mean so this is a large size which is you know certain size over the limits by by a lot now were you as the owner or you as a professional involved in the creation structure ing of this unit because there is no garage as you mentioned in this and still it's a very large structure by itself even before the addition I'm trying to understand if there is any you know involvement from your side either of your sides in this you just bought it yeah and when did you buy it just a couple years ago three years ago were you the original owner of this Comm unit the first owner uh I think was renovated I'm the first owner after renovation okay so reset this was like three years following up on what shandrew is saying it's really you're over and we that area is not necessarily in a flood zone but there is tremendous flooding down there we appreciate that and the impious coverage that you're that you're adding on to which was even grossly higher is even more so now we appreciate that you know that does balance against its 200 square feet um matching the other so we we appreciate that fact that we are over the suggestion is this is um a balance to get them something usable outside at 200 square feet of additional impervious I do have one question um in in this kind of townhouse or duac situation do we think about F do we need to take that into our consideration because we never talk about that and there no for NF variance I'm just looking to see here in terms of the zoning table did the FL I'm sorry go ahead no go ahead um yeah we didn't include F on the zoning table the proposed shed wouldn't change that um and therefore we we didn't include it was it already is the F already over the limit that is describ I'd have to go back and look through the um what we submitted application is there the just maybe you know the answer what is the square footage of the the structures of the whole building like all the levels do we have that some the number I published in the coverage table is the overall footprint of the dwelling which is approximately 1,700 sare ft that's the first the ground level ground level correct of both units both correct so two stories have two or three stories uh got three two and a half that the basement no no now can you commit to a height limit I think that the board's certainly concerned in part about the the coverage but in part about the bulk the bulking and the and the impact on the neighbor to the rear oh yeah so could you could you commit to a you you won't exceed the height of the existing or could you give a firm number here to give the board we know that I think we say 15 or 18 is permitted but can you commit to a maximum we'll stay we'll stay at the maximum height as my neighbors sh what is that me picture I on my phone how could you live with 10 feet Max do you think or yes 10 feet is is very high I think I think his shat is less than 10 probably eight so so this two and a half two and a half story what is the square footage of the home is that here it's not on the plants correct I'd have to give you a calculation we didn't include it because again not changing it it's 1,700 for both the units correct let's say it's half and half so 850t for each each Unit A and B approximately yeah and then is that sort of the Box structure so would that be fair to say that it's 850 on or you need um approximately so R we saying that this is somewhere around 2,000 sare ft 2 and half story is that fair to say or probably slightly less I would say the square footage of your unit do you know that so if it's 800 time 800600 you have half of a third floor what's on the top level bedrooms yeah just a just a bedroom how many bedrooms you got up just one there just one bedroom and a bath up there on the top floor so 400 square ft something like I'm approximate 1800 16 to 1800 square foot mod modest size we're we're trying to make it a little more workable by having something outside for bicycles Lawn Equipment sports equipment uh that sort of thing so that there's a balance there we we appreciate there certainly is an existing coverage situation it's there I think the change is is uh is is very modest at 200 square feet to uh like other applications try to uh bring it to what a modern family is looking for in balance in Balance not not too much more but something that makes the the house in the use a little more functional did you consider um it's a very large driveway did you consider moving the shed closer to the driveway so you're using up some of that you know some of the space some of the coverage onto the driveway I think I Wason ask drive drive putting putting it on the drive yeah the the design intention was to you know preserve the the backyard area that there's some nice outdoor play Space uh which is why we put it towards the rear complying with the setback didn't want to touch the driveway again it provides access for the uh parking uh and also a backup area turning movements um which is why we propose it in the in the does the driveway need to be that big for the turning the movements I mean what about cutting off some of the driveway getting more grass down and we'd be reducing some of the coverage what's the width of the driveway there Mike yeah it's it's about um 28 ft is the width which once you have a car parked a typical space would be 18 um although the car is is is less it although it does look like there's a lot of room on paper um you know that area is is needed for for parking um and for a backup area you know trying to even for someone to back up they're making a couple turning movements to get down the the narrow driveway um I I think it would be uh an impact to the U Traffic Safety on the property if we were to uh reduce the driveway back there looking at the Z project s the thei for that youer there but how many of those properties did you see had similar kind of sheds those properties look suly the same there's some variation yeah so especially on our side on our north side of Spring Street yeah most of them did have some sort of uh detach structure garage or shed Michael your scale up there um our our driveway on the left side approaches onto the neighbor could you just give an idea what the is the area that encroaches yeah did you see that on the Sur there yeah uh it's about a foot of an encroachment you know that runs the that's 60 ft um about 75 ft so that's even more improv coverage that's really not assessed for this L which understand but in that area that's even additional 100 squ ft follow might yeah correct so would you say the driveway is about 600 square ft the overall area of it yeah um the the entirety and again it was the zoning considers bolt Lots was uh approximately 2500 square ft so you know 1250 for each driveway approximately you have a suggestion Mr Simon possible suggestion may help us sort of bridge the gap here a little bit I appreciate the board's concerns I'm trying to find a way to make it work if I can without taking too much time right so um if you look at the deviation in terms of coverage um for lock coverage in particular at 16.3% and you know even though we're talking about a 200t shed reducing coverage doesn't just go to storm water impacts it also you know go yes still have to also satisfy the the negative criteria and provided proofs for C1 to C2 um seems like that there may be opportunity here to reduce lock coverage in that by two minutes driveway area where you would certainly be able to get more than two cars easy part even if you reduce do you understand that how what the what the concern is and how they're trying to address it you're adding the 200 and the suggestion is if you can sort of niit and Tuck and and find a little find some area to take away pavement and add a little grass somewhere I think that's G to help the board come to a favorable conclusion we can try to come up with some square footage or we can come back another night I obviously prefer not to to to do that but if you could commit to something we can see if it can make sense for the board otherwise we sort have to come back I'll just step in I I think the the the vi that I'm getting from the board is that we would like to have you come back we'd like to see you know really what this is going to look like we'd like a you know a rendering of you know with with the exact height um I don't you know I don't want yeah Mr stated that it was it was renovated and you were the first owner once it was redone you know itru I think it was 2019 2019 yeah maybe we could check and see if like if they were allowed this variously to come before it was just well the existing right now it prior to that that the shed on the other side is what puts interior no variances and the you're saying that the the existing over prag from the other take the 319 because 45% comes out to 3276 once you add the 319 Square F feet it kind of puts them up at the um not making sense was a 58 yeah chairwoman so I can get you looking for a rendering with the height you think would be helpful and any sort of helpful if you could get any sort some of the um driveway some of the lck coverage okay we he you it would help me if you could have the Landscaping plan a little more I'm trying to avoid having to bring Mr Roth back um maybe we could do some where he shows it I don't think it's going to be tooo complicated any of those things a couple of trees the rendering might be a u a cut sheet from uh some some some vendor maybe we could uh try to do it I'm just concerned about the cost of the application positionally where where the okay so neighbor structure the back how far is that structure so we want to put the um on a on an aial uh with the neighbor in the back okay okay how I think the board is saying they want you to work a little harder and uh see what we can do to try to take a harder look at the impervious and the landscaping and have some more detail okay so we're going to ask that the board carry us to meeting March 3rd and March 17 St Patrick's Day mbour Drinking um can we try for March 3rd I'm on vacation on March 17 okay we'll try to get something to here pretty quickly we appreciate chair one would you make the usual announcement I don't I don't think there's any neighbors here but this matter is going to be carried to March 3rd um there's no o' in this location no further notice will be provided to the public yeah know is there anyone in the audience here for this application okay we appreciate your time we'll come back with that information and take a hard look and see if we can uh clip a little bit thank you thank you thank you okay um last up we calendar 9914 36 the uh good evening uh Madam chair members of the board counselor uh Stephen aalen appearing on behalf of the uh applicant and owner of the property the applicant uh actually Madam chair is three 68 heart shorn LLC um Mr O'Brien is the sole member of that LLC so he is here tonight U as well uh so I never like the fact that um when the agenda's changed and I'm pushed last I thinking I should wear maybe an armor vest but uh we are where we are um let me just give a brief background um about this matter I'm sure the board is aware some my client did appear last time without councel uh I got involved several weeks ago I was called by Mr O'Brien uh regarding this matter he was somewhat in a panic not understanding exactly what was going on but needed to retain an attorney uh to appear before you tonight U so I got I was recently involved in the matter U Mr Keller is is our engineer and planner um and I have worked with Mr Keller on on several other projects on very familiar with him uh so let me just give you a brief background the applicant and owner um purchased this parcel approximately five years ago it was a vacant lot uh he purchased it with the intent uh to have a home built on the property and to sell it it was an investment property um Mr O'Brien is a resident of Short Hills he's been here since 2006 um so his intent was to do this not for himself but as an investment Pro property uh he was literally just providing the funds for the project what happened approximately four years ago he started construction on the project it was completed approximately a year and a half ago when there was a final inspection of the property your assistant engineer flagged certain conditions that did not conform to the original lock rating plan that was filed um four years ago when the property started so that triggered certain variances and I'll just go through them quickly uh right now so one of the variances uh is a violation of 68.5 your steep slope ordinance uh where there's a th squ foot uh permitted disturbance and we are at 2750 square feet there's also variance uh ordinance 68.7 point1 which is a variance regarding the separation of retaining walls uh where four feet is required and we were slightly under the four feet separation and then there is uh ordinance 69.6 pointb which is the combined fence and Wall height is a 6 foot maximum when we're at 10t so Mr Keller will obviously go through them in more detail in the plan as it is so we are in a position tonight of having constructed something that wasn't approved and now come before the board to request a variance for these conditions again I want to just clarify when my client um is the owner of the property property the LLC is he is not the Builder or the general contractor on the project he he did UST the building of the property to the Builder so at one point during the construction as I understand it and there'll be some testimony tonight regarding this the contractors said you know why don't we create a flat section of this beer yard because right now you have slopes and there's no flat area uh for a recreation area for an eventual family and likely kids to be on the property and they wanted to create like around 1500 square foot flat area so so my client was like sure that sounds great let's do it uh and that was the end of his involvement in it um so the contractor went ahead and installed the retaining walls uh as I understand it um the the foundation for those walls were inspected by the building department and and approved uh now this is not to say the building department did anything wrong because they may not had access to the original lock rating plan didn't understand they weren't on the original lock rating plan in any event um my client is now looking to sell the property it's been five years the construction is done but before he sells it he needs to get a certificate of occupancy to get that obviously he needs to come before you and ask for these uh variances uh you will hear testimony tonight from our engineer Rich Keller as an engineer and a plan uh he does have knowledge he prepared the original lot grading plan so he's familiar with the project um I also have my client Tim O'Brien who is here in case the board has any questions or uh for him or requires any more details U Mr Keller will give you a background of the property and the events that led up uh to why we're here tonight I only ask that the board consider the testimony and the justification a you're going to hear tonight uh for these variances and then and then rule accordingly uh with that being said I believe uh We've submitted uh or M Mr Keller has submitted revised plans anything we marked tonight uh that has not been submitted uh we will submit H starting with A1 uh for the exhibit number um with that being said if there's any questions I'll answer them otherwise I'd start with Mr K okay s from testimony about to given tonight's proceeding be the truth the whole truth not about the truth yes I do name for the record Richard Keller k l r with Casey and Keller okay Mr Keller I like to qualify you as a professional civil engineer planner can you give the board the benefit of your educational background and experience I think I'm I think i' repeated rebating each time somebody's going to pick up something give it for you I a lesson civil engineering plan in the state of New Jersey I've been licensed as a engineer in 1989 1990 as planner I held the Bachelor of Science in civil engineering for the concentration in water resources and environmental engineering and I also hold the masters of architecture for New Jersey Institute of Technology where I was also a natur professor in the architecture division both graduate undergraduate for approximately 11 years I've appeared before this board the planning board approximately 110 boards the student in New Jersey I have provided engineering consulting services to uh Township South Orange Village as well as for three years I was the planning board and board adjustment engineer in lill and I've also provided planning consulting services to the burough of Coldwell U my licenses are in good effect thank you can I just ask do we have copy updated plans yeah there was no updated plans so this is not as built this is this is the plans that the board has is is virtually identical to what I had before you I noticed that some of the shading didn't come out on your plan so I did reprint it and called it A1 but it is um A123 2025 but it's the same document as part of your package dated 48 2024 basically what we did is we put the original grading plan sorry So the plan that was submitted to the board that they reviewed is the plan dated April 18 2024 correct correct and you're you're marking a new exhibit correct a A1 what do you have I I dat the A1 is today's Daye 23225 okay but the drawing date in the title block remains the same as what you had before you and that was just because it appeared and I Haven looked at your plans but it appeared when I looked at the the PDF that not all of the shading for the steep slopes came out in the drawings that you have so I wanted to make sure that printer error didn't come up it printed too light to see so I I just decided to bring that with me today Market is A1 because it is slightly different but there's no additional information other than clarified steep slopes y and is A1 just one page A1 is one page correct does it say drawing too uh it does say drawing say drawing one on the bottom so maybe my original said too I'm not sure one here okay one yeah does that say one that says one I have one that says two I have one that says one and I have one that says two I think what we did is we gave uh Eileen an original copy and then when we submitted the full sets for the board we sub the intent was to substitute out that and get rid of that number two and I must have two copies the original copy that she deemed complete and scheduled and then we we submitted the uh 13 copies and one original is when we so I should be looking at one should be please that makes sense you start going over this D point you can just identify sort of what of this is and has built and what is the plan well we started this is actually represents an as built of what's on the site um whenever we go for a certificate of occupancy where there's any deviation whether it requires variance relief or not engineering insists that the the latest drawing in their file represents um that everything that was built was on our plans so in this case what we did is we took the asilt survey of where those walls exist today and we super we updated the grading plan and we showed a new steep slope disturbance line which is the heavy Blue Line you see around the steep slopes and so originally I think we had 874 and that goes up to I believe it's 257 uh sorry uh 2750 so whereas 1,000 square feet is permitted instead of 1,000 square feet we're now 1,750 ft over that permitted th000 Square ft for a total disturbance of 2750 so so this plan basically there's not much difference to this versus what was approved um but we did locate the walls exactly and got the heights exactly so that we made sure we were quantifying the amount of variants relief we're requesting um that was consistent with what we built and we didn't find there was a discrepancy of a few inches or a few feet the um the property um just to just to cross the teas and about the eyes um is a 29,0 98t lot in the R4 residential zone so it's an oversized lot where 20,000 foot lots are required it is located along hard drive where it curves from uh the R4 Zone into the R5 Zone to our left it is exactly at DET Terminus where actually where Western Drive uh te's into heart Shor Drive the um the lot was created by subdivision in 2017 when we split it off from the joining lot um that was uh the lot on the right had a 97,000 ft remaining so it was about five times what was required and the new lot had about 1.5 1.45 times the required uh 20,000 Square F feet uh and as is indicated in early 2019 um the parcel was purchased by uh 386 haror LLC with its s member Tim O Brien uh as an investment property um I had never met him and actually we had done work for Tim before because he's been a resident since 2007 he purchased the old Lo Residence at 105 old Short Hills Road on uh 1854 Farmhouse that uh Virginia low show for years um until the fire two years ago it was one that had all of the um the exuberant Christmas lights not overdone but exuberant Christmas lights along old short Hill's Road um uh as indicated they've been out of town with a fire so there's been a number of things that have um distracted Mr um uh O'Brien from kind of keeping on top of his contractors plans were submitted and approved in summer of 2019 work with Mike Chella uh actually a very good architect out of summit sent a couple of very high-end home editions in in town we're happy to work with him and unfortunately as is often the case even though I'd done a survey for Tim we hadn't start working on his pool yet at at 105 Ure Hills Road so all of my interaction was as is often with Mike chirella the architect and we labored over getting a house that fit into the property and also because the property is regularly shaped and that a piece of pie that CS back with a tail that extends back behind the home next to it um and we worked with the architect to Divine a series of uh stairs and patios that would uh not put us over the steep slope um requirements there is a swap of steep slopes that was um when we did the original subdivision we kind of showed when they constructed the property door they pushed a level pad created a swap of steep slopes that's been there for probably 40 years so I know our ordinance doesn't make a distinction between natural slopes and artificially created steep slopes but the purpose of the ordinance does so um there was this SWA that um there was a flat area off in that little flag off to the left little flat area at the top but the area right behind the patios um was steep at about 20 me uh 24 to 24 A5 per. so the um and I would say um you know contrary to or this is the last time you're going to see me on a Mula application I was here very recently and and contrary and I promise contrary to the last one where it was always the architect's idea to ultimately solve a problem by going for a variance that was not the case this my client was very clear um when we started in contact that they did not want to go for a variance they wanted to build what was what was shown sell the property and move on so there was certainly never uh an ulterior motive to to do a uh a uh to re request a variance the um so we received that fully compliant um approval to start construction um Mr O'Brien not being a seasoned contractor originally hired Bob mm who was the zoning officer from um May wood um a good reason to never retire shortly after he retired and was going to take on this project Mr M had a stroke and could not take on the project so um there was another referral a guy named Mike Malia started it was a little about his scope so after the foundations were installed um he was removed from the project and uh after cutting off his left thumb on the fourth day of cutting framing um just to show that we're a little jinxed here on this property um the um at that point point they hired PUO Brothers um on a referral um I had never worked with them but they began uh Construction Construction basically started right about the time that covid kicked off um uh actually uh that was shortly when uh Tim had one of um eight related um covid Strokes so Tim has been also kind of distracted and of course naturally not being a builder relied on his contractors to do what was correct um well that understanding those steep slope restrictions which are they're in a lot of towns but they're unique to Milburn a lot of towns like Livingston have completely um gone away with steep slope variants they've steep slope designated Lots which you have to do a report on um a lot of towns have realized that we are an already developed area and that uh these slopes um that are on these Residential Properties uh we can build on them we know how to build on them without causing any erosion or negative impact so unfortunately for contractors who claimed to know Milbourne but didn't um I think they were sort of unaware of the steep slope restrictions um so without consulting us uh without consulting um the zoning officer or the engineering department as construction war on for three years or so um the Builder said you know it's awfully steep above these walls we could do some decorative walls and then you word decorative was used quite a bit um and that's also a misconception amongst builders because if walls are less than 4 feet they generally don't require structural calculations they're considered landscape walls some towns call them decorative walls sometimes don't require permits for them um we do require permits and the caveat is when they are in steep slopes then we have some restrictions about the height of the walls and the separation of those walls Etc and obviously the Builder was not aware of the steep slope um just additional steep slope disturbance that was going to be created so again um although the there was no permits that we can tell were taken for the for the construction of the walls uh the footings the their modular block they don't actually have footings they have base courses there was inspections done by the building department um and I would say uh Craig pler actually had a meeting with the township officials and building code officials to sort of find ways of making sure that plans when they come in don't get routed directly into building that they from now on go to zoning so these kind of things don't happen in the future and that was just at the end of last year um shortly before Craig um retired um so the contractor um installed these walls there's a you can see the area above the wall that sits above you been site let me just go to my A2 exhibit A2 being dated today's date a22 23 2025 it is designated as photo board number one all photos were taken by myself on July 15th 2024 that's the date we originally thought we'd be here um photograph number one is looking up the driveway between the original property that we we subdivided off uh the subject property from 3 368 364 uh you can see it's relatively flat driveway as we come into the backyard you can see this is the planting strip right behind the the wall that uh finds the patio and you can see a relatively small flat area was created so that there was a player kids possibly a swing that could be put in there Etc um photograph number three shows the back of the existing house and this is another variant we need because the contractor was also not aware that placing a uh a fence on top of a wall if you don't separate it by three feet you have to aggregate the height of the fence and wall together and since fences or walls can't be higher than six feet in a backyard as soon as you put a 4 foot fence on top of a six foot wall you now have a 10- foot assembly so even though it's it's open and diaphanous and and doesn't create a sense of enclosure um the fact that that fence is put right on top of the wall does necessitate our third variant so two are related to the steep slopes and one is related to the location of the fence that jar fence style fence rod iron style fence on top of the wall you can see on photograph number four this is the house that's under construction it's it's much further along now um to our left or to the uh West and that is uh house on the left on construction of 370 and you can see our walls that step up and the walls that are in the back can really barely be seen even when you come up the driveway and look into the back so certainly from the street there's really no evidence and because we retain into the property the properties behind us can't see them so we're really creating a little Amphitheater on our own property it really has no visual negative impact on the neighbors um again here you can see in photograph number five this is the retaining wall around the patio um and there's that Jarett style fence with some Landscaping behind it by being black aluminum Road ion style you see the landscape through it and again it doesn't create that sense of enclosure and the same as number five is looking abely um from the outdoor um kitchen looking in that area now the reason that the contractor uh put the fence there is because they felt it would be a safer condition then putting it three feet back because at three feet back they were worried that kids could get it from the sides kind of play in that area the ball if you had a back the ball got in the area they'd run they find a wi from either side and they would run in there and they could possibly fall down that six foot fence so there was some safety logic to the rationale for that and I'll talk about why I think that that can be approved and me both positive and negative criteria in a second but that's a that's a photograph of what the site looks like least back in in July I was there today again uh sort of there's been no change because the it's been they haven't been able to put the house on the market for a year and a half now since we did the original survey go back to yep I think it would be helpful to the board to identify the significance of the dashed blue lines on the and then and then if you can tie that explanation into Board number so right now um the steep slopes that were on the site started about 3/4 away from the patio on the one side and then they went back and you can see there's the Shaded area the Blue Line indicates the amount of steep slopes disturbance that we're proving so originally we were just disturbing to about 3 feet behind that wall and maybe four feet behind that wall and nothing else was to be touched there was a small section of steep slaps on the left side of the back of the driveway um almost small enough to be exempt but it wasn't so we showed it so between these two property these two um gray areas we had a total of 8473 Square F feet the area we proposed to disturb or actually did disturb in that case there's an area on the left side and then there's the area behind the property those two areas Bound by the blue dash line represents a total of 2750 sare ft so the discrepancy or the increase over the original um 875 how went from 875 to 2750 essentially goes from that uh just behind the 398 Contour up the record reflects that you're drawing on A1 A1 correct so it's already exhibit so if we talk about so that's the increase in steep slope disturbance over the pered the record when you say that represents the purple crosshatch section I just drill on A1 and that represents an area that is at its deepest about 30 feet at its nominal point it's about 7t and it runs about 95 ft along that Ridge right in there so the cross hatch purple section is the amount uh we exceeded the original intent so we had about we had about uh 27 square feet available still so maybe that would take off a little tab but essentially the crosshatch purple area is the part of the property that uh We've increased the amount of steep slope disturbance Beyond what's permitted by code I would point out that it was not a grab to get a pool was not a grab to get an additional shed or an additional play area uh was really an area that I think the contractor made sense it would be helpful if there was a flatter area rather than having the only flattish area back where it's separated from the house and that the uh it would be a relatively simple wall construction which it was again um those walls in the walls are four feet and what's interesting is the walls actually technically um go a little above the grade behind and that allows for water to come behind be diverted around and ends up in our detention system but the walls didn't need to quite be 4 feet they probably about 3.75 ft they what they retain but the wall is four feet and when you have a four foot wall means your two four foot walls you need to separate them by four feet our our nominal separation at one point is 3.75 ft so the separation is off by about three inches um however you know it's because the Wall comes kind of CES above grade so we're almost the for and and in non- steep slopes the ordinance would say we could be separated by 3 feet I think as I've told this board in the past um the township engineer has opined on other steep slope Varian is that the need for that separation or the recommendation for that separation is to ensure that the walls don't interact but if they do interact you just need to show that you've designed the footings properly um there is the proper amount of geofabric Behind These so they are stable they've been up for almost two years now there's no of any um destabilization settlement around them there's no rotation they're well constructed walls that uh that uh do not uh have not moved since they were put in so no there are no there are there's nothing about those are those are four feet um range from four feet at high to 3.75 ft highs there is no um there's no fencing on top of those on the L it's only on the lower wall again that goes basically from I'm drawing a purple again I don't have another color with me so that basically goes from about there to there where you aggregate so it's on the left side from about the rear line of the house along the retaining wall that balance the patio curving and then doubling back towards the air conditioning units on the side that's where that fence is now that's where you have a six foot drop onto a patio up up above you have a 3.75 foot drop onto Landscaping which is where my kid would be jumping off every day with his bicycle or his snowboard but um what the uh the contractor felt it was more important to have some safety along the hard patio in the area if the kids are going to play in this area it's more likely balls are going to get out in that area and um separating 3.75 ft would Poss POS L allow for kids to get in from the sides and then still be exposed to that uh uh that drop so uh could that be moved back it could be moved back but it's uh it's fairly benign as was indicated by the photographs because of its open Nature again it doesn't feel like it encloses it doesn't feel like a safety hazard doesn't feel like a negative to the community um and uh it's it's it's done throughout the community whether it's done with by variant or preat preate zoning uh there are certainly evidence of it but but you know we don't know how they got there um so with regard to so those are the three variances we need um the uh again the area of flat area we created was about 1500 square F feet on this 29,100 foot lot uh and again the disturbance was not created in the service of creating additional accessory uses as we know flattening uh the slopes allows for stormw to run off to more efficiently be managed and to prevent accelerated runoff into our both our yard into the rear of the neighbors flattening the yard um actually slowed the water down uh and the fence on the top of the retaining wall represents what we think is a safer alternative than providing a three-foot separation as I said where children can access the top of the wall from the yard with regard to the positive criteria we think it is it again between uh C1 and C2 appearing in Municipal land law 4055 uh d70 C1 um and C1 is where the shape of the property and the existing what we think is man-made topography creates a hardship in creating even a small amount of recreational Green Space without the need for variance relief and C2 where the purposes of the land use act are Advanced and we think that's the that's the flexible uh C variant where the proposed plan represents a better planning alternative uh than a conforming plan and where the benefits outweigh the detriments we think that with regard to the Steep slop disturbance uh the purposes of the act under 4055 d two is a general welfare uh allows for the development of dwelling and yard that is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and with the amenities one would expect for a home in this neighborhood uh the project as developed represents a net uh benefit of the community in the form of a reduction of overall storm water runoff through the installation of the storm water collection system a recharge um all the water behind those walls uh the water from the walls is direct into the storm water management system so there's no negative impact created by the construction of those walls and with regard to the fence we think safety is Advanced um and certainly Aesthetics of the neighbors um the neighbors can't really see it all they see as a clear fence and they don't even necessarily see the wall That's below it with regard to the negative criteria um obviously we need to demonstrate the two prongs that there's no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan um and the mitigating any impacts on the neighborhood is it's barely seen from the street um there's existing land landcaping up on top of the walls and to the sides of the property that that limit and break down that mass so you don't see the the control the combined effect of the the fence and the wall is not solid um and then when it comes to the negative criteria um you know case law starting with um burb and running through Coventry square and then through a lot of other um through um some of the other case law that deals with height and things like that is the the courts have often said it's instructive to look at the purpose of the ordinance when you when you decide whether um on balance that the benefits outweigh the detriments and if we look at the purposes of the act and one of the things that's nice is this came down from a d uh mandate so unlike much of our ordinance it actually has a preamble that talks about um why the ordinance exists and it says under 68.1 these controls are provided to minimize the potentially adverse impacts associated to the disturbance of steeply sloped areas such regulations promote public health safety and Welfare in the township by limiting disturbance to soil and vegetation and controlling erosion in steeply sloped areas um and so the background under 68.2 is that um the feeling that disturbance of steep slope areas can result in accelerated erosion control processes from storm water runoff um I would point out that's not the case here actually soil erosion soil you know when you're talking about slopes that are 25% % that's actually less than Soil Conservation District allows you to implement so they they say you can go to 33% putting a slope in and you can still maintain that as lawn without having to do any kind of stabilization um flattening area um between the walls actually slows storm water down where it could be easily intercepted as it is now and routed into the storm water devices which is what's happened here um It also says that the subsequent sedimentation of water bodies with the associ U is associated with degradation of uh quality and loss of Aquatic Life there are no water bodies downhill to affect this U the related effects for the ordinance include soil loss um there's been no soil loss in Soil Conservation District we we received the plan we received the certification upon completion so there's been no erosion uh and that was certified by The Soil Conservation District changes in natural topography and drainage patterns and this is where we talk about natural topography and we would again cite that his steep slopes were created when the the house next door was built um we know that it's not natural I know that our ordinance doesn't make that distinction but I know a long time stalwart of this board and the township committee Mary mcnett that was the first thing she always asked on the Sleep s is were they natural and if if they were natural she felt like this really didn't it applied less and that's why I focus on that um increased flooding potential um there's no increased flooding potential we're slowing water down uh and we're collecting the roof water from this property into Stone water management system that was approved by the uh engineering department as well as the so conservation Service uh it talks about increasing flooding potential which it doesn't do further fragmentation of forest and habitat areas it really wasn't a forested area to begin with uh and compromise the aesthetic values we think that the retaining walls uh and the perimeter um along the property are um fully landscaped and attractive and because of the nature of us cutting into the slope there's really no negative aesthetic value um furthermore the ordinance says it has become widely recognized that disturbance of steep slop should be restricted or prevented based upon the impact disturbance of SE FL can have on water quality and quantity uh and the environmental Integrity of the Landscapes again water quality will not be affected there is no increase of of runoff um we know essentially how to build in steep SL areas I do agree that if if the intent was never to come for a variance if we had come for a variance ahead of time I think we could have made this argument and as Mr Caulfield has said the the board didn't have the opportunity to say could you make the building smaller couldn't you do something to mitigate against that but I think in this case the house really is appropriate to the size lot um I think that we would have been here either way I think if the contractor hadn't sold my client a lot of goods that this was fully conforming and it would be a better marketable product we would have built it I think what likely would have happened is the new buyer would have bought it and then I'd have been representing that owner coming before you in a year saying well you didn't build it but let's look at can we give you another thousand square feet of steep slopes um so I think that I think that there's good justification under C1 C2 about the positive and negative criterias to support this Arian relief the um the proposed house is consistent with homes in the community uh and the amenities uh reinforce the existing character of the neighborhood um one of the benefits of the work having been done for a year and a half is because we can see that there's been no negative impact to the property or neighborhood uh it's not inconsistent with the overriding purpose of the master plan to maintain the character of the township as a suburb of the highest quality um and I would also point out what concerns me when we looked at um you know the it might have been quick cheaper for my client to just get in there and backfill that area a year and a half ago and not come for the varing now we weren't we haven't been queued up in the v We I think we're supposed to be here last June so things have cascaded along but we discovered this probably six months before that it would have been probably cheaper in the long term to to to somehow bury those walls but we had some real concerns over the impact of getting Machinery back up there it's a difficult s to get in there to remove those walls and reestablish those steep slopes um I think it's less likely that those soils would be compacted as well as they were compacted naturally over the last 30 years I think that um some of the purposes of the Steep slow board that we're looking to protect erosion and non-control of of storm water I think is what we would create by trying to remove those walls and place um fill back in to recreate the 24% slopes that were there I have more concerns about that being a destabilized area causing uh problems for the patio for the new owner Etc down the line than I do with um uh the two walls which went in place to really slow down the erosion and slow down the water so um we think that it certainly could meet the criteria both positive negative under C1 and C2 and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions I don't have any questions I just want to just ask a question the for theal disturb when you go visit the property everything is obviously been constructed could you just show on the other like the actual photographs what was permitted was it really just the the whole patio area yeah the anything beyond that is not technically pered I'm drawing on A2 photograph number three about 3 to four feet behind the wall um essentially that slope would have gone from about this point up to that point so all of this would have been filled at about 23% coming down into this three- foot strip and then over the wall which you know we've got drainage behind this wall so this could be replaced with stone we could pick up some of that drainage in behind there um to make it a little better the fence could be technically moved back we could try to find an edge condition but I think it's pretty um Minimus in its visual impact on the site but from those two photographs I think that's the best um you'd see so essentially from here at photograph number six again if you just draw a line that comes down off that slope into this would be all sloping down into this area in here about 3 to four feet behind the the wall so basically the the patio area is really patio area is plus 3 four feet is the limit yep and again 23 to 25% is not crazy steep you can mow it but it's not it's not like you're going to play have a good game of catch up there with your kid let's put it that way it's it's it's sloping enough it's it's it's four to five on one so for every five feet you go out four feet go you go up one foot so if you're gonna play kick a soccer ball around my son played soccer at the top of sagore Road and if you lost the ball was down in Wyoming or down so he claimed he was a better soccer player for it um but it's um it's not an area that was really conducive the only area that you created some flat area to possibly throw a ball was really to go up make a left and go behind um the property to our left this one other question um if if someone purchases the house they want to put a pool in would they be able to um would they be able to structurally I think it be very difficult um I think they would be back to this board for another variance because it's really it' be really hard to get actually no the couldn't because we'd be over on lot coverage we be yeah we're we're budding up against our lot coverage now so absolutely any move to put a pool or even a spa in would require a trip back to this board I actually live in the neighborhood um anyway question just clarification you said that they were approved plans that didn't require varies correct why didn't the Builder ad here to them you know I I don't know everyone always gets this Bright Idea like oh the engineer was so St when it comes to steep slopes we're very careful about what we do and I work with the architect to create a series of walls and patios and Terraces that didn't require more than a thousand square feet of steep SLS inevitably um again when when we get detached from the project and and now I have letters that go out warning my clients that this is what they have to deal with I make them sign it if I get a client that if I get a builder that is designing something with what I think is an adequate backup get someone to sign it I'm trying to make sure that I get some penetration down to the end user but essentially at some point the Builder said you know that engineer is an idiot like all we have to do is do a couple of decorative walls which are fully permitted by code less than four feet and we could get a nice little play area for the kids and my client um lot of distractions but basically said if it meets code again part of the reason they moved to Short Hills is they went through a variant in Maplewood and said we're never going for a variant again they ended up on old sh Hills Road now here we are fast forward um and basically you know they are an in a local investor wasn't a builder and so no one called me no one ran this by Eileen's office which is what should have happened and I think if my client ever builds another house he will certainly make sure anything gets routed through if not me they always afraid I'm gonna charge them charge not here tonight no the the the Builder was fired um and the Builder is refusing to have anything to do with it he certainly wasn't going to come and admit in an open court that he didn't follow a plan because it would it would just be part of a lawsuit if this doesn't get approved it sounds a lot like the application that we heard from you yeah different circumstances though that one there was always sort of an intent that the way to work that make that property work was going to need variance at some point this one there was never that intent and just quickly you had made the comment that the lot wasn't for forested but was actually um most of it um we actually located the trees that were on it um the uh the trees that were um there were a couple of large trees most of the trees were in the back and the trees were on the adjoining property but the area that we remove trees those were um mostly 10 12 in there was a 15 and a 25 in so um over time because it had been a property that was attached to the other one it was like of course yeah well in fact yeah I will say you know it's interesting if you look at photographs from Highland Avenue from the turn of the century when Highland was created it's Farmland as far as you can see and now it is wooded and then the last thing you said manmade Hills presume but that's your assumption because you don't have any no but when we did the sub you can see they created a big Plateau for the house to be built sits at the very top drops to the back and you can see that the slopes were pushed you look at the joining properties they weren't they were more evenly graded and this was part of that property so when you see the slopes it was when they created they pushed a flat area it got steep through here and it went back to Natural slopes which was not steep so again when but part turn Drive is down here oh yeah it's up high but it wasn't steep it was it was less than it was roughly 15 or 12% but just a section here that it goes up to 20% and again when you have when you're coming up at 15% and then you see a steep section before a building pad it kind of Clues Us in I've studied the topography when we did the subdivision for gend do up on this property and you can see when you look at the whole ridge that there was a push to create a building pad here that had impacts on either side so it's it's my professional opinion okay but right it is a steep slope now it is a steep slope now yeah thanks but again you know we have an ordinance that prohibits disturbance of steep slope because there's the potential to do all these bad things so when you look at the purpose of the ordinance I think it allows us to move away from just looking at the numbers and saying well what is the real world impact on that excess 1500 foot or 1700 foot disturbance and and is it cutting against any of the purposes uh of which why of why we have Steep ordance and I think in this case it doesn't so that's why I think it it it deserves consideration under both C1 and C2 and certainly meets the negative criteria yeah we have the original um architectur on this I don't have the original architecturals we didn't have it last time either last we did um I think one of the reasons you appeared as this in July we Craig and I actually requested a whole bunch of oh I didn't somehow that and you did the survey in 2016 so that would show the trees that were there as well yeah well the trees that are on there the trees um this is the base survey so anywhere you see an X is where there was a tree oh okay so the all of the base survey is underneath that survey and the reason I about the architecturals is that a patio wall that was that was always part of the project yeah okay was it always going to be a six foot wall I think originally it was going to be a combination I think there was one height wall in here and we had a couple steps up uh to cut that down to it was like a two steps up to a 5ot wall and that was done away with but to know there was no increase in the impervious area they just decided rather than having a step up I think originally there might have been a a step change in the house but I'm not positive but I know one point we had two levels of patios roughly the same size maybe a I don't recall but the the the there always was a retaining wall holding back that steep slope area and what would what would it entail as far as bringing back the original slope well you there's no you know back um a while back we possibly could have gotten access through the neighboring properties that's really no longer possible so you'd have to um I think you'd have to remove the retaining wall um where you got the two uh two foot rise up into the upper patio you probably have to you probably damage most of that patio and you would either have to get a large machine up there enough to lift a back ho up into that area or you need to disassemble a significant portion of that wall to allow machines to get up in there you could technically probably knock off a foot on top of a foot on top of the upper wall and knock off two feet on top of the lower wall and then bury the walls and then create a 25% 24 and a half% slope that comes back into a point that's about uh 3 to 4 feet off the back of the exist T and then you'd have to rebuild your way back out rebuild the Pao rebuild the patio rebuild the wall that you damage Etc put that all back together because at one point before this house started construction we POS possibly could have come back and gotten in this way but there's really no access from the right no access from the left so it's really got to be up that left side and take apart consider on existing Pao and walls and then I'm concerned about again you know you get a back open there and yeah we can we can get guys with jumping jacks and they can do compaction but you always worried it's it's not as though it had 30 years of or 30 or 40 Years of of settlement back in there to create it so I always worry that if I'm creating um 25% slopes um if it's not backfill properly there's any problems with it a two things one is it automatically runs more water right against the back of the house down into that patio because we walls right now are intercepting that and accommodating into the dryw system and if I um if I if I let that run I get water on my patio which could be icing there are some inlets but there's not a lot of inlets um up there I could try reworking the grades a little bit on the top again to get a little Swale in there but I'm limited by that by that limit of steep disturbance if I try to go back to a performing plan um and then I worry about uh if if it's not compacted then I do risk getting erosion which is exactly what the ordinance seeks to perit you you know Mr as we were referring to another project we had that was something exactly similar the Builder went off road and did this and Mr Happ to be lock out that I promise I will never be here again for these things if you if you remember the we were here in July we actually had an obor I'm just wondering did did you or anybody speak to I I've met with uh Betty Grayson and Stan KW I've met them a number of times at their site um demonstrated that our project did not have an adverse impact on the drainage um Stan reluctantly agreed um that we didn't you know the water couldn't go across the center line up the curb and three feet up onto his property sort of got we walked the property during a heavy storm um and he sort of acquiesced that gravity does what gravity does and um I tried to make them aware of each time that I I emailed him personally both Betty and actually Stan each time we adjourned because we didn't from I I've emailed them each time um and I'm assuming based on my last conversation with Stan that he recognized I think when I when I offer to help him figure out his drainage problem she hasn't called me back yet but because it it it's nicly a drainage problem is caused by the development next door to him and some endemic problems on his own property so I think that they've been made comfortable their their only concern Betty's only concern from day one has been drainage and it was really just some bad feeling she had from the development that went on right next to her a few years back but I met with them at least three times question anyone else how far what is the elevation of this house above AR tell that exactly so it's 10et um above actually 9 ft above the curb right at the center of the property first the finished first floor so obviously when you come up we've got 390 down to 383 and a half so there's uh six and 1 half fet gray change one two three four five six and half fet gray change up to the walk and then you come up from 3910 up to 393 so you come up about 3 feet up the stairs the landing and finally the house so the house most it's most houses sit about two to two and a half feet above the grade all around so that they're protected from water that's about normal and as I said the so 12 14 no actually as I said to the finished floor not the not the not the ground to the fin Flor finished floor above the grade at this point I've got uh 9.4 feet if I come over to this side over here it's dropping so then I do come up to curve is 382 so I come up to about uh actually 383 so I come up to about from the low side it's about 99 ft from the from the middle it's about uh 7 to 8 ft and from the high side we're at 385 up to 3 so about 8 ft to the finished floor not the ground and with regard to this one variance the combined fence and Wall height would it help if you move the fence back a little I know you made the concern about um children being there I know um over the summer when I was there the first time um what would would it help variance if you move that fence back how far would you have to move f back to get rid of this variance three feet three feet so what would happen if you put Landscaping in front of the fence that would take care of your problem weing up children going in from the fence and falling down into the P unless unless you use Barberry or Holly um the kid GNA get there no matter what yeah look we could we could probably find a clunky Edge detail to wrap the fence into the top of the wall somehow into the railing so could it be moved back yeah we could we could eliminate that variance uh by moving that fence back three feet um across I think certainly across the entire back and the right side um I'd have to look it looks like we could do it throughout we might have a little problem on just the side of the house but certainly across the entire backyard we can push that back three feet and and comply put some kind of a bush or something in there's plants there now but anyway it's just low hanging cruit yeah we just we just move the fence on the other side of the landscaping that's already there it's not your biggest problem but yes correct thank you seems like the water management system around the periphery of the house is based on your testimony is working fine based on the walls kind of moves and goes into the storage Etc what about the rare end the tail end how's that sort of topography the water moving from the back end the one which is at the back of the neighbor the that the back end well we there's no changes so this continues to run down and whatever there's a new home here that has is under construction and so I'm sure they have a grading plan that takes into account whatever water comes off um the property in here but that was this has been this way since that was House was built back in the 60s so this has been this is an existing drainage pattern that we have not changed at all and obviously these guys here are under construction they would have had to get a grading plan with a with a a drainage um requirement of storm water management and if I was doing that I would be intercepting water coming off that hill and routing that around my property too so I'm assuming that they did that and that's what the engineer would have required So based on your your assessment goes towards the neighbor property not towards yeah this all by The Contours again the The Contours um water goes perpendicular to the Contour so you can see these Contours running this way the water is running and I'm drawing a purple line on my A1 in the back of the property to show um the water Direction of uh water coming off that basically align perpendicular to the contour lines is the way the water will flow and so this water is all coming down per something going around it but this wall has been since this house was built back in I think the 60s I think it was I for 50s or 60s that's been the existing drainage pattern there for a long time and it's not it's not coming down through our property and towards uh towards hard or Western sorry were you done um you mentioned that some trees beyond what was in obviously the tree removal plan have been removed no actually everything everything was removed was consistent with tree removal plan okay so those ones that were beyond the boundary yeah those are those are all still there to my knowledge I'm pretty sure they're all still anything Behind the Walls um no not Behind the Walls between what was originally approved and then the retaining walls in that Crescent shape there's some trees that's in the patio I believe the only one the only one that all of the ones in the patio were on the original removal PL the only one I'm not certain about is because this tree is no longer there but I don't think that that tree is uh and then there are a couple like what appear in the retaining wall well those the ones that are in the retain well those were all scheduled to be removed the ones inside those were all less than 10 inches in size so they're the ones that were less than 10 inches are not they don't fall under the tree replacement ordinance just try to help your is it possible those little exas that you're refering to might be a fence line no I'm referring to the reality is that there are a number of trees that are depicted on your plan that are within the limits of disturbance correct that are not shown as being removed right and why I believe that they do they are less than 10 in in diameter and therefore were exempt from the tree replacement ordinance identification to their diamer bre or on see I can't read it from here generally when we put a circle around it um is when it starts to rise that level either it's a specimen tree or Rises to the level of being under the ordinance so the trees that are off to the right those still exist the tree behind I believe still exists the ones that are uh lie between the retaining well this this retaining the tree I'm pointing at behind the retaining that was always will be removed I think or it's less less than the uh prescribed diameter you see on the patio there's one that's a 12in red maple um 12in QR that was always scheduled be that was part of the plan now the Forester has signed off um to my knowledge so the for so the only Department that hasn't signed off was engineering because engineering therefore zoning but the Forester has signed off on the replacement plan um as as satisfying their needs so even even that even that 25 inch what I'm going to call Bubble tree just above the retaining walls but within the limited disturbance how how's that surviving I'm not sure which one you're talking about this is the one that bubble go here closest to the turn yeah the 40750 yeah right above that yeah I don't see um I can't I just wrote over it so I can't see the size is um I can check that but I know you know what often happens that's a 25 in tree I I can't say specifically whether it's there or not I know that what generally happens with Tom Dodie and now Stacy uh the Forester is that we produce um a replacement plan and as the project evolves either if a tree is not doing well or um it needs to be replaced she just basically UPS the replac and we have to provide additional replacement trees there are ones that we start out trying to save terms that they they get a little stressed whether they're Street trees or they're on site and so the tree removal permit process is somewhat fluid depending during the construction process but again Stacy wouldn't have signed off on tree removal or she wouldn't sign off on I'm 99% she signed off on it we wouldn't get a building Pro Co unless Stacy indicated that we met the required replacements for all the trees that have been removed based upon that original inventory landsc no and over time actually our replacement we have un there was a period there when uh Stacy was not requiring an actual planting plan it was just a it was part of the verbiage that we are required to PL find 32 trees and that out of that 32 uh hypothetically 24 could be Evergreen and eight might had to be deciduous so a lot of that um for a while there we've got out of of doing actual plans I don't know if we ever actually did a planting plan we did a replacement schedule and then the Builder would work with Stacy to secure all permits and if that changed over time that number would fluctuate there's a number of aror that are new on the property aren't there up the side absolutely yep yeah and that would be part of their replacement requirement but you can't do all Arbor B my recollection is L was really W yeah I guess I was I was born in 59 so um it might it might go back to 59 so that does seem like forever I'm not sure yeah there was no house there before it was just it's not well I guess we're not talking we're not Pacific Northwest old growth but yeah probably was and you don't have a photo of what it look like prior to I do I I may in my files but I didn't look for one for tonight um I just had a question follow up on your question the Google images that show you prior your so you can see how it looked um but uh my question was this was the plan thing was proposed then there was what was built which we understand might have got a little different than plan do we have a final plan to know the measurements this is this is the final plan so what I did is the dimensions yeah I I because I didn't want to find that we had mismeasured something or we're vague so we did an as Bill bu and and so these wall Heights and everything are there based upon the ASU survey so I don't want to find out we decided to be 5 and a half and terms to be six feet um so that's why this is sort of a hybrid client Drew Outside the Lines we said let's just as built it so there's no confusion what we're asking relief for and let's show that and that's what theine if this board were to Grant the variances that is the document that the engineering department will need to sign off on a CO they need a plan that reflects what's what's actually going to be built on the site or in this case has been um any questions from the audience any comments from the audience um would any board members like to their comments similar to what I st the last time application asking which is that this board is not an enforcement board if an applicant or developer does something that violates the rules the laws of the town is not up to this board to render a penalty or a violation Etc that's for the governmental officials whether it's the zoning officer construction official Etc who could write summonses if they chose to it's not up to this board this Board needs to consider the variances that are presented and frankly should not take into consider ation that somebody is coming in for forgiveness versus permission however as was Joe who pointed out because you're left with a situation where you can ask the property owner to make the building smaller to compensate for excessive steep slope disturbance Etc because they're not a position arguably to do that today that that can be consideration of this board and board members considering this if I could just uh make a point um that was a very good recitation of the law s because I can't tell you how many boards I go before at times in this similar circumstance and the board and the attorney they want to penalize the applicant for doing something they weren't supposed to do under the law Mr Simon indicated um you you're not here to penalize the applicant you're here to assess the variants the justifications uh how you can take into consideration bad faith how egregious the violation is there is a Litany of case laws that they do look into that um in this case I would argue that um based upon the testimony this this wasn't bad faith this wasn't done to get something bigger where to try to put a pool in uh this was in the process it was something that was decided to be done not knowing what was required um so I would ask the board to take that into consideration as well uh and the fact like Mr Simon indicated the house could have been made smaller things of that nature yes we still were constricted by the shape of the lot under the C1 variance topography we would still have those issues and like Mr one of the things I asked I said to Mr Keller I said yeah if this house would built conforming I guarantee we would have been here with a homeowner a year from now in the same position trying to flatten that yard because they have kids they want to put a play set you know play cornhole I play a lot of cornhole can't do it unless you're on a flat service um but anyway with that being said I think you you know my client Mr O'Brien when he came to me I believe he was sincere he was in shock he wanted a clean application he the last thing he wanted to do was come before board and have to go before government Authority for something that was not done right he made that very clear to me so I just asked the board to take that into consideration I'll go first um so first all it's a beautiful home it's a it's a lovely property I am concerned I mixed on this one I'm torn um you're 750 square feet over the permitted allowance for disturbance of steep slop that's right thank you 7 thank you um so that that's that's quite a big ask and I know like come to us with these this plan before it was built we definitely would have said need to do something about that that's that's a big ask um the other thing I'm concerned about is the neighbor isn't here so I will assume that that they weren't concerned enough to come here but fact the summer when they that is concerned there's been enough time I guess we could tell if there's been flood or drainage or their property or anybody my neighbor the next door neighbor is building a very tall house so sure they're drainage their but lot taller than those SI including yours um so I'm mixed because I feel like this keeps happening and I would say it's up to our governmental entities to think about how to prevent this going forward because it's the second meeting in a row that we've had these substantial forgiveness variances and um that's neither here nor there but um I will will say that I'm awaiting to see what my colleagues say it's a big ask I don't know how to fix it now that you're here but I am concerned about the message that it's sending you just build it and then come to us forgiveness this seem really happening anymore it's like wow how do we how do we fix this as a as a as a town yeah I I agree I um it does it feels frustrating you know had we been presented with this variant application as were I think we would have said you know it's too much and and scale it back and and we might have asked for something moderate we don't have that what we have is what we have um I I think it is compelling a bit that it's it's flat and so it is a sort of a net benefit and it is all perious surface so it's grass and I think that helps because it's not exacerbating a drainage situation which I think is a really huge concern is my understanding GE Hilson all over town um yeah I don't I don't love it but um I also think to Regina's point the people who we need to be going after are the the builders and so I think there needs to be a mechanism but I don't know that this is the case to to me that stance on so I think I despite being unhappy about it I think I'm more inclined to subit it and the fence I don't care about the fence on top of the wall personally I understand that it doesn't me I think I'll jump in um I think the reason that for for Rich and Mr as ASO um the reason that we seem to be having difficulty with this is because we don't want to punish anybody quite the opposite we are all homeowners in this town we feel for homeowners in this town it's exactly happen the last scenario um but there are again as virina pointed out we have this is the second one that's come out for this so that every time something like this happens we can just say the Builder did something wrong and then we never get to question the Builder we never get to see what the plans were anticipating um there's really nothing that we can do it seems uh and we do have a responsibility to the town to the new the the property owners that come in after after us so to speak um I I I try to find like the last situation I try to find the middle ground I always try to find the middle ground here in this case it's we're being offered take it or leave it there's no there's been no discussion as to you know well we could probably bring it back a certain point but there's been no discussion on that um I'd be interested to see if they had a different kind of a plan to see you know maybe remove one of those walls or bring the level back to a certain no instead of being 1,750 square feet of invasive um disturbance we could get only a thousand over um at least that would be somewhat of a middle ground for me and maybe serve as a warning shot if you will for something in the future but again we're not looking to punish anybody I don't think anybody here to punish anybody on this especially not a homeowner so those are my thoughts yeah I think everybody's frustrated with the situation although Rob's comments I mean I don't know that we can really send warning shots or I I don't know I mean if we if we can make decisions to try to persuade homeowners to make sure their contractors do things they're supposed to do I don't know what what we're permitted to do I just looking at the looking at the proposal as it is uh obviously not I don't think any of us are happy with this um you know I just I don't really know and and I appreciate Joe's comments I do you know usually we would like to see some kind of um uh effort to reach a middle ground although I don't really know what the middle ground is here I mean I think just making changes for the sake of making changes doesn't make a lot of sense to me um so I I I I you know I mean again all unhappy with this but I sort of think it is what it is um and uh you know hopefully the township will find some way to address this kind of issue but that's not our issue and I think we just you know I I think the property as it was has been in fact developed is not optimal but um you know but I think makes for a better use of the property I mean if if if somebody uh if that flat area had not been created in the back the next owner would would be here coming back asking for that because who would buy a house like that with no flat area in the back other than a p so we will be deciding it anyways but those are my views can I just make a sort of a comment um it's reactive to actually J said g said so in circumstances like this where the applicant is not really offering in essence take it a leave as Joe said they're not really offering any modifications to the development to potentially mitigate the adverse impact from having excessive steep slope disturbance so you look at this plan and you say well first of all is the justification for not offering any mitigation um just under the circumstance and you know I look at this Law Without speaking out of school and you know it has that I don't know if you want to call it a flag or a tail on the top leftand portion of that property and that property is um significantly sloped as you can see from the shading on A1 and it also has trees that are that are bubbled in essence you know one of the things if the board you know is is inclined to even consider approval of this application is I don't think it would be beyond the board's powers given the circumstances of this particular application to require as a condition some form of of conservation on that tail so that especially if you're looking at the the lot coverage here and you know you're at 34.6 1% the maximum is 35% is by you know maybe requiring um if you were so inclined as the condition some sort of conservation protection no disturbance whatsoever for that portion of the property that shouldn't be disturbed anyway because it's mostly steep slopes and it has what look like some you know some mature tree growth um but that that may go to and Mr Peller was talking about you know what's the purpose of the Steep slow boo to prevent erosion and to make sure that you know the natural conditions of the property are maintained to the extent extent possible and that may that may go to some some form of mitigation given the unique particular circumstances it's not about suggestion but what is there now because I think May part be part of easement or there's some kind of town something or another going there that they couldn't touch it anyway if I can there there's no restrictions on what can be done except that it's Steep and there's trees there so there's nothing that would um there's no Town restrictions on that okay so it certainly is an area that you know we could put some form of conservation easement in there obviously we're right up against our total lot coverage anyway so it's not like we were ever going to put a patio up there or or you know a a criet court or something like that you know nothing it would probably restrict a future owner coming back that yeah well I mean that that's that's kind of what I was getting at when I asked him in the very beginning you know could you put a pool on the property because know you can't now or you can't without you know coming back for more variances but who's to say that they may put one in that tail SE it's come it's going to come before us and say well listen we understand that you know the the the first level of Ste you know of of um you know the flattened area the graded area you know that it wasn't really L but you know we we weren't part of that and we're just you know this nice family that bought this house and we really want to put in a pool or we really want like a second play area where kids can kick a soccer ball like it never stops any you know 20 by 50 corle but but but you would well suggestion in terms of having some sort of you know cap on that and also I think the area that talked about the water flows downwards in in towards the neighbor's property and we surely going to have that Neighbor come in and ask saying you know something needs to be done there there was no thought about like you know channeling the water back into your own or or you know that was the other thing which you know I was thinking that that hasn't been looked at but that could be a disturbance again you know that sort of a couple things one is look it happens all the time we everybody's got a everybody's somebody's higher than somebody else the natural drainage patterns or water flows from the higher property lower property it's when we exacerbate it and make huge changes and we don't mitigate against that new impervious so here nothing has changed so you know if I was designing this property I would never come and say hey these these these guys created a problem here I know that I have to accept their advantage and manage it and I'm assuming that that's what those guys are doing and if I was to try to capture water in this area and bring it around a my detention system's not large enough um I'd have to find a way of adding tanks and then I would be creating additional disturbance and how I get below this walls it would be a lot of disturbance including some steep slope disturbance some tree removal for an existing condition which has existed for a long time and as I said as an engineer we accept the fact that I have to take water and if somebody else had overflow then they GNA get some water in the future I try to always make sure it's less and that's what we're not we're not aders impacting that section so I I would say we'd cause a lot more disturbance and have more tree removal if we try to mitigate it I think my client is already indicated that he would be comfortable with some form of conservation easement up in that area um like I said it's it's unlikely that someone would put a pool that far from the house because as soon as they put a pool that far from the house then they want a cabana and then they're open building coverage F lock coverage so it's probably gonna it we're happy to do the conservation eement because it seems pretty unlikely this board would ever approve those kind of es in the future but where my client has already indicated he would he would certainly be willing to do that well you also have to be aware that the law could change the L coverage could go up to 40% 10 years from now and then they would be able to do that not if we have a conservation I don't think so but well that's a good suggestion um I just wan to I just want to add just my my thoughts you know um I think looking at this application as if everything wasn't failed and if it was just coming for us and I know that it's a big ass but at the same time it's a very large lot it's a 29,000 ft lot so you know the size is relatively small and I do think that the applicant has met the the criteria you know for granting you know C1 and C2 variances so I think that that's an important part of you know consider as well I would just add to that that the 1750 bage that you have on the steep slope uh I think you did provide justification of how that's actually additive to how the water is going to be managed and there's less soil erosion from that making it up is adding to that I mean I don't like the the 10 ft you know walls and but there's no NE to complain here so again I can't make a fully informed decision in that so with regard to the 10 foot wall would I don't know what the rest of you consider this but I actually went to the property and looked around and I would say I'm a nurse and I will when everywhere in climbed on everything um I actually think it may be a little bit of a safety thing to not have that fence P pushed back and then shrubs in front of it because if a kid got over that 10 foot fence he's gonna be like injured so that's probably the purpose of that variance why why would we not allow a 10 foot wall because it's a really tall wall into a concrete area or a hard surface so I would be in favor of taking this variance out by simply moving your fence back 3 feet and putting shrubs in front of that fence I I would just point out on the top of a 100 story building a 4 foot railing is all it's required so we have that four foot um so I think that as my client was just concerned that kids would get behind that but look we we can make that work but again I think the foot get but this that looked it did look really tall to me so is the applicant's proposal to modify that I'd like to get a feel for the board because I've heard some board members say that that doesn't bother them at all and I've obviously heard um M Tru it say that that presents a problem to her so I we we're happy to work with the bo it is a variance you're asking for and there's a reason the variance exists yeah but I I don't know that it's about a child for falling 10 feet as it is about the visual impact of of having um walls that high and so look we're Short Hills and so you know it's even though the fence is usually when it's a solid fence is when it becomes a problem so but I do you know I'm the first one to say we live in Shore Hills we shouldn't have nested six foot retaining walls but this is an open fence it's a little different the ordinance is a little generic and when the fence becomes open and diaphanous that way it's a it's a a broad iron looking fence I think the visual impact you're asking for y but again I would certainly consent to the board's discretion and their and their consensus on on the fence issue um and and certainly we we would agree to do the conservation and none of us have really commented on the separation of retaining walls which was something that happened uh at the last um application that came this this time we're by three inches relatively minimum right so that's why that one to me is doesn't matter thank you does anyone else um want to weigh in from the word if not in general about's suggestion about the you know I would like to hear what are the options about this 10 Fe I know Sor of you're saying it's open doesn't obstruct The View but I just like to see what options exist first two I think I can probably get there the steep slope variant which we talking about s you is there was positive negative criteria provided regarding that separation walls you just saying a very small I think I could live with that personally subject the bo concurrence but the height of the wall is something which you know there is any sort of options so this wall around the back range is from 5 and half ft up to six feet and then we have that 4 foot fence which is mounted into the cap on top of the wall so it's actually um the cap is drilled um they're put in and and they're grouted into place and they have a cover that sits over the top so you don't see the grout marks so that's where we get the 10 ft so it's it's five and a half to six feet um and then up to four foot at the highest point of these caps here and so that's the 10 foot we're talking about so you know when we are talking about you know the human would see you know the height of a six foot tall person would be right about or just above that and then You' got the wall because it's open is why I thought it was less impactful but if I had to I could take that fence and move it back three feet so in photograph number three it would move back just beyond the landscaping and then obviously I would probably need to replace all the caps on top of those walls because they've got the holes in them come back with new new uh new covers and just move that back and when it came to the stair areas I need to come up with a kind of a complicated detail to make sure that turns in at a point where the wall is only two feet and ties into a railing so I don't get into to a problem where I go over six feet where I tie that fence into the top of these stair areas so there's a little bit of a tricky part questions how long is that wall that you're seeing in the picture number five middle of the bot bottom and how close is it to the well as it gets uh the wall here as it's closest on the right side or the the Northeast side the back of the wall is about eight and a half feet or eight feet from the property line again we sit below that so we're carving in the overall length of the wall from in the in the backyard is um about uh 100 feet across the stairs and then it turns and comes another uh 30 feet um so that's a lot of fence that we'd have to push back did you say it's 8T from the on the right side on the narrowest point about 8T from the property L the back and then obviously on the left side we're also it's not a steep soap area but we're about 7 feet on the left side and all of that 100t is 10 ft top no no no it's only on the back yeah it only on the back so um the the walls are stepping as they go up into the back so if you look at the photograph you can see these wall steps so in the front area I've got two foot and four foot so that's 6ot it's in the side yard so that's fully permitted and then as the wall step up here's where it comes up to about uh almost four feet and four feet so this becomes eight feet this becomes 10 feet this comes up two feet so this stays 10 feet and then that wraps around the entire backyard the 10 that's the left side of the proper that's the left side of the proper so the front part is conform first 30 feet or so is conforming and then I start to go eight and then 10 ft wrapping around the property around the back and around the side is where I stay at about 10t and then it starts as I get past the air conditioners the wall starts stepping down again but the only thing that's not a compliance is anything that's over that takes you over six feet over six feet so the sides would be this this this first side would not need to change I would need to change it from from um where in the middle of drawing number four where you see a step up at that point I need the job fence back on the other side of those trees or maybe move those trees something like that it's a shame it's too bad again it's a shame didn't come to us so what would actually is on this point that I would turn that fence and this fence would probably go back very close to the property just to get around those streets so this fence at least on the left side would probably go um why you have the fence on that apart it's like we're like Too Tall so at least in this part we'll probably go back to close to the fence come around at some point we bring that fence in and tie it you might not need a fence there at all though if it's like two feet tall if a stair if your wall is two feet tall yeah we probably well that's the part that's compliant probably don't whatever right that's the only part that's compliant yeah yeah actually after Mr Simon put in that situation with the hpit conservation event I'm totally for that that would give us as a board the ability when someone comes to us with something like this that you need to do something to rectify to you know help the to yeah and one thing I I appreciate that and one thing of the put it in planning terms and and I would just say one thing about the just one last thing about the the extent of the variants because the the 1750 seems like a big number but I would point out and Craig was always good to point it out and he would have because I forgot to say it is that our ordinance is agnostic as to lot size so honest 6,000 foot lot I get 1,000 sare feet that's 12 14% of the lot on a 29,000 square feet I still get 1,000 square feet on a two acre lot I get 1,000 square feet so you know and that's something that this this board has recommended the township committee change and they just haven't gotten to it yet so you know my suspicion is in a year from now we're going to be back and they be like yeah we didn't need a variance for that because now you got on this size lot because we always when the ordinance changed I looked and I said I can EAS IL do 10% of the lot area on every approved um application I've had for the last year some has been is 15% of the lot are and still not need a varing so to make it so small we should key it to 10 per. they said let's see what happens it's been a long time so just just wanted to let just for the people who are hung up on the numbers we do have a big laot but you're still over by the laws but yeah I think I think Jessica said it once on another steep so p sometimes we all myself included when I'm advising my clients we look too close at the numbers and and and we look at you 1,750 square feet is actually not that large an area agreed I had a case recently where we're talking about traffic at an intersection and there was like 10 vehicles and we were increasing it by five and they were like that's a 50% increase it's five cars and hour so sometimes you do look at the percentages and it you know when you're dealing with small numbers uh that does happen so it concerns me because it looks really I don't know if you visited the property but it is sort of stri um to have that 10 I'll wait on the fence it's okay I I mean as far as offense being with the 10 point it's really the aesthetic it seems to to me at this point and the aesthetic is only going to affect people are living there um you don't have to see a 10 foot structure um as far as the safety aspect of it I think where it is on top of the C is probably the safest otherwise it's you know you're a nurse it's a 10 foot fall is a trauma well the fence would still be there it would just be it would be being further back I mean they're going to climb on whether it's on the front of cap or not front cap I just think it's more it's a less of a drop but it's a less of a drop if because they climb over the fence they're on the they're Landing if they and then they have the six foot as opposed to so what yes I'm I think about things like that's that's too tall for my comfort but are there other P members who are in favor OFA the tents in the areas where they um so we would commit to the conservation area that you suggested would way to it resolution somebody would make a motion to approve the application um with a particular condition that the area that just ironically more C or conservation yes David Copperfield not withstanding that that area would be um subject to a conservation eement and that the board would require the app and attorney um to propose a conservation document for uh approval by the board attorney to be reported in the ESS County's office Regice and unless there's any other additional can we carve out the fence variant could I ask for that to be separate the 69.6 B the combined defens of yes so you can have um so with that condition of approval you can take a vote as the steep slope disturbance as well as the variance for the wall separation was it 3.75 or and then we would have a separate vote for the C variant for the the it combin retaining walls and F I'll move to approve as eloquently byoun second so was that motion on just the first two this is just on the steep slope disturbance and shre horani yes Pang yes Gary Rosen yes regia Truitt yes that's yes Joseph pfield yes jessco BL yes I be taking a vote regarding the um 10 foot W proposal up to 10t the bar bar someone like to make a motion I move to approve the sh horani no Pang no Gary Rosen it was a motion approve the variant for the proposed combined F height of motion yes rega trt no Beth Z yes Joseph Coffield yes J glat yes car thank you for your time tonight thank you I I think we also have to acknowledge that Mr Keller took four breaths during his ter during his testimony usually he does two actually we always need I always need to say a special thank you to you craing up at I like when he doesn't take breath because once he stop and I'm not starting back up again keep going we're good is there anyone in the audience who has any matters for us do I I don't don't there no one do I have a motion you said that about the fo I'm right I'm right why do we have a variance we're just what's that