All right, we're gonna get started. In accordance with section five of the open public meetings act, chapter 231, public law 1975, be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a list
of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Melbourne Board of Education Center at 7 p.m. on August 11th, 2025. >> David Bradford >> here. Andrew here Rosen here.
>> Steven Cohen >> here. >> Okay. Just so so we're clear because um Jessica is not here and Joe's not here. Um Gary is going to be acting chair for uh this hearing tonight. Um
does anyone have any objection to Gary presiding over the chair? Speak now. Okay, >> the eyes have it as they say. >> All right. Um, the minutes uh for July
28th will be approved at the next meeting. >> You don't have >> uh first up, we have a memorialization to approve. Uh this is for calendar number 4035-25.
uh was a supers at 59 Elm Street in Milbour. Believe this was last time, but it was a change. >> Yeah, there were there were some comments made, appropriate comments from board members. So, we revised the resolution and we distributed it to
um any changes or corrections as amended. >> Move that we approve. >> Second, >> David Bradford. Yes. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Uh the first matter up, first application up is calendar number 4044-25, Patricia and John Mueller at 417 Wyoming Avenue. >> Uh who's going to be testifying? >> The two of us. >> Okay.
Two, just raise your right hands, please. Before testimony, you're about to give in tonight's proceeding to the treatment. did uh your names for the record, please. >> John Muller, >> Timothy Quest. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Tim, can we have your qualifications?
>> Licensed architect in New Jersey, New York, and being in front of this board on numerous occasions and many other boards throughout the state of New Jersey by license presently in good stand. >> Qualifications are accepted. Will you
please proceed? And just before we start on this particular application, I talked to Mr. Pie before the meeting commenced that this technically qualifies as what's called the D6 uh height variance under
New Jersey statutes 405-7 and D6 of state statute of the municipal land use law. And because the proposal involves a height deviation of 10 ft or
10% of what is the maximum permitted um it qualifies as a D6 variance which requires five affirmative votes and as you all see you have there's five members here so the applicant would have to go five for five because we don't have a full complement of board members
and I spoke to Mr. requesting before the meeting. And my recommendation to the board is that we uh hear the testimony and the evidence and then at the end um if the applicant wishes to do so, we can have a straw poll to see where the board
members sit with regard to the application. And if the applicant feels like they would like a full complement of board members to vote because it's a due darian requirement by the four minute votes, we would then carry and and have the board members who aren't
here listen to the audio etc or the or read the transcript so that they could proceed. So, I do recall Tim at the uh historic preservation committee meeting telling me that there were no variances for this property, but that has changed.
>> That's true because we u then I had the boss. >> I won't hold that against >> Yeah. Um thanks for listening. Um again, my name is John Mueller. been in uh Nobel my wife and five kids I believe
that for 25 years and um we love the town been very active in the town through kids going to um Wyoming school then the middle school then through the high school and um we just uh we want to
stay in this town and make it a generational house. The house was built in 1902 and needs upgrading in terms of functionality and um we want to, you know, have our kids be able to come and
stay and um just be part of the community that we love. So, um, with that, I'll turn it over to them. I'm going to take you to, um, page three of the application because I think it probably explains
what's going on here to us. This, it's right at the top under 7 where Sharon wrote, you could remember I've been banned from writing in this form. If I'm right, um the increase in building height is due to the lowering of the topography in the
area of the the addition. The new addition that we're doing actually conforms. It's that the average grade that walks around the building is being lowered because we're building in an area where the existing grade was lower
and that's leading us to a existing variance and an increase of the existing var of the deviation because of our average grade lowering. What it does to us, just so you know, is
pretty well explained right on the bottom of page three there, where it says that the maximum permitted building height, you know, from average grade is 32 feet. You know, we kind of see that all the time. We get 32 and sometimes we get 37 when we get
the extra credit for steeper roads. The proposed here is 42 foot 9 in, but the existing is like 40 ft. Okay, I'll tell you exactly what it is in just a second. I mean, this is an an increase over what's existing, and
it's for the existing building, not the new building. The building height permit in this case is 37 from low to high, and ours proposed would be 48. If you go to page 23 for me,
I got to kind of show it to you a little bit on Well, I'm going to start with another examp before you even get to A1. >> Yeah. Can you just because I think it would be helpful to the board and the
public. Um you could well actually let me back up. Are you going to go over what's existing right now both from average gate grade and for low elevation? >> Yes. Okay. All right. Let's just do it your way. Okay. A1. Can you describe
what it is? A1 is proposed rendering of the exist well the existing building with the proposed addition which was approved by the historic commission in March I think. and then memorialized in people. And on
the left side is a site plan with a landscape plan of how we're shielding the really the garage from the side street is all we're trying to do here to u sort of minimize the visual impact of the garage with um the streetscape
really related to the historic. Okay. So, and uh just describe how you got the rendering and how you got the landscape. We did those >> um they were both done by well actually the the um the landscape plan I did
myself um probably in March and the rendering was done at about the same sun same time by an outside source. So if I look at this rendering, that's our existing building, which if you got a chance to get out there, you would
see. And then the site kind of falls off and Cypar is over here. And this building is our addition to that building. All of this on the left. If I That's the only thing
I really wanted you to see. I have all of the plans also for the building, but I'm not going to bother with at this point unless if you want me to walk through it. This, which I'm going to call my A2 exhibit, is the front elevation of the
building with some markups that I did to try to explain these two variances to you. And this a this A2 exhibit is exactly the same as DOA6 that's inside your set. All I did was mark this up to highlight.
So if I look at my first condition, which is the building height condition, you could see that the existing grade or the existing average grade is right there.
when we walk around the building and since our addition is lower the average grade in the proposed is actually at that point I went from one to two I actually lowered right there 1 foot 10 in
>> so the average grade is lower because you're taking into account the building addition >> yes without the built with with just our primary building the average grade was at that point And the building height existing is 24T 11 in.
That's a existing non-conforming condition of I know it looks to me like 9 foot 11 8 foot 11. I kind of just can't see it here. the um then when we add in our proposed
building we lower our average grade by 1 foot 10 and that increased the well now it's really a variance to 10 foot n it's an increase of 1t 10 in but there was a
non-conforming condition that was uh I think it's 811 yeah it's 811 if I come to the other side. You can see that the proposed building
conforms to the 32 foot height. Right? So, we made our proposed building conform to the revised average grade to the lowered average grade. But the same thing is happening here. We have an existing average grade
and proposed average grade. And if I come up to this point, I I have a variance here of 11 ft where the existing non-conforming condition is 10.7 and that's really for this maximum
allowable height which is allowed to be 37 feet. Right? You get if the average grade is 32 feet, I get a five foot credit for the worst condition. Usually it's a garage that's in the basement. the lowest to highest and this one's
failing on lowest to highest where this is failing on average and those two are pretty well explained on page 23. So So is the 48 ft for low elevation proposed on the left hand side.
>> Yes. When I when we go to page 32 of the application itself, the first variance that we're requesting is the average on the right side, which I tagged with that little number one
because I was trying to clean this up. It's existing at 40 foot 11 in. It's actually supposed to be 32 feet, right? Maximum, and it's proposed to be 429. So it's
actually we're asking for a variance tonight at 10 foot 9 in but it's an in increase of only 1 foot 10 and it's a 1 foot 10 increase for the existing building. No actual
increase on the proposed building. The proposed building conforms can let me just rephrase that a little differently to make sure I understand it. >> Yeah. If we could magically just snap our fingers and make the existing building just disappear, the new
construction, the new building that's being built, you telling us that that would be in compliance? >> Yes. >> For for a from average grade? >> From average grade. >> For both. >> For both. >> For both. >> For both. >> Okay. >> We made the new building.
That's why I thought that the existing building >> the existing building needs a new variance because we've changed the measuring. >> That's right. We've lowered our average. >> That's what leads >> the building getting bigger. We just lowered from where we measured. >> Yes.
>> And the second the second the building height my number two variance is really a request for 11 ft. But again it's an increase of that same you know well on this side it's an increase of 1
foot7 in my number two condition that kind of summarized that on the bottom of this does this all make sense or should I try to explain it again because I know I'm not doing build
>> so so so you said that existing building is because of the average drop the the it's going lower. So that's why it's a non-compliance. I get that part can't do much. But when you're building the new building, it's it's allowed 37,
>> right? Is that >> low? >> From low to max, >> but the existing usage is 477. Um >> what does that mean? The building is not there, right? The new one is not there. So how is it existing at 47? The
existing is this side maybe the existing side >> I see right there is kind of existing under your the way you're thinking of existing will be equal zero right like there is no >> correct since it's >> but there is a building on the site
>> I see so that's the new construction which is essentially at you could have done you should have done at 37 as per the law as per the rules here but uh you are claiming the height of the existing building on this side rather than the
37. You're saying it's it's 477 versus 48 what you're proposing because I'm confused between 37 and the 477. I I'm I'm not you know because the building is new. It's not there as I understand >> the new building but I come from the
lowest point >> right. What's What's that ele What's that elevation at the lowest point of the new building? What is that? Can you see it? >> No, maybe John can blow it up for me. >> I don't know what
>> Oh, it's 253.4. >> Okay, so >> that's 253.4. Hold on. >> We got 253.4 or low elevation on the left
>> and our and our building height a little >> or our maximum is 37 and we are actually 10 in under the 37. So what's the um >> I can just see it right here. Well, we don't have it
>> because So that would be like a a 270 almost. >> Yeah, we did 30. >> Oh, 299. 290, >> right? It's about 291
7. This point, the top of the roof at that point is at 291.7 ft. And the maximum allowable is 292
>> 292.4. >> It's about 10 inches of >> If your lowest elevation is 253.4 4 >> 253.4 >> 37. >> Oh, I did it wrong. I >> 2990.4 >> 253.4,
>> right? >> 37. No, I I just did. >> It's like 290.4, >> right? >> And so this point is 290.4 there. And we are 10 in under. So we're
at about 289.6. I guess >> the the addition >> we can So so so the addition conforms. >> Yes.
>> Right. So show the board where the deviation exists or from the low elevation. draw from the average. >> I'm going to come start here at the at the at the proposed low and I come up
and I it's right there. We say 48 ft proposed lowest elevation to existing building. Comes all the way up to the top of that right there. >> That's 48 ft.
If I come here and I say from the lowest and I go up 37, I end up right here at about 289.6. I'm 10 in below. And then I know that to get the rest of the way to the 48, it's
like 11 ft. So that's why I'm really saying the variance is 11 ft even though the change is Well, the change is right there from 11 ft to 10.7.
The the delta on this side is really 1T 7 in delta on this side. The average side is 1 foot 10 in. >> Go ahead.
So there's am I correct that there's no construction work being done on the existing building? >> No. So >> that's correct. We we are it's an interior renovation building. >> So tell me if this is right. The existing building needs a variance
because of work that's being done on the addition. And the addition needs a variance because of the fact that it's next to the existing building. That's a of a certain type. >> That's kind of true. >> Neither of them need a variance on their
own. >> No, if they were separate Yeah. >> on different lots, well, this wouldn't apply. It's because we're the building is >> so catch 22. >> Good. >> Topography is letting add the topography, >> right? So, the way I'm looking at it,
your proposed building height is actually 31. Am I >> the new the new addition is >> 31 foot2 in >> 31? Yeah. So, >> right there. So, right. So, I'm actually blowing it up. >> Yeah, we made it work.
>> So, the new addition is performing by a large margin. And the reason it's on a hill, having a hill, so that makes the low point low. So, I think the hill has a lot to do. >> The topography is what did this. >> Yeah. >> If the site was flat, >> right?
>> Well, yes. >> You're also taking advantage of the topography to put those garages. >> We get that's what gets the garage in. >> Correct. But if the site was this way and we cut the garage, we would still have it >> because our low point, we would have to at some point go from low to existing
high and we would also be lower. We're going to lower our average >> no matter what. >> I have one more question, Darren, from for Mr. Mullen. Um you have a lot of very mature existing trees on the
Wyoming front of your house. >> Mhm. >> Um which shields a lot of this is are those planned to stay there? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Other trees. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um >> yeah. >> Just one more clarifying question. So
what's the drop? I know it's probably in the in the >> drop from the existing average to the new average. How much is the drop? >> 1 foot 10 in. Uh the new building is on average 1 foot 10 in lower versus the
existing building. Is that what it is? >> The the average grade is right here. It was at this point and it actually dropped down. >> But that's including both buildings. But just itself the average of that would that How much is the drop? I mean how
steep is the hill? Is that five feet? Oh, this it's probably about six feet. >> Six feet, >> right? There's about two feet here and we can drive right in at about eight feet. I'd say six. This the drop is about six feet.
>> Can you tell me a little about the landscaping that's going to shield the neighbors because you do have the addition and a threecar garage going in. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So, that's all new. And then there's a little balcony. Then there's a balcony
here. And then what we did is we brought this the site is really wooded. I don't know if you saw it. It's very wooded. But we >> looking out the cedar. It's >> buffer planting in here and along this side of the property line so that we
could come in sort of shield the garage doors and still get into the garage. We're just trying to >> shield the garage doors from the street. It's not objectual. >> The um this site, just so everybody knows,
>> is allowed 30% floor area built. It's only at 23.8. It's really way under. >> I remember that is what I asked you at the historic preservation commission because >> it's way under the cover like you would have otherwise had a issue if the property weren't so large.
>> Yeah. Just his property is big. The lot covers allowed to be 35% built. it would be 23%. The building coverage is at 10% where it's allowed to be 18%. This law is about 30,000 ft and required is 145.
It's I guess it's double >> which is um good for the site because I know somebody would want to buy it, split in half, make two lots out of it, although I don't know how well the historic commission wanted to see
that, you know. So, as part of this, we can clean this whole house up and we can update the house because these guys have decided they want to stay. They want to be here and um it's actually really nice house on a very prominent street in
a nice project that they're undertaking. >> Any other questions? So, so if it's a new property that is coming in, it's a new building. How far is that property line? I It's a big lot, but seems like >> fairly high distance.
>> It's about It's It is 23 26 no 27.8 ft from the property >> from Cedar from Cedar to the house. >> Yeah. And the average upseater is uh
something is about 23 feet or about 5t back further than the average going up seated even after bitting the >> because it just it's just a big All right. Any other questions from the
board? Anything else? Tim. Okay. We have anybody in the audience who would like to ask a question? Um, any comments? >> Okay. Um, so how should we we're going to take a
strong poll? >> Yeah, one of the board members provide their comments with regard to the application then once that is complete then we'll turn it back over to Mr. Quy and the applicant to ask how they wish to proceed.
>> Anyone want to offer their comments? Hold up first. Sure. Um I think you've done a beautiful job on this beautiful home. You know, it matches the the um the renderings match the existing home beautifully and I think it will really
enhance that site. Um it's a big ask, but I think it all fits. I think there's plenty of room and um tastefully done. So I would be in support of the application. Uh I could too. Uh I think it is uh as I see it's sort of hardship in a way that
the property is dropping from the existing building to the proposed site of the new new structure and I agree I think it's beautifully done and I think by itself that clarified thank you for asking that question that by itself there is no variance if you were to
stand alone take a look at both properties but each one is feeding the other. So that kind of and and with the steep slope right there uh is causing the the variance which I think we can look at that in perspective I think it's
should be myself supported >> I don't know >> yeah look I I agree with my colleagues comments I think when I first saw the application um and was looking at the numbers I thought it was a little bit you know it's already a very tall building and when you when you look at
when you come up to the building, it looks very high. I actually the thing about this project that I like beyond I think it's extremely well done. But I what I really like about it is I actually think that the other additions will draw your eye down some. I think right now it's a very up and down
building. Um and you really see that height. Um, but I actually think having the um two other pieces to the building will will make the height seem a little less dramatic than it is um current. So, uh I would be supportive of the
application. >> I guess the ball's in your court. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll >> make a motion to put the application. Any second >> and second?
>> Yes. >> Shani. >> Yes. >> Regina Tro. >> Yes. >> Steve. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck with the project.
>> We're excited about it. >> Okay. So, next up we have calendar number 4046-5, Edward Lily McGuire at 109 Sagmore Road. Right. Sure.
>> Right hand. You square from testimony about tonight's proceeding to P Street. >> You just state your name for the record. >> Edward Maguire. >> Doug Miller, AHM Architects, 281 Main Street, Milbury, New Jersey. >> Mr. floor qualification, please.
>> Yes, I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. Been licensed for since 2001. I've had numerous presentations to this board as well as boards in the surrounding communities. My license is currently at this stage. >> Great. Your qualifications are accepted. Welcome back.
>> Proceed. >> Great. Uh thanks. We uh we're applying for a variance on a uh a deck and and uh updating project for our house. We've lived here since actually moved in inh
January of 2007. So we've been residents since 2003. We originally presented this project in I believe it was 2016. It was approved but we uh didn't find the right contractor. We had other life changes,
kids going to college, etc. Uh, COVID hit. Um, we were able to renew the permit once, but now that we finally found a contractor, uh, we realize that we need to apply for the per for the variance again. So, we're back and Doug
was our our, uh, architect the first time around and hopefully we don't have to drag him back. So just just as a placeholder for this discussion. So can you is are there any changes to the proposal from when it was originally?
>> No, the only change is the front yard setback definition has changed since then. So instead of being 40 ft, it's now >> but everything else. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah. So the
house is is was constructed in about 1950 and know you know all the houses along Sagenoir are all very steeply sloping lots and you know as Ed has said you know variances aren't good forever we let ours lapse so I'll bring you up to speed kind of go through the
variances I'll try to keep it brief the house is located in the R4 zone and it's constructed with existing non-conforming front yard left side left side step setback and sideyard comb Those are the exact same variances we're going to be asking for variance for tonight. Um the
house is cited towards the front of the property. Um there's an extremely sloping driveway down to Sagamore. The driveway is so steep there's actually a staircase along it to get you up from Sagamore to the house. Um the floor plans
is a pretty nondescript house. Um we really didn't document the interior. It's a front to back split. You've seen a million of those. Um, so the living areas are in the front and the bedrooms are in the back. There's a
main entry door up here. This is where the front entrance is, more towards the right of the house, and it's up almost a full story from the driveway. On the left hand side, there's an entry uh from the driveway into the house. Uh, and so
what we're proposing is to add a covered porch in this front left section kind of in this notch and then as well as build a portico over the existing front stoop on the second floor. There's currently a small roof deck uh on the left side where we're going to be
planting the uh covered porch and what we're doing is extending that forward creating some more usable outdoor uh entertaining space. You know, because this house is so steep and because of the front to back split, there's really not a good access to the rear yard. And
all those houses have incredible views of New York. So, to take advantage of that, what we're proposing to do is add a a modest roof deck at about 20 by 13. Uh, and then the front elevation, it's a
really kind of nondescript home. And by adding this covered front porch on the lefthand side as well as a portico over the front door adds a lot more texture, visual interest, really bumps up the curb appeal. Um, bringing the house, you
know, a little bit more up to date since not much has happened to it uh since it was built in the 1950s. Um, there's no other internal changes proposed on the house. Uh, I also have a photo board I'd like to put in as an additional exhibit
that wasn't presented to you previously. Uh, do we want to note this in? >> Yes. Give me a second. So, this is a photo board that you created consisting of, uh, nine images, >> correct? >> And when was this created?
>> 10. >> Okay. >> A couple time like the present. >> I love it. Well, I had the 2016 photos and I'm like, they're going to ask me like, are these reflect the current conditions? And I'm like, let me let me go and see it. Pretty much nothing has changed except for 99 Sagamore. That
house was torn down and a new one is being constructed. But really, the neighborhood is virtually identical as to when we presented it. And 99's a few houses away, so it really doesn't impact um us. So, as you can see from the photos, this is our house. It's barely visible from the street. Um, this is
that steep driveway I had mentioned going up. This is the entryway. This is the main front door to the house that we're using now as the front door. Uh, there's nothing over it. So, it's a kind of a hazard. It's with a such a steep driveway. When it rains, it's icy. It's
dangerous to so to create a safer location to cover entryway, I think, is just a smart thing to do. Uh, and also the way it's constructed, it pitches back to the house. So, exactly what you want. Rain, you know, driving right into your home. So, by rebuilding this, we're
really going to improve it, enhance it. Might as well make it a little bit bigger while we're doing it. Uh, so the we have a hardship of having existing non-conforming setbacks. So in
addition to the sideyard setbacks that we were approved in 2016 um instead of the 40 foot required which we were performing at that time for bailing is uh 52.6 our existing setback is 40.89
uh at the addition where the front porch is being added is 43.86. So this 43.86 86. Although it's a deviation, if you look at the properties to the south or going downhill on Sycamore, they're all pretty consistent
around 43 or so. Uh, a property immediate to our left is 130 ft um from the street. So that's if you look at this aerial photo taken from uh Google Earth, our house is this property here and this is the neighbor's property. So
they're fully in our backyard. So by proposing addition in this hill, we're not really impacting them at all. We're not really in, you know, impacting their light here in open space because there's nobody there. We're >> so They can't see that Patty that >> they can't see it at all. Um people to the right can't see it either because
it's set back from the right behind the house. >> So both of those things uh sideyard setbacks existing are 10.15 and 20.35 where 15 feet is required. Uh we're proposing 10.41. So you know basically
the same as what it was before 3 in different the sideyard combined is existing non-conforming at 30.5 where 35% is required that's basically you know staying the same as well uh you know due to these existing setbacks keeping the addition inside the L that I
just described um keeping it set back behind the house is really not going to impact pending neighbors now I I don't see how you know the board can't see this as as an improvement, a benefit to the neighborhood. There's no there's really no detriments. You know,
the portico and the porch are really going to tie in those kind of volumes of the house and make the house just more attractive. So, in general, this addition is going to improve the functionality of the home, improve the connection to the exterior, maintains light air and open space. I think it, you know, furthers the master plan by
improving the houses housing stock and I don't see who it's going to impact. So, I respectfully request the courts approval and open up to any questions. >> Thank you. A question. On one place you've got it called roof deck and another porch. Is that the same entity? >> Yes, that's the porch on the first floor
and >> there is no roof deck anywhere else. >> No, just off the first floor >> and it's a porch. Really? >> It's a porch covered porch where the roof is. >> I mean, I saw it. It's existing, right? You're just making it bigger. >> Yes, just make it a little bit deeper. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> What are the dimensions of portico on
the over the door that you go to the right of the garage? just you go up a few steps, you come to which I guess is your main entrance. You're you're building a a covering over that. What's the dimension of that? >> Yeah, it's over the existing stoop. I would approximate it at at maybe uh five
or six feet wide by three three and a half ft deep. >> Any other questions? Right. Um anyone in the audience have any questions? Anyone have any comments?
All right, board members. I make a motion that we approve this comments. >> I like that. >> Yes. Yes. Sorry. >> Yes, that's very helpful. >> How about some uh
>> thoughts from the reason? >> I'll go. Um, so, uh, definitely steep driveway. Uh, and I I come home and I told my husband like, "Wow, it's like a treehouse village out there. It's like and the views are spectacular. I got caught some of them today." When I finally found your house, I was like,
"Oh my gosh, gorgeous." So, um, I think this is a thoughtful way to improve your quality of life. I don't see any neighbors here. I don't see how it would impact the quality of life of the neighbors. I have no objection to this application. smartest task uh and uh doesn't disturb
neighbors. I think it improves as you said, you know, boost the quality of the home. I guess you be supportive as well. >> Well, I'm supportive. I think it's a actually improvement to the safety to have those covered areas. You get pretty slick.
>> And I would agree with what they said. I would you need to redo that porch anyway, >> right? >> Yeah. >> That's It's overdue to be overdue. >> David, would you like to make a motion? >> I'd like to make a motion.
>> Anybody like second? >> I can Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're going to build it. It's fine.
>> We'll see you in nine more years. >> Dr. All right. Next up, >> we have >> I know your contact Jason. Yes. >> Oh, you know that >> I remember
Raise your right hand. You swear to proceed by the >> Yes, I do. Name for the record. >> Jason Sanders, >> Richard Keller. >> All right. Um the qualifications I licensed engineering plan in the state
of New Jersey and I've been licensed for more than 35 years or both. I have appeared before actually bachelor of science civil engineering from Lbridge University with a concentration water resources and environmental engineering and I al also hold a master's degree in
architecture concentration in urban planning and design. It's also an institute I talked with uh 11 years both graphics and undergraduate divisions. Um I appear before this board planning board 110 boards throughout the city of New Jersey
as both planner and engineer and my licenses are >> all applications are accepted. Please proceed. >> Thank you. >> I'm Jason Sanders. Uh my family and I moved uh to Melbourne in September of 2020 during the pandemic. We led
Manhattan. Uh my wife was pregnant with our second kid and it was the walls were closing in on us. Uh but we settled I think in a perfect spot for us. Uh we have weathered those difficult years both with young children and the pandemic. Our kids are now four and a
half, seven and a half and we are to the point where we want to get a little bit of use out of our backyard which we feel at the moment is not ideal for that. Uh, and we don't have a ton of options, but um, I turn over to Rich to talk about what we hope
to do. >> Certainly. >> Uh, good evening. I'm gonna I'm going through I would say I, um, my name's on the application, but I actually just recently got retained. So, I did not I did not state some of the original
application preparations. So, I want to do uh, two things. One is we had an opportunity to review um all of the building and actually is a little better than the original application showed. The applicants landscape architect met
and they kind of roughed out some numbers um for rear garden unoccupied. It turns out we are closer in conformance existing and closer in conformance at proposed. I'll get into that more detail in a second. >> So Rich, as you're handing this out, why don't we do this? Yeah, since this is a
new submission, why don't we mark this as a one and we're going to call it revised summary of variances request. >> Correct. Perfect. >> We got to get that out of the way first off.
>> Hold on a second. >> Okay. unit. So, you're going to tell us this is that uh the proposed is 22.21 instead of 20.9. >> Correct. Remember, this is one where we you have to have a it's a minimum. So,
we're trying to achieve 25. So, original application said 20.1, we're actually at 22.21. So, we're much closer to the 25% than uh the application originally anticipated and was noticed. Uh, we also did not have the opportunity
to prepare a drawing, but there was a drawing in your set. Um, I've reproduced it. So, I'm going to call this A2. And this, uh, has the rough equivalent of the of the term is included in your packet. And it also has rear unoccupied analysis to the left of it. We're going
to call it created by my office. >> We're going to call this rear yard unoccupied analysis. and existing right and plot analysis and plot. Okay. And that is dated August 11, 2021.
And so this is the up on the right hand corner. A2 is what you have as part of your application. Um clean it up a little bit and add a little additional color, but it's virtually the same. The property itself
um is located only within the South Mountain section of Milberg. Uh it's about 70 feet east of the intersection of Park View Drive and Southern Slope. If you're walking, it's about 430 feet from uh the southern part of Tampa Park.
So, it's wholly in that South Mountain section. And as you know, those streets are windy and curvy. And while the uh lot itself is orthogonal three times on three sides, it does have a multi-curving front yard that is cut quite obliquely across the property
lines. The um the property is 50 feet wide and on average it's 151 feet depth. So 60 feet is required. So it's undersized the lot width but it is actually over a lot area where the existing lot is 70 uh 561 square feet
where 6,000 square feet is required. And that often happens on these curve line intersections because because it's curving you get a front yard much larger um than the surrounding. Fact, this lot has the largest other than a very wide blown corner lot. This has the largest
front yard in the neighborhood. And whenever I get a project where I see either the lot of lines play out, giving a large front yard or you have something that creates an oversized front yard, the first thing I always look for is what happens to rear guard unoccupied.
Because rear yard and occupied, I have to have 25% of my total lot area has to be behind the house, nothing in. So the more area I bias from high shaped lot, more area I get hit in the front yard or when I have something that's irregular like this where I have a a large oblique
angle of that sort of common line there or that port on that line. Um it means I'm going to have more area in the front yard than I do in neighboring lots more than is typical and the alarm bell goes off right away. Turns out I'll get to in a second. Um we didn't have a problem with front with rear occupied. It only
occurred due to a recent zoning change. I'll get to that in a second. So, the lot itself um is undersized as a lot width, but it's actually oversized in lot area. That also oversized lot area means means my rear yard has to get bigger. When I'm biased in the front, it actually makes
it more difficult. So, unlike for lot coverage, building coverage where an oversized lot gives you a bigger property, an oversized lot, when you have lot area bias in the front actually creates a hardship. The um the uh the front yard here is about
1,830 square feet. Um 1,700 the right gets down to 1500 1300 and the lots that are behind us burning on um on Ridgewood Road are on about 1500 square foot front yard. So we're considerably larger in the front yard due to that irregular
lotion. Um I would point out um this included in the application a resolution from a prior application. The um this property was renovated in late 2000 uh starting in late 2018 19 into 20 by a
developer that uh got permits and then was coloring considerably outside the lines in terms of massing floor area ratio etc. They were caught. Um they came before this board uh to seek variance relief for floor area ratio uh
and they were denied. So that all went away and they had to create a conforming house and want to make sure that the board understands my clients purchased this from a developer. So they had nothing to do with any of the shenanigans that went on with floor area ratio. Um you know it was an oversized
lot. So floor area ratio should be you know easier in those kind of lots unlike where rear occupied that's against you. So but I wanted to make it clear it's included in the resolution. It was a denial for good reason and it really has nothing to do with this applicant or
this application for you. The um so Rich, why don't you go to both A2 and describe to us this recent zone change that dictates the new. So basically um
what happened is back in um 2022 the ordinance was changed to def uh define that decks that are higher than 18 in above grade now are considered part of the struct the principal
structure for the purposes of calculating bulk bulk setbacks. >> Bulk requirements. >> What's that? >> Bulk requirements. >> Bulk requirements. So on the bulk requirements and so that was recently clarified because it wasn't just setbacks. It was clarified it doesn't
count as building coverage but it was clarified recently by the planning consultant that um it does adjust the rear yard unoccupied since that's part of the house for setback purposes. The rear yard line now runs along the deck
facing the deck on the outside of it. So you're removing um area that was part of the backyard and it now goes into really part of the house or part of the sideyard. It's just not the rear yard. So if I look at the existing conditions on the left and again this is the new
ordinance overlaid over the existing deck on the back of the property um since I got it off my my description. There's a deck that's approximately uh 10 foot by 12 foot 10t wide by 12t deep. uh under a stair that comes down to the rear yard. That deck really by the time
you add the railings, it takes out about almost a foot of dimension. So you really have 9 foot by 11 foot. You know, when you take in the fact that you've got the stairs and you couldn't put a table right next to the stairs for falling down the stairs, you really end up with a a deck that's about seven by 8
ft. When you've got a grill on there and you want to even have dinner for a family of four, you really can't get a table on that. And then when you want to have friends over, neighbors over, it's really not workable in terms of an outdoor uh outdoor space. So what's the
dimension of the new deck? So the new deck actually ranges from um 12T uh with a one foot jog up to 13 ft. And what the designer has done is they've moved the stair from being in
line with the door uh and being something that is a hazard. They move that over to a side plank when the stairs come down over the existing edge of the driveway. So the net result is that we have a drive a deck that is 12t up to 13 ft and it's 18 ft in width and
it's up at the same level as the existing deck. And at the same time we were able to where the stairs come down, we're able to remove a part of that to create a planter area. And concurrent with that, um, one of the things that the owner has
expressed they really hate about about the rearfacing garage. The garage is underneath facing the back is that you're looking over a sea of pavement. So they would like to actually they're going to cut down and remove the stone uh, and square off that patio. Remove some patio, remove some of the stone, square that off. And they want to make
that paver so it's a more attractive vista looking out over. So it'll still be a driveway. It'll still come down. have access to the to the garage that that sits underneath the deck. Um I would point out that the increase in the deck size um does not result in any
increase in impervious area because it's going over the existing driveway and existing uh concrete areas etc. In fact, with the reduction of the zone areas and squaring off of the uh of the driveway, we actually have a net reduction of 141
square ft in total coverage. So, not only we compliant in total coverage now, we're actually even reducing that burden. >> And Rich, on the right hand side, does the location of the new stairway um trigger the need for a sidebar? Well,
we didn't think it did because it's just the stair and it's not really an occupiable deck space. If the board deems that we need that it doesn't meet I think it actually still meets the sideyard requirement though for the house. So that's um it's while it's closer to the property line it still
does meet the required sideyard except back to the right side. So it does not meet the varian. The um so to look at the existing versus proposed conditions, the lot area remains the same at 7561. The rear yard actually goes down from
2555, which is a reduction from the old ordinance to begin with. So it goes down the with the new ordinance applied over the existing condition. My rear end is 2555. That goes down to 2197. Um, and then when I factor in the
reductions, we go from an open area, what's an unoccupied area, 1652 in the existing condition, and that goes up to 1679 in the proposed condition. So our when you divide that by the total lot area, means our rear gun occupied goes from 21.85
up to 22.21 or 25% is the goal. again fully compliant with accessory coverage, lot coverage, side hair setbacks, everything is fully compliant. The uh
property I'll I'll I'm not going to go through the photo board, but I will have one more um exhibit. This will be a 83 I believe. This is an annotated aerial photo. Uh image taken from nearmap.com. Uh the capture date is March 9th of this
year. Um by my firm today and what we've done is we've taken the existing aerial um and we've superimposed proposed development over the top of that. And what I wanted to do was show that um our proposed deck actually doesn't go any further than the covered enclosed
portion of the house next door. Um it is uh there's good dense screening. I have photographs of it. If you look at the site, you can see there's good thin screening to the house at number 70 southern slope and there's good existing screening that will remain uh relative to exit 66. We're also more than
approximately 90 feet from our closest part of our our uh that >> Yeah, we're actually we're over 100 ft um from the uh the closest part of the deck to the nearest part of the house at
927 Richwood Road. Um, and if you were back there, you see that that really beautiful imposing um, pile of vines and and ivy, etc. is actually the back of their garage. It's actually kind of quite pretty. Um, so it's certainly um
the the deck which is attached to the the house really has no visual impact certainly from the street and not to either um either of the neighbors on either side. What what's the height that floor
>> uh from the right side of the 84? This is a uh 68 southern slope drive photo board. All photos were taken by me last Thursday and Friday. Um we look coming down the driveway which is photograph number one. You can see that the deck is about four and a half ft above grade. Um, as you round the
corner, there's that uh back of that garage I was saying covering vines. There's the stone area. We're moving. You look at the back of the house from the side yard next to on the top of the wall. The deck is about 3 ft. But because that uh that drops down, the
braid is cutting up. So, the deck will will basically be an extension of the existing deck coming across. Um and then the stairs will be removed and a planter will go uh for some green space uh against where the bottom of the stairs come in. So as you can see the photograph number four shows that thick
landscaping can't possibly see um but that can't be seen. Proposal will not be seen from the proposal neighbor to the to the right as you're looking from the street and it's hard to see by dog. >> Yeah. >> Wanted to kill me. >> Oh and went after me. So um with regard to
the uh with regard to the application um it's really a technical technicality that's created by the an ordinance change. Before that it was compliant. Now it's not compliant existing. We're actually making it better. We think this is a combination of C1 and C2 where the
regular shape of the lot uh combined with the location configuration of the existing structure creates a hardship by having that extra area in the front and having basically almost a full flight below. So you've got to get you got to make a connection from the deck down to
the to the to the driveway and then you've got that big driveway. If we were to try to put any kind of patio on the other side of the driveway, it would only take away more of our rear yard and we'd be having an even larger barrier to occupied. So, the place to keep that um
that space where it's got good proximity to the kitchen. It's safer for the kids to play up there than play in the driveway when when you're coming down the driveway to turn into the the house. It creates a viable entertainment space nestled against the house for neighbors, for kids, alco dining for family. Um,
it's really a smart solution um to a lot that's kind of quirky in terms of that whenever you have a rearfacing garage. Um, it really eats up a lot of space with your driveway and it becomes an impediment to using the rear yard. So, I think it's it's a quirky way. This is a quirky lot and we found
an imaginative way of compliance and their landscape contractor have found an a smart way to handle it but actually making it closer into into compliance with the zoning ordinance at the same time make it more functional and more safe. >> So Rich you think this meets both a
flexible and a hardship because I think in the papers it said something about there is no unusual shape or >> Yeah, I don't write that but I do think but I do think that >> you might have had a change of art. >> It is also C2. So, so clearly um and C2 being the flexible C2 variant where the where the the um plan with the
deviations is better than a legally permissible alternative or or any alternative um and that we're advancing purposes of the land use act and the benefits outweigh the detriments. Certainly, we think it advances both safety and general welfare. um general welfare because we're bringing the site
closer into compliance with the current ordinance and safety because it really provides a safe place for the kids to play that's not in a blind driveway where dad's coming home put the car in the driveway and you risk the kids playing right there. The um it also um
I don't think there's any negative associated with this. I think that the um it's well screened as I indicated from the neighbors. Um the residential sorry the rear yard is actually improved not worsened. The um I think there's no
substantive death intent purpose of the master plan. Again um master plan reexamination goal number one is promote the character of the township as a small suburb of the highest quality and to protect the character of established residential neighborhoods with courage land use and development appropriate scale and density. I think it's
appropriate. And I think anybody who has a home in in this neighborhood or in Milbour, any further in general, is going to want to have a place where they can eat outside with their family, barbecue, they can have friends over occasionally without having to spill onto a driveway or without having to
feel like they're going to fall down the stairs um if they move their chair back in the existing cave. So, we think it's a it's a it was um a good way of making um lemonade and lemons. Uh we think it's a good application. We think it was only a technicality because of the new
ordinance change. Otherwise, we'd be um within about 30 square feet. There might been about 30 square feet too much stone, but we're very close to confine with the old or old ordinance. We got So, we think it's uh we think it's a good application.
>> Did I read something about changing the retaining wall or is that >> N? >> No. And that concrete wall is staying the same? >> Yeah, the concrete wall on the left is staying exactly the same. >> Okay. And the the the proposed deck goes all the way to the concrete wall which will stay the same height. >> Yep. Go straight across. Um so there's
still access to get there still 8 ft of clearance to get get a car in there. Um and it'll basically just cut over and u will sit right on top of that uh >> will sit right on top of the wall. >> Can you go back to that statement for a second? Is there eight that pitch down
from the driveway where you go down to the garage? I mean, when I kind of visually extended out the the deck to where that pitch starts, that didn't feel like it was going to be eight.
>> That's the door. You know, again, if you if you know, if you've been in parking decks, you know, they they only have to be 68. So, yeah. >> Well, I'm asking what it is because I don't think where that deck comes off. If you go to where as far out as the deck goes >> and the pitch down, I don't think I
don't know what that is, but I know it's not 8. >> Yeah. No, I I was referred to at the garage. So, if you come back, you're correct. If you come up the driveway, it's less, but it's it's >> it's probably outside of our purview, but it feels to me like I'm not sure I'm in the house. I I don't know how high
that is, but my SUV might not fit under >> there. Well, what I what I learned um is uh almost the hard way is that um my smaller SUV fit in a lot of places. It didn't always fit in place when I had the bikes on um to be careful. But um
certainly uh it's still a workable condition. Said it's it's not 8 at the limit of the um >> far two feet further out than what's there. That's why the that is why the deck
design stepped back. You notice from the court um the deck action steps back from the 13 ft. It steps back to make sure that we have the clearance >> and there's and there's no requirement
that protect the raised. >> No, you want to rinse hard. witness grade. >> You know, I didn't do the grading plan, so I don't know. Um, there's a drain down there. Whether it goes into an internal sump pump, I don't think that
um I don't know that there's any other local on the property >> and with the putting the pavers in the gravel areas going away. Is that >> Yeah, the gravel area will go away. A little part of the paving. >> Yeah, the gravel's kind of unsightly and
it technically counts as coverage in our work in February. I was going to say I was going to ask if it's counts as cover. It does. >> So what is the deck going to be made of? Wood or pressurized? >> Okay. And presumably there's going to be drainage I guess between slats, right? >> Yeah. I mean right now um it's basically
there's this the water that lands goes through the deck lands on the spot that's underneath it and it pass out to the other side and that'll continue. So there's really no change. We're just part of the deck is going over the existing driveway. But there's really no change in eerous coverage of the way
we're handling and it doesn't rise to the to the requirement of being a green. Okay. Any other questions from board? Okay. Do we have any questions from the audience? We have anybody who would like to comment on this application?
Please come forward and get sworn in. >> Ra raise your right hand please. Do you swear from testimony about Dr. again proceeding due to treat. >> Yes, I do. >> Your name and address Mitchell Freed M66. >> So, where are you in relation to the
>> subject property? >> Well, we're next door. Let's see. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, just let me say they're very nice family and I do agree with them that the deck that's there now, it's really too small to
really to be practically used. So, what they're proposing seems very sensible and it's not that that big to be able to use the deck now. We want them to be happy and they stay that they put. So, as far as the gravel goes they're getting rid of, I think it's unsightly. Also, it sounds like the rest of the
things that you're doing also would be nice, but I agree that that should be enlarged somewhat and it's not going to affect us. So, you're happy having that done. >> Great. Thank you. >> Does anyone else the audience like comments? Please go up and get sworn in.
>> Do you swear testimony about street? >> I do. My name's Peter Rosado with 70 southern slow drive. >> Okay. You got to spell your last name. >> Peter Rosen. >> Oh, Peter Rosenblot. R. The first person. R O S E N E L A T.
>> Put your hand up. >> You can wave though. It's good. Um, what's the address? >> 70 Southern Slope Drive. >> Thank you. >> He owns the dog. All right. >> I called him.
>> It's because you didn't ring the door. >> I did. >> Yeah. I mean, they've been a neighbor since they moved in. I have no issues. You know, our yards align next to each other. I don't I don't even see the deck really unless they go way into my backyard. So, I have no issues at all. I
have no like I said, we're good neighbors. Well, like all three of us neighborly and uh I guess I have no issues. And that's all I have to say. I don't answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone
else like to comment on the application? Okay. Um, what do the board members think? >> I mean, it just makes it more noticeable and it's very thoughtful and I think all the changes that are proposed uh seem to
be as as explained. So, I could be supportive. I might be supportive. I I think the uh the deck as it currently exists is a bit of a hazard little kid and it's not a bad idea to um
change the configuration in ways it's it's useful. >> I'll go next. And when I visited the property of Darling family, um my first thought was, well, that deck is small. So, um, I can certainly see the the desire and the need to make it more
usable than it currently is. And I don't think it impacts the neighbors. It certainly is great neighbors help to support this and say that they have no problem with it. And whoever colored this in, I thought that was really a nice touch. I don't know if that was the homeowner or but I thought it was such a nice
>> that was the last >> I thought that is so nice. Makes it >> who was your family makes it so easy for us to see what the proposed changes are. So I would be in support of the application. Thank you for calling in. >> I think it all makes it makes a lot of sense to me. I just raised the one issue
which is notable. I just want to make sure that you get in underneath that without you banging your head against that back. >> I I agree with my colleagues. I think this is a uh you know a significant improvement to the property and uh it's
not particularly large but I do think it will provide significant benefit family and um the value of the home um and obviously uh it doesn't seem to affect the neighbors negatively um so I think you met the negative criteria uh so I
would be supportive of the application anyone like to make a motion in favor of the application motion to approve any Second. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Truan. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Thank. >> Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who has anything they would like to raise for related to I think Eileen just wanted to make a comment for scheduling purposes with
regard to particular application. I've had some residents who spend about 39 Avenue because it was on the agenda on July 14th the meeting that we cancel. >> So we weren't able to carry the application
some inform that it was going to be renoticed but it's on the agenda for September meeting. Um but they just wanted something to be announced so that they knew how to track it. 26.
>> That's the base for >> and that's going to be >> they're on the agenda for September. I think it's the 29th. >> That's the only meeting. >> That is the only meeting. >> But but the public will be a
further material from Thank you. Thank you. Like to make a motion to make the motion second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? Hi.
>> You guys want to give briefings or >> I I could