Folks, take a seat, please. We'll get started. In accordance with section five of the open public meeting act chapter 231 public about the law 1975 be advised that notice this meeting was made by posting on a bulletin board a town hall serving the original designated newspapers list of the meeting times
dates annually indicating this meeting uh would take place uh take place at the board of education center at 7 p.m. on June the 8th, 2026 at that point. >> David here,
>> here go >> here. >> Nomino Roberts >> here. >> Stephen Cohen >> here. >> Gary Rosen >> here. >> Here. Uh we're going to open up approval of minutes of 31626. Uh do who's available on those?
>> David, Gary, Beth, >> great. And who uh any corrections or changes? The only correction was I ended up late. >> Okay. Uh then with that correction, anything further? If not, can I have a
motion? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> uh next we have the minutes of 1326. Any changes on those people?
>> No, we don't see it. >> Okay. Uh any corrections or changes? >> Okay. Um can I have a motion? >> All right. Second. Thank you. >> Uh all those in favor? >> Anyone?
Um next we have three memorializations starting on calendar 406926. Samson Yang 23 Cypress Street in Milburn. Who's available? Gary, Roy, Beth, Nino, Steve, Craig. Is
it 25 Cypress or 23? >> I remember being 25. Sorry for not bringing it up. >> What do I have on it? >> I have 25 Cypress Street. in Melbourne. Any corrections or
changes? If not, I have a motion. >> Approve. >> Second. >> Second on that. >> Gary Rosen, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Cohen, >> yes.
>> Yes. Next up, we have calendar 407226 Jin 384 Wridge Road in Short Hills. uh was available. >> Uh same >> same people. Okay. Um any questions or changes? Not have
>> Thank you. Second. Thanks, >> Karen Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Roberts. Yes. Steve Cohen. >> Yes. >> Yes. Calendar 407526. Selective insurance 103 JFK Parkway.
Same people. Uh any corrects the changes otherwise have a motion second? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Roberts. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
Okay. Starting applications. Yeah. So, one quick announcement I want to make to everyone. Um, we'll be wrapped tonight by 10:00. Okay, we have to be out of this building per the board of education. They've told us now that we must be out of this building.
>> So, no later than 10:30. So, by the time we clean everything up and get everything out of here. So, just know that that's where it's going to be. Unfortunately, normally we push it as late as we possibly can go due to overtime and some other constraints. That's how it's going to be tonight and actually going forward. So with that um
counter 40 80 26 uh Rebecca Spiceandler >> 33. >> How's it going? My name is Connor Quinn. Great. One second. I want to talk to uh to him real quick. >> So tonight Tim, you have Spice Handler um
>> Fields >> Fields and Suit. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, one quick adjustment we're going to make to the to the um agenda. Uh Biswas will go after Sue. So, we're going to hear all three cases from Mr.
Pie and then we'll go to 14 Rawway Road. Uh go ahead. >> Yeah. Do you swear testimony about to give tonight the truth by the truth? >> I do. I do. >> Your name's for the record. Timothy Cle.
>> I'm Connor Flynn. >> Who likes to sleep first? >> Rebecca says Rebecca, my wife. >> Yeah, my name is Conor. Nice to meet you all. Um, we just moved into 33 Winter Terrace uh in the middle of last year um from New York City. My wife grew up in
Hills, so homecoming for us. Uh it's a great property. We love the home. We're really excited to be here in this market. We're excited that we got a house um let alone one this beautiful. Um the one thing we did want to change about the property was we wanted to add a fence. Uh we have two young children at this point. Uh and we happen to be
located across from a pond uh in our neighbor's property which has a partial fence covering it but not fully. Um drowning is the leading cause of death for children one to four. Uh obviously we plan to provide their children at all times but for that added layer of safety to avoid any accidents we feel much more
comfortable having a fence around the property. As Tim can walk you through um the sideyard of our fence. We're on a quarter lot to make this clear. Um the sideyard of our fence which faces Lake View Road already has a large portion of privacy, shrubbery, and trees. Um so the
fence would be running along that. And as Tim can attest, uh we would plant additional trees to minimize the impact of any sort of fence on the island from the street for our neighbors. >> So Conor did a pretty good job
>> explaining what's going. So um the idea is it's why don't we get you qualified? >> So why don't you just provide your credentials, areas of expertise and lure. >> Yes, I'm a licensed architect in state
of New Jersey and been licensed for approximately 30 years and my license is good. >> Thank you. Have you been here in front of us before? >> Yes. Go ahead. I want a couple. >> The uh
you guys all have this BOA1 sheet and this one that I have in front of you is exactly the same. It's the site is in the middle. There's the pond across the street from our house, which is a uh
it's a really pretty old house. I don't know if you got a chance to go by it, but it's a gorgeous house. And it's great that these guys bought it because they're really going through cleaning it up and fixing it up inside. And uh they're leaving the outside really the way it is, but they're going to really clean up the inside. We're starting the
kitchen now and then we're going to walk up to the master bedroom. Um we have a lot of work to do in this house. There's a whole bunch of formal gardens in the back. I mean, it's a beautiful site. I don't know. You could see it on even if
you looked at it on Google Google Maps. It's gorgeous. So, the idea is there is partially a fence running along the back property, but we would like to add a new aluminum fence along the back that
basically looks like that. That sort of 4 in apart aluminum fence where the trees can grow through it. So, it's really concealed. And then we come up. Now we're on the lake view side, which is really for us a front yard. They want
to run it down. And I ran it behind all the existing shrubbery. And if you look kind of closely at what I drew, all the darkened in shrubbery is new shrubbery, which I put in to fill the voids between. And I looked at this um
this been going on for a long time. So I actually looked at it over the winter. So I think I saw it in the worst case, right? like now which you probably went down and now they all foliated in but when I went through I spotted locations that needed additional shrubberies and
then we wanted to come across the front to tie it back into the house and when I did that there's some existing shrubbery there and I put in other decorative shrubbery to kind of conceal the fence. So trying to encompass the property
really with a 4 foot high open fence. the when we when the site becomes a front yard is right when I pass the plane of the building. So this area for me is really a sideyard. The fence is conforming. But as soon as I get forward
of the building, I need a variance to put the fence up. This would also allow them to come back and put a pool in at a later date if they wanted to. We just figured we come and attack this problem all at once.
What's the height of the fence? Four feet in all locations. >> Four feet. >> Yeah. In the back. >> In the back too. >> No, in in the back we go to 4 foot six, but it's actually in a conforming area,
but all linear locations that are in the defined front yard are going to be the height's going to be no greater than 14. Correct. >> Yes. Everything in the front yard is 14. So Tim, this the fence is going to run uh outside all the existing shrubbery
and all the new shrubbery is inside the fence towards the house. Right. >> Yes. The the fence is >> I was going to say if you run it outside the existing if you run it outside the existing but shrubbery there's really no room to put anything between that and the road. >> Yeah. >> We left the existing shrubbery. Pulled
the fence in. It's probably Well, I only pulled I only had to pull the fence in about six feet to do this because remember there's the right away. There's the 10 ft that the town owns. So, we off the street we're about 15 ft
down because I came in about 5t to clear the planting, you know, and we couldn't have gone we can't go on it right away, right? Anyway, and then I planted our new planting inside. Is there any questions?
>> Yeah. Where the fence hits the house on the side of the house, which is technically front yard, how far back from the front of the house is that >> 8 feet. >> Any questions for the board? >> Is there going to be um any planning
test on this or >> Okay. So, I'm gonna ask you >> um tell us about I think there was something in the application materials about other properties in the area also having front yard fences. >> Um well, it's true that the property
across the street has a partial >> and um you can actually see I located the fence on the plan up. And how tall is that? >> 4 foot. And that's the one circ.
>> Yes, >> it circles it but doesn't really contain it. >> Yes, >> do do any other neighboring properties? >> I'm going to save. >> Yeah, >> I know there's one up at corner.
>> I walk to the train every day. So, it's there's a number of corn properties on Winterberry Terrace. Uh and most of those are properties there's particularly the ones that back there's one the front of the house their whole backyard is the corner of want and windmir that's fully fenced in the
neighbor across the street from that house as well also has a different lot also has the front yard that's including there was used by them as the backyard I would say there's at least on my walk the train from my house down
winter narrow which is not a particularly long street. There's at least four. >> That's what I counted when I walked up. Keep me on it. >> But we're trying to do a fence that is almost invisible. You know, we're not
going to build a white pit fence. Any other questions from the board? >> Any questions from the audience with testimony? any comments regarding this application from the audience that case I'll close the public portion of this application
uh board members your thoughts I'll I'll go first as I say I counted four or five and then plus that one you point out on the corner which is very obtrusive actually um uh I think with the with the vegetation here that you're
doing it's not pushing out onto wind here I'm I'm I'm going >> thank supportive as well. I think the the pond is an attractive business with you know for young kids. So I think it's it's a safety issue as well and so I
would be supportive. >> I'll be supportive too safety reason. Thank you. In that case do I have a motion? I'll make a motion. Thank you. Second >> David Bradford. >> Yes.
>> You >> Yes. >> Roberts. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck with project. Thanks. >> Next up we have calendar 48226. 72.
You swear upon testimony about the given case receiving the truth the truth. State your names for the record. >> Timothy question Josh. >> Thank you. >> Um we qualifications as you've heard
qualified in our previous testimony, but if you'd like to speak, please feel free. >> Yes. Uh I'm Josh Fields. I live at 72 Greenwood Drive. We've been there for 17 years now. Um our project, I think, is pretty straightforward and basic. We
were adding a master bath because our current master bath is extremely small. Um I had kind of given it to my wife to use and I've been using the old bat um which I've been sharing with my uh son
who's now a teenager. So if you guys are familiar with teenage boys getting to be a bit much at this point um to the breaking point. So, we are pulling the trigger on a a new master bath. Um, the
master bath, existing master bath is so small that we are converting it into a a closet, a walk-in closet, but it's really too small to be in a closet, a walk-in closet. So, we're adding five feet to separate section of the front of
the house as you'll see on the plants. And um I think that's that's really it. So, it's 72 Greenwood. Um, it's a tour revival. I guess built in the probably late 30s, I think. Looks it to me. The
U, I think that whole neighborhood kind of went up around there. Tonight, what we are hoping to do, I'm on my DOA1 sheet, and this is Greenwood, and we're hoping to add on the left side
over an existing enclosed porch, and that would be enable us to build the bathroom. And then we have a small addition in the front where um the existing bathroom is to
kind of turn that into a closet. Now I'm going to turn to my first paint and I've actually rotated the plan 180° just to this something that really used to get
Joe Steinberg upset. the um but on my first floor because we think the front door should always face it. So on the first floor on the left side over here is the the
porch. We called it a den in this case. They use it as a little TV room and it's existing at about seven 7 ft off of the property lot. By the second floor, we want to add over
that den space and we still have that 7 foot setback and then add this area in front where we have oh you can't see it where we have kind of renovated the bathroom that was there and pushed out
over the front often forms. The only variance we're seeking is for sideyard setback which is you know required to be 8 ft and it's existing at 7.5
and then side combined setback. Oh wait before you go to side combined. >> Yeah. >> Um says here additional sideyard setback required 8.3. Is it 8 or 8.3?
So we can Yeah. Well, men did. >> Okay, I'll do the first one. I I'll stay with >> Oh, that you're talking about the You're talking about the sideyard setback. >> Yeah, I went out of order. >> Okay, >> go ahead. >> I'm going to go back. I'm going to go to
Batman. >> Yeah. >> Inside. >> Yeah. >> The pack. >> The first variance. The sideyard exists at 7.5. The proposed is 7.5
required is 8 ft. So that request is for F. That's an extending an existing non-conforming condition as we go vertical. The second
variance is the additional height above that 18 foot and show it to you. Here we really I'm on my BOA3 sheet and you
can see when I come up with the line that's that 6 in deviation on the first floor of the second floor and then there's a small area that's just above the 18 foot
that is getting caught before or as I start to move to go to 16T at 32 feet high. It's that small little I it's that small little triangle right
where the gutter is. And you could notice that what we did is we hipped the roof back at this point to respect that kind of the ordinance the ordinance wants us to come back. So that is the additional sideyard setback of8.
So this is >> I'm just going to say again it's 0.8. It's not 8 ft. So I'm only saying that because a lot of times I say this it's a lot bigger than this.
And then the third item is side combined that is I can go back to my my survey. The left existing left side worst
condition. The proposed right side worst condition. The the allowable side combined for this lot is 24.5 ft.
The existing site combined is 14.23. So the existing is short by it's only 20.3%. Right? It's short by 14.7%.
Our propose is actually the same as the existing So we're asking for a variance to really to extend above the porch to extend the nonconforming condition of
the two side yards. Right? Nothing is actually being increased here or well I shouldn't say that the middle variance is being actually increased because that's height wasn't there before we added the second
so we actually have created that middle the middle but the other two are really extensions of existing conditions now I went and u I surveyed the house next door in the winter which I was going to retake the photos
and I thought maybe the winter photos are good because they kind of show the worst condition but now everything looks different with all the green but our neighbor immediately >> I don't believe it was in the
>> correct >> so A1 with today's date of the 8th of June and series of four photos. And when did you take those photos? >> I took them in January
of 26. >> You took them yourself? >> Yes. >> They accurately depict what you saw at the time. >> Yes. And when I went by again today, still accurately depicts the condition, >> but the the neighbor I think the the
best >> So, let's just get some orientation. >> Yeah. Can you do you have anything on your plan, Tim, that shows where is relative to the subject property? >> Yes. If you take a look at
or I could tag it. Why don't you just point to it? I'm going to flip my survey upside down. Okay. You look at photo A. Photo A is actually taken right on
Greenwood Drive straight ahead and you can see this house that is on the angle the corner of the house is actually that split level house that's right there on the left which is going to what's it oval
>> yes oval >> right it goes up oval right there and it you know this area was added in the 60s so that house is kind of cocked to us which creates a a large amount of open Is there any Is it encroaching on the property line?
>> Uh this one? >> Yeah, >> this house. >> Yeah. >> No, it's about I think it's about 12 feet off that we are 7 and 1/2 ft and then from there to this corner that corner that you see
there is another 12 ft. So I'd say the total is you know 19 ft. Then that house is kind of cocked on an angle because oval takes off on a little angle to the left. Then when I came to photo D,
I got a little closer to the condition and it's a little deceiving because it almost looks as if this angle is on the same plane as the front of this building, but this is actually pushed back about 25 ft. There's a large spread between these two buildings and there's
a lot of foliage that's even there in the winter. Our addition that we're proposing is right there over this building. So, I'm sort of saying that this site is can absorb this addition really because
the other house is actually on an angle and not really pushing into this into this lot in any way at all. It's not like we're straight on. Then if I come on with my photo, this just a photo of the front of our existing building and
on the right side or on my photo D is the right side where we have no work. It's just the existing condition. So, I would say that this site can absorb the added bulk and this and I know I'm always really
concerned about when we go into a sideyard that the vault going into the sideyard, but in this case with this house on the left side being sort of twisted to the property really you have a large amount of area between it
and I don't think it um actually be no detriment at all to the street. It's a situation from here, but that's their driveway and a chimney. Is that what I'm looking at? Upper right hand picture. >> This This is their driveway. This is
actually pretty This is their driveway in these like a chimney in their family room. >> Um, you spoke to the orientation of the house. Are there windows on the house that would be >> Well, not really. >> This is really their their garage.
There's one window up here. I guess there's nothing in the family room and I'm not sure but there's probably a window, you know, the new space is new space is going to really look at sort of the back and side where they meet on the
neighborh to the property. I don't know. Do you know what room is up there? So the I think you can really see here how the the gap is very wide between people and it's not like everything's lined up
like in over in Glenwood I'm under block coverage way under lock coverage I'm under building coverage I think building coverage is very Any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience
regarding this? Comments from the audience public recording. Uh board members, your thoughts. >> Yeah, I don't think it's an egregious ask. I think it's, you know, understandable to convert. I think the
the hipp addresses, you know, it still kicks into variance territory, but I think it's at least it attempts to address it. And I think, you know, continuing in the pre-existing non-conforming side setback is, you know, it's unfortunate, but I think the
the testimony um addresses the the proximity to the neighbors feel comfortable. >> Yeah, I would agree. I think the where it's being placed on the property is not the neighbors. So, I would be okay with it. >> And Tim, just to confirm, the footprint
of the building is not changing. >> That's correct. >> Any other comment? Motion, please. >> I'll make a motion to approve the Thank you. Second. >> I'll second Bradford. >> Yes.
>> Roy, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Ask you get back into the master bedroom bathroom. >> I notic your wife wasn't here.
>> Thank you. >> Next up, we're going to calendar for meeting 326. That's 72. Whitney staying one second. Okay. Whoever's going to testify, could you just raise your right hand?
swear testimony about to give a few >> Timothy Rahul. >> Okay. Who would like to talk first? >> Good evening and and thank you. My name is along with my client who just we are
you'll hear from Tim and Mallerie in a little bit about >> one second folks I need you to be quiet in the audience please. >> Thank you so much. Go ahead. >> You will hear from Tim and Mallerie about what about the small changes we are proposing and why it fits. So I
would just like to share briefly why this matters to us so much. We moved here in July 2022 and we fell in love with this neighborhood and the moment we saw it. What drew us wasn't just the house. It was the sense of tight community where neighbors actually know and talk each other. This is a mood
neighborhood. This past Friday we were at the block Friday two houses down at Harry and Husman's house and sharing last people. Now we we now think as friends over the last four years this has become a home in every sense to us. When we bought the house our kids were
four and eight. Since then our family has grown not in number we planned for but in the best way. After my mom passed away my father came to live with us. So now we are a family of five and and the best part of that has been watching our children and their grandfather
together. Nearly every night before bed they pile into his room. He tells them stories. He shares his life experiences. They play games. Uh and he gives them little lessons about life. But his room is so small that it only fits a full bed, but one size small. We barely space
for the three of them. Giving him a real room isn't about square footage to us. It's about protecting the time by family. The rest is simpler. Our daughter has outgrown her small room and is now sharing a bathroom with her brother. The kids are now 11 and 12. My
wife works from home. Uh she uses the guest bedroom as the office. Her mom comes and stays with us for extended periods of time during which time she gets displaced and she's constantly squatting either on the kitchen table or dining table to to work. As the kids
have grown, the house we loved has just gotten a little bit tight around us. There's a definitive use to every room in our house for we could have gone looking for something bigger somewhere else. Uh we don't want to because we don't want to leave this neighborhood or
this community that we become a part of. These smaller additions are what would help us stay in this power. We grateful for your consideration. And with that, I would pass it over to Tim. And now, >> thank you very much, Mr. Quest. You've been previously
qualified, sir. >> Okay. So, our six zone go on Whitney Road. I'm not going to go through the zoning really too much because Mallerie will really handle that for us. The only variance we see from tonight is
for F. Everything else is conformity. And this is um there's no new footprint to the house. This is adding on the second floor. But on line BOA1 sheet
on the here's Whitney in front and we're adding a small addition on the second floor in the right side. It's about five feet wide and that's to increase the bedroom for the parents or for his
father. And then in the rear on the left side, we're adding on to create a bathroom and an office space off the bit the office space accessible off of the um primary bedroom.
Now on my first floor plan, my BOA2 sheet is that no change, nothing at all. On my second floor, the DOA3 sheet, we can see our 5-ft addition that
comes out to make that bedroom a little bigger for their father. And then it's in where the bedroom ended and we put in a bathroom so that we could get rid of the Jack and Jill because we have a a boy and a girl
sharing a Jack and Jill here. So, we added a bathroom, then rebuilt the bedroom, then added the office of the primary. All of this is happening with uh under
over a building below and all of it conforms to all of the zoning. You can see all my zoning lines coming in on the side. We even um we missed the added building height
variance as we got between 18 and 32 by pushing the building in. That is my little 5-ft addition on the front of the building. And then the other addition is in the rear behind.
And we you can see it on my left side elevation how we just added added to the dormer and then added another dormer to do it. So we just scaled everything right into the house. When I come into the rear elevation, you can see how we
just built a little gable and added a dormer. Like we took that roof that was driving down and just dormant it, lifted it up. This the right side edition is the bedroom edition on the second floor. So we really tried to scale these little
additions into this building in the tightest possible way we could do it so we could fit the program and you know not make make the bulk big in the neighborhood. And with that, I'm gonna Well, I don't know. Are there any questions? I should ask first.
>> I'm just gonna get it from that one. Chris, >> this um license is current and in good standing. I've been a licensed planner in New Jersey since 2021. Practicing in planning and urban design in the New
York City metro since 2016. Undergraduate degree is in landscape architecture from Clemson University. Master's degree in city and regional planning. >> And you present correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> Um I have an exhibit past A1 or A2. I think we have a uh Do you have an A1? >> This is A1. >> Okay. So, um Tim gave you a quick description of the property here, but um just to refresh, we're at block 127, lot
40 address. >> Just just hold on one second. So let's just uh if you can just describe before you get started just what A1 is. >> Yeah, this is the planning presentation. So this is to supplement my testim
>> planning presentation. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No problem. Um so we're at block 127 lot 40. Address is 73 Whitney. Uh we are in the R six zoning district which is a single family home uh zoning district and a single family use exists on the
site. Uh minimum lot areas uh are 6,000 square feet. We are beyond that at a little over 10,000 square feet I think actually 10,000 625 square ft for our lot area. Um and we really are only seeking relief
for one uh variance here tonight which is the four four area variance. Uh you can see on the table on the first slide there that um all of our square footage that we're proposing to add is on the second floor. It's a total of 297
additional square feet that's split between the two spaces that Tim had discussed. Um I do want to just point you to the photographs. These are uh Google Earth photographs dated 2026. So they are current this calendar year. Um, and I think they give a good sense of
from the street how little impact these additions would have on the appearance of the property from the rightway. You look at the upper left uh photo, you can see there's some mature tree canopy on uh the left side of the house that will really prevent even from an angle a view
of the second floor edition that's anchored towards the rear of the property. And then from the other image that's kind of angled uh from the right looking at the front of the building, you can get that sense over the outer garage door where the projection would be for the smaller addition uh to the
bedroom. The second uh slide there just kind of shows you these areas in plan. So the purple area towards the rear is um the office and bathroom and then the orange area is what would be over that garage.
uh in addition to the bedroom. I also just called these out in the elevations on the next page for you to see a little bit more clearly and get a sense of how minimal visibility will be from every angle of the property. So the front has uh again just like minimal
adjustments to the roof line with the dormer and the small projection over the garage. And for the uh larger portion of the renovation which is that office space, it's really um anchored at the rear. So that's where the impacts for the rear would be. I think that's a good
consideration here because we are on the bend of Whitney this property. So the block starts to angle and the block behind us is actually a culdeac which goes through a kind of circular angle. So the properties aren't like cleanly rear yard to rear yard. Everything's kind of skewed from one another and the
buildings don't line up directly. Um so I think that also helps with any kind of potential view impacts. Um, and then I do just want to point out that both of these portions of the additions are on two different sides of the building and also are um within the
existing footprint. So, we're just extruding up. We're not projecting the building out into the sideyards anymore than it already exists. I did run an F analysis. You can see the table on the last sheet here. So, there are several properties that are existing
non-conforming in terms of F. Just for this quick summary, um we have uh about 358 existing F and with the addition would land at a 386 where 36 is permitted. Um and then you
can see the bolded properties are all the properties that exist within the study area, the immediate um corridor that are over the maximum permitted 36. The lot sizes vary pretty significantly in this neighborhood and again I think
that's because of that curvature of the block and the fact that some of these lots get a little bit more depth as the road curves. Um but essentially I think one of the big considerations for the board in weighing the D4 here tonight which as the board of course is aware
case law really uh calls for you to weigh NF variance based on the site's ability to accommodate any impacts associated with the extra pole. And um this is kind of like my A+ F case because there are no additional bulk variances triggered through the
additional floor area. Usually when I'm evaluating this variance, I'm really looking at what are the waterfall effects and usually you'll pick up a couple extra bulk variances. But you're asking and seeking to add additional square feet on the property with the fact that we're maintaining compliant building coverage, compliant lot
coverage, compliant sideyard setbacks. I think I'll speak to the fact that the property can sufficiently handle the additional square footage and the fact that we're not actually changing the building line from a floor plate perspective at the ground floor also um I think underscores that
um I did review the master plan for consistency. Um, as the board again is, I'm sure very aware, the the single family home districts have a very clear goal of maintaining scale and character. And as I just described, I do think that the addition does so and allows the
functionality of the home to really serve the user and the owner as needed um without having any substantial detriment to the character of the corridor. Really not an excessively bulky addition. and the fact that it's split between two sides of the property and two different facades helps to
really dissipate the impact. And then lastly, I would just say that I do believe we're advancing several purposes of the MLUL with the project um such as purpose A, which is to encourage municipal action, the appropriate use of development for general welfare. Purpose
C provide adequate light air space. As I stated, there are no additional bulk variances sought with this uh F variance. and purpose E to promote um establishment of app appropriate population densities. Um additionally I think purpose I which
is a desirable visual environment would be appropriate in this application as well. I do think aesthetically the ambition blends in very well with the existing structure and neighborhood matching all the existing material. So I don't think you'll even really be able to discern or point out from the right
away is when this project is complete. With that, I do think we've satisfied the positive and negative criteria under the D4 and I'm happy to answer any questions. Um are you concerned
Clark about fact that um with blocks 38, 39 and 41, the ones that are you know most that are closest to the subject property um have FS that are significantly
less than what you're proposing? I do not because those are the properties when I was speaking to how we're located on that curve um which really follows the Conrail rightway for those three yards of those properties you just mentioned. It's really just a that those
properties become way deeper than typical. So I'm not surprised that someone didn't choose to build a exceptionally deep home. construct, you know, when at the time period that Milberg was developed and most of these homes were constructed, houses came in very standard footprints and standard
sizes. Um, and people slowly expanded those over time to meet temporary needs. So, most of those rear yards are not even um heavily utilized and are actually like pretty heavily wooded um likely to buffer the impacts of the the
train running there. >> Thank you, Mallerie. And in the late the other times you presented here you raised the issue that uh it was difficult to determine the square footage with much accurate with with the accuracy of
>> light. Were you able to determine these more accurately than you have in the past or did you run into the same problem? >> Same methodology. Um and I think some of that is a little bit of the product of the way F is defined within your ordinance. Um because there are some like some ceiling height regulations
then get partial credit or square footage. So you have to trust the tax card and I don't get a three-dimensional view of exactly where those roof lines hit a certain height. So I'm making you know educated guess and a uniform guess for any instance of that. Um so I think they're accurate enough that I don't
think the the metrics would be drastically different because I'm weighting them all on the same proportions. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think it would either because you're um this is the largest property in this is the largest square footage in your in your center.
>> Um and it's going to be even bigger. >> Um and that's a little bit concerned. >> Yeah. Yeah. And again, I think that for me, if I had seen that and then we were here asking for a lot coverage and a building coverage variance and other bull relief in addition to that, I would be a little bit more concerned about
whether the site handle that square footage and whether we're starting to cross into substantially detrimental impacts because we are um not needing to trigger any additional relief with that square footage. I think it's just kind of reinforces that it's strategically located within the property in a way
where there are not substantially detrimental impacts. from a planning perspective. I mean, when I look at this and we have a a lot that's almost 2x for the requirement, right? We're still going over the F. How
do you think it's beneficial to the zoning plan? >> So, I think it's a product of the the master plan really calls for again like consistency in character um and consistency in scale. And I don't think that when you walk down the street, you look at this property and go, "What is
this monster house?" You know, that's like a it's really a public perception thing when you're in a single family context to me is you can kind of identify who sticks out like a sore thumb. And even with these additions and I think that the elevations really are helpful in that sense because you can
see how from the front elevation the views are really minimal of what's going to be added. Um, I don't think you're going to get any kind of impact as a lay person who says like this is this doesn't belong in my neighborhood. This isn't, you know, what the character of Milbour is about. I think it really um
blends in nicely. It complements the existing uh architecture and I think it um replicates kind of the character that's important to the property in terms of that varying roof line, the pitch and roofs in the dormers and then the window fenistration as well.
Can I ask a follow to that to Mr. Sud? Um you mentioned you've spoken to your neighbors about this. Have you let them know like do they know? Are they aware of it? Obviously they received the notice but >> yes so uh well when we were at the block party on Friday evening uh spoke with
our neighbors who were at 74. So immediately to our left our neighbor who is 70 70 viro who's to our right Patty and Hust who are 66 vitney. There's no 68 with me as far as I can tell. So 70, 66, and then 64. I spoke with all of
them. They're all supportive. Um, all them all their friends and the uh 17 with me and 66 with me had really deep >> lots, right? >> The backyard is a massive. That's why he chose to party that. Any
>> other questions? Any questions from the audience for any of the testimony that you've heard? Any comments from the audience regarding this application? Anything further? >> So the board uh the D4 variance requires
five votes. We have seven board members. So the counties to go seven go first on this one. >> While I don't love seeing an F variance on of a lot that's so oversized. So
you're getting kind of you bite the apple twice in a way. Um I don't love that. But what I actually do like is the addition of the front of the house. You know, this house looks like someone built it to like conform to F, but they nipped and tucked and and pinched and
did some strange things where you have this, you know, the sloping roof over that second garage bed. I don't think that's great, really aesthetically pleasing. And I think this actually makes it look better by filling that in and not having that odd sloping roof. Um, it does actually make I think the
house appear nicer from the street. And as for the addition of the rear, I mean, I I agree that it isn't really um super impactful on the neighbors. Um it's just the numbers that that sort of throwing off a little bit, but overall, I would support the application.
>> I agree. I think the F table is is pretty compelling. I think it helps, you know, contextualize it. You're right. There's huge variances in the lot size, but um but just sort of seeing the consistency and how it fits the character. uh giving adjacent lots I'd be
comfortable with this. >> I I always think of this as a neighborhood of small houses and that's not the case at all. Most of lot of the houses in this neighborhood have been expanded and pushed to wherever they can go. Um
Tim, I think you did a great job blending this in. Thank you. So when I looked at the building and looked at the plans and stuff like that, nothing bothered me, but I couldn't struggle with the numbers. Particularly a property that's already
the physically largest in terms of square footage and it's what people call a competitive set for lack of a better term and now it's going to be larger. >> Yeah, I mean I I agree with that. I I um I am I think this was done as well as it
could be done and I think it um and I agree with Cre that it probably look better but I do worry about ultimately what this will look like. Um, you know, I do, um, I guess like the planner, I do
take some comfort from the fact that there's only an F variance here, which frankly, I'm not sure I can time I've been on the board, there's been that many of something else. >> Yeah, it always triggers something else. So, I'm just wondering what's sort of happening here. Um, but, uh, you know,
but I think it I think the way it's done, I think ultimately I think it will look okay. Uh, but I can't say I'm not struggling with it, but I think ultimately I could support anything further.
>> Do I have a motion? >> Second. >> Bradford. >> Yes. >> Roy, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Rollins. >> Yes. >> Steve Cohen. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Yes. Good luck with the project. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving right along. We're going to jump to calendar 407826. Very nice.
Bring the chair up. speak to be speaking. >> Yes. >> Okay. Everybody raise your right hand. where he test h e r t y professional player this one.
>> Just wait just spell spell your name. >> S an A as in David. I as in Peter last name E as in boy. I S W >> James P A N E K A N
>> Thank you. >> Go ahead. First I'll just give a brief uh introduction what we do. So uh we live at 14 in ra and uh in Denver and we've been uh out here for 23
years now. So uh we moved when we moved from the city 23 years ago certain things were kind of certain things we spent missing kind of good to have then became a little bit of a minor inconvenience and now are becoming an
issue over time. So in the kitchen we find that like we put in center island in the kitchen and replaced instruments which replaced appliances which were like did not even have electronics and
so on and we find that we have to just look for get us the smallest appliance possible because the other ones don't fit. So what we are looking to do is just bump out the kitchen by 5 ft the
rear and uh the front of the house we have a covered porch and what we are looking to do is kind of wall it up so that the entrance is wider because you don't have a closet right in front and
again that's a real inconvenience in winter so we want to make a mud room in front by just balling out the front porch and uh and putting a porch right in front. So that's the two pieces.
Again, that's kind of a six foot uh port getting walled up. So essentially, we'll have a port going out. Those are the two changes that we uh what we would like to make and
whatever variance that entails is what we are requesting to go through. Thank you. Um any great uh I can ask you your credentials please. Oh sorry yes education at
ruckers bing with a masters in city and regional planning concentration development certification public policy I testify capacity daily basis my license current standing I'm also the full-time planner and build more >> okay
are accepted u go >> u so as as you heard from the homeowners that really what's before the board uh from a scope of work and programming perspective is a modest 5 foot addition to the rear of the kitchen um and to enclose that front porch. Um with that
um we do have a host of variances. A lot of those are pre-existing conditions and um some we would otherwise exacerbate um by virtue of nature of of the project at hand. Um for this evening I prepared an exhibit packet really just consists of
photographs really what's happening here at the site in the context of surrounding neighborhood. Please the board uh passing out marking >> sorry. Yes, please council. It's 11 sheets uh containing maps and photographs.
So for this evening, um the first two slides really are representative where where the property uh is in question as it relates to the township of Milbour. Um this is from the interactive zoning map on the town site. Um the bottom right hand corner in black is reflective
of where the property is. Um right on the edge right there um of the purple and light uh brown. This is block 507, lot 77, 14 railway. Slide two, you kind of zoom in here again with the zoning
chart next to it. This is that R six residential where 6,000 square ft uh lot area is required. This is an undersized lot. We're not quite deep in that. Um largely in part, I think because of the property behind us, uh industrial in purple. You know, their lot line kind of
crosses the river. Um but we are just shy of that. We're about 5,000 uh and 5,51 square feet where 6,000 is required. So we have that that that deficiency and it's also compounded by our lot width.
60 is required. We're at 50. The neighborhood here is is developed. There's no really opportunities to uh acquire additional land to cure those deficiencies. Um so pre-existing conditions really related to the lot area here. And as you can kind of see with this neighborhood fabric um
following the river, the lots start to get narrower as well. Um, so many of the properties in the neighborhood are not in compliance in that regards. The next couple slides are photographs I took myself on May 31st during site visit. Every site um, every application I
testified to, I personally like to visit the greenhouse in the middle is 14way. Um, what you see here in the front substantially is what is to remain that, as you heard, the front porch area is already has an overhang. we're looking to kind of enclose that. But generally speaking, the structure here, the
massing is is is to remain. What we're looking at on page four is the rear edition um outlined in yellow. And with the architectural plans, if uh for the board to get an idea of where that five foot addition falls, um it literally not
even halfway through that deck. So, a very modest size addition um considering what's there today. Slide five is shots of where where we're at um internal to the house. Top left is the
existing condition of the kitchen here. And we're talking to the homeowner and the applicants do um really limited in size and space as you heard. Um they made the island kind of help with storage, but you know any any improvements by way of you know um
larger dishwasher or refrigerator from my understanding talking to the client just they don't fit. um those those double wide refrigerators with the D free on the bottom, they're they're not quite fitting. If they want additional cabinet space, you know, it really functionality is not there. Um so when
we talk about that 5 foot addition, mind you, we have to frame it, drywall it. It's not a full 5T. We're literally asking for a very modest bump out to the rear. Really helps functionality of the kitchen and it would bring the benefit of additional cloud space to the uh one of the three bedrooms upstairs. the top
right. I'm on the deck. The five feet is approximately splitting the first two windows uh right underneath that covered grill. That's approximately where that that five foot addition would would would land. The bottom two slides here on page five are our neighbors. Um the
bottom left is our neighbor to the right. As you can see, um they they stick out a little bit further to the rear. And um the bottom um right uh square slide I'm around the edge of the deck peering over and our neighbor to our left um also appears further. So by
context of three yards we're not asking for three yard addition um our neighbors are extend further beyond and the next slide kind of reflects that we take the drone up. We're on rawway. This is the abuing properties here. our neighbors. Um the house all the way to the right
with the white arrow is again property in question 14way. Every house to the left is pretty much the uh um the neighborhoods as we can see the uh there's some that protrude further back. There's also some larger masking by way of building uh sizes and scale. When we
talk about this application, I think it's important to note um this addition would be um a total square footage of 2593 ft if approved. So, not an overly large house in in in nature, 2500 ft. Um, and
most of these homes, as you can see, are about that size that larger. Um, slide seven. Is that >> Alex? >> Yes. >> The 2593 square ft represents what the the house >> everything if approved.
>> Yes, if approved. Correct. Right now, it's at 20 uh 2414. >> I'm confused. I thought this says $29.99 >> um attachment to >> No, right now it's >> I'm sorry. 20 25 is correct. 2593 is
existing. I apologize. 2,987 um sorry um no your uh floor area. >> No, it's 25,93 2593 would be
proposed existing is 2414. >> Yep. So what what what was that 2987 number? >> That was your lot coverage. >> No square feet of lot coverage properties. >> But if approved 2593 would be the square
footage of the structure. Um, slide seven again is the front front the front uh covered patio or porch if you will. We're hoping uh to make into uh enclosed foyer if you will and purposes again functionality. Slide
eight is um interior photos I took myself of that front door. Top left being the the foyer as exist now. The top right is the uh closet. Bottom left we open the closet fairly tight and the
bottom right is um the coats and jackets that exist in the closet. Closet is about a foot deep, foot and a half deep. Um functionality very limited, very limited space in there. Um so we're hoping the board can see um favorably to enclose that front porch um for a little
bit more functional space for that front foyer. Take your shoes off, your coat, you know, closet space, that kind of stuff. Um really enhance that front foyer. Um, with that front foyer request, um, comes with a front yard setback request. Um, as the front yard
setback for purposes of of the R six zones, >> I just want to get something straight here. So, so going from a full front entrance to like a garden shed bolt to the front of the house. Um I would I would ar argue not necessarily a garden
shed and um the next couple slides are reflective of many of the homes in the neighborhood that have that covered front. Um but the idea would be to make it as beautiful as possible. Um not necessarily make it a shed. Um >> okay. >> Now it's it's not that great. What
what's happening is that that whole thing the open course is going to be just moved five feet in the front and the existing part is going to be water. That's it. No, I get it. Yeah. So those are the illustrated pictures.
>> Yeah. For conceptual purposes, there are other properties within the immediate neighborhood that have covered front porches. There's a it's a very, you know, rich dynamic of architectural types and styles of home throughout the neighborhood, but the front enclosed foyer is is is is there um on a few of
the homes and um you know would add you know add some functionality uh to the house as well. But for purposes of that front yard, if the board were to look upon the front yard uh uh foyer, if you will, the front door foyer, the front yard is required to be 50 ft for an
average for bailing whereas the existing 29.67. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. I'm looking at at these architectural. I know you did not prepare them. I'm looking at CA1 and it says the average
is 26.94. These are these are plans dated January 14, 2026. >> Right. And we're asking the board to look at 21 uh 67.
>> Right. So the existing is 29.67. Correct. >> And the proposal is 21.67. So you're reducing the front yard set back by >> right which is approximately where those
front steps are. >> So the way orders read is 50 ft or prevailing. So we're we're at that 26 mark for prevailing front yard be slightly under that. I'm looking at I'm positive looking at my notes.
>> No, no, it's apologies. >> What's prevailing was 24? >> I believe it's 26 in 26. >> And we're asking board to look at 21.67 if if approved. That would be the front door.
But we're also moving from one competitive set is the second largest setback go to the least smallest set I'm sorry >> competitive set that was in the package
um which I assume are all they're all even numbers so they're same size three they they run from 2170 to 3156 six, you're 2967 only the 316 is further back
and you would become 2167 which would make you the closest >> right on that side of the street. >> Well, I mean that's the most relevant because that's the >> right >> that's the that's you know the ones you see as you walk down.
>> Yeah. The dozen properties on our side of the street. Yeah. There will be one more liquid but right now there's one more being the closest to the street kind of. >> Yes.
>> On paper, yes, we would be closest. Um I from a planning standpoint, I think the you know 5T or so or in change is is is not overpowering the street. Um you know it it would be post as though you are you are correct. um from from a purpose
or functionality standpoint. Um it really is um something that the homeowners are hoping the board can see as as as something that can be uh aesthetically appealing if done right. It provides functionality to the house.
Um as you see with the interior of the house is is fairly old. It's in the mid30s since it was constructed. Um but really with this application um there's an there's an uptick in the F. Um if what's existing there today and what's
being proposed is about a 3% uh increase um what's there u proposed if approved would be 46.4%. Currently it's at 43.2%. >> Wait wait wait wait. >> Yeah. So on on the application
>> I'm not sure if I have a different set of plans than what was submitted. >> Yeah. So what are you looking for exactly? >> 46.4% of approved >> because your application is 4540. >> Right. >> So what is the number 40? This is
>> the plans and the doc and these plans and these have different numbers. Okay. >> So what on the zoning? I know the person who prepared the plans is not here but what is the F number according to the plan?
>> 46.46.4. That's the proposed proposed 46.4 >> proposed proposed what was noticed >> 43.2 is what is for the plan >> what was noticed >> leave was 46.4% 4%
>> uh yes >> on on the notice >> what >> there was no specific >> F there nothing >> I mean that's why >> on on the plan sorry do you understand what you're saying but your application >> I do
>> okay that's all right that deviation you're looking for is not 9.8% it's >> it's well we're existing today um what's out there today is 43.2 2. We're asking for 46.4.
Um, I'm looking at a 3% request. >> No, you're not. >> Increase. Yeah. Request for >> standard. You're at what? >> Well, standard I would be um 10.4. Yeah.
>> But again, that F currently is 40 uh 43.2. And we're looking for that 5 foot addition with that front porch would bring us um the 46.4. Um with with that um the next couple slides what I've done
>> Alex isn't the philosophy here incrementals. >> Not so it's over the standard always over the standard. >> Okay. >> We don't ever look at what's done currently to the house. We look at what the standard is. >> Okay. >> Right. So from what's there right now to
what's being proposed that 3% and that 5 foot addition um you know when we look at it it's not creating additional bedrooms it's not creating additional apartment demand more sewer water demands it's it really is just a functionality to add some some storage on the second floor and a little bit
more functional modern kitchen arrangement um and that includes that front foyer. The next slides 10 and 11 using modboard data tax tax card. Um the red dots um we've just given the
square footage of the homes. Um >> where where's your Wait. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Where's your property? >> It's lot 77 right of the three bottom red dots. The one right next to it. >> Okay. So we're we're we're on pages 10 of 11.
Let's make sure that that's identified. >> Yes. >> All right. And then do you have and I'm looking at pages 10 and 11 and you have two categories. You have a red dot >> and a blue dot. If you exceed 36% F and
blue exceeds 2500 square feet >> of house >> of house then you're at basically 2593 or 2600 square ft of house >> and you're at 46.4% F. Right.
>> Right. So, where are the is the documentation showing how much in excess of the 36% or the 2500 square ft? >> So, it's it's uh on the tax cards um mod
data. I have written out all the F that they are to the request we're here for. Um and I can go through all the red dots. I have them hyped up and and uh can put that on the record. Um some of them you know are less than 40, some of them are greater than 40.
>> That's actually not necessary. That's that's not really >> um so from a planning standpoint um with F can the site accommodate the additional floor area by the nature of the application um before the board. We're not creating additional bedroom. We're not you know uh increasing demands
by service um and and parking demands. um by the nature of this these last two slides when we talk about FB a big part of that is to help control the mass scale and size of structures and neighborhoods um you know so that's what's reflected is the blue dots that some houses are are certainly larger
than the 2500 square foot uh home footprint at least from the tax card data what there's a lot of properties that don't have any dots on them that's not to say that they're compliant a lot of that data just wasn't available through the the mod 4 um but with that combing the neighborhood seeing the
neighborhood being there, understanding that the the house itself from, you know, uh the public realm really isn't changing by way of of rope left or right or or height um you know, the distance being to the rear. The sky the scale
side the mass mass in my opinion isn't really changing um the character of the property or the neighborhood. But from an F standpoint, these red dots, some of these properties are smaller in nature um which these sites can accommodate additional floor area. What are the the
dealt with the details of that floor area? I do not know. But I do know this house today is currently a three-bedroom house. Tomorrow if approved will still be a three-bedroom house. This is an application merely on on functionality. You know, taking an older home trying to
put some positive investment to the site, more modern living arrangements, which is a positive investment not only to the site but into the neighborhood into the Milburn housing stock. this this uh application collectively though appears high on F. We are over uh we are
an undersized lot. This additions to the rear and the bulk size and scale um as demonstrated in this exhibit packet there are larger homes in the area. Um by virtue of though they're not uh on the data for model 4 visually we can see these homes are larger. We are not
asking for a reard setback. We are compliant with building coverage. Um given the undersized nature of the lot, there are some existing variances here. Um and and in in that we can go through them. We have a sideyard step back as well as a combined yard step back. And
we do have a a lot coverage variance as well. These are existing. Um we are essentially asking the board to move favorably on is is the front yard setback. And again, the F variance here today is existing. Um we're asking for a modest five foot bump out which really
uh helps the the families who's been in the community for um many decades um meet these these housing uh you know needs and expectations for modern living arrangements. Um one thing the applicant didn't address is um the applicant lives
here with his wife and his sister-in-law who are both avid cooks. They have friends and family uh come over. They host often. the the kitchen is the heartbeat of of the family that that that gathering place as you can see in the exhibit packet is is an older dated kitchen. It's kind of tight. This kind
of gives them a little bit of breathing room. We know we're asking the board to look on this application a large number on paper. The reality of this application again 5 foot addition um to the rear. It really has not changed the functionality of of the neighborhood in that regards. So with that um I think
the application from a positive standpoint advances many purposes of the miscellaneous law. I would argue that it advances purpose I desirable visual environment which can advance purpose a as well for the safety morals and welfare of the community. Um this would be to build the bulkable building codes
and regulations. Um I don't believe any of the adverse negative effects. We're not impeding or exacerbating any uh existing conditions. I would argue that we will advance purpose I for adequate light air and open space. Although we are asking for existing conditions to remain by a setback on the sideyard, the
properties to our left and our right exceed further. We're not impeding on on on on their uh enjoyment of their property and adequate higher air and open space. I would also argue we advance uh purpose in and and for more efficient use of land and you group lessening the cost of of such
development. Um this home exists. It's a threebedroom investment to the site. It's going to be threebedroom tomorrow. We're not asking um to intensify the property by way of operations here. It's just a functionality of that. So with
that um I will conclude with the understanding that when I look at the um the purpose of the zone here, the purpose is to provide a range of lot sizes for single family dwellings. The development of vacant lands in these brownies built up neighborhoods shall be
compatible with existing development patterns. I would argue that we are compatible with the existing development patterns. We're not eroding the intent of the zone plan. Um and again just to reiterate the F is all about can the site accommodate that additional floor area. There are some sites that are
smaller who have floor area people are greater and we're not creating more parking or uh sleeping accommodations with this or intensity by way of services. So with that I'll conclude. Um number again is big on paper. reality of
this application is approv. >> Sure. So, kind of similar to the question I asked on the last application, >> just if you can just provide advantage for lot 78, which is next door. >> What is that?
>> 78. I have lot 78. I want the dot to >> lot 78 is 39.13%. 39.13% and what about um and I also want Alex on the other side
>> 18 20 and 23 and I'm mentioning those three as well because they all have similar sizes to subject >> lot 18 which is 17 raw away has 40.7% >> 20
>> 20 is 13 raw away I calculated 42% and 23 23 block 23 seven roll away I have 37.18%. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> I have a question regarding the prior
application I don't know if you're able to address that or if the applicant should address that. the we were in the packet we added an application from 2010 just want to understand if that was completed >> yeah that's completed >> so at that time you expanded your kitchen for fet
>> that's that's right yeah so we thought that would be we as Alex mentioned I mean we would we wanted to do the least possible expansion and we thought that this would be adequate but it turned out
that size of appliance ES grows faster than what we anticipate. And after putting in the island and all things are at tight and we have uh the communities from church coming in and so on and it's
tight. >> We have family coming in. So getting in a new refrigerator in was like get us the smallest and things like that. So uh incremental now we think this should be
just adequate with the least amount of disruption. Any other questions? Any questions from the audience regarding this testimony? Any comments from the audience? forward.
Hi Cory Miller 13. Yeah, >> you swear to death about PS3. >> Yes, I do. Your name is Cory Pillar. C R E Y last name Filler is a boy. I l L E R 13 Row. So right across the street from
Bill. >> Um so so look I I know I I've lived in the neighborhood for close to 20 years now. So I know the neighbors all wrong. as far as the the rear set that they have the advantage of also having the you talked about a little bit the industrial complex that's across the
river that their property line technically goes over. So there is their property line is is closer than it appears. There's there's a lot of unused space that that all th those houses get. So I I don't think that the additional 5T is going to make an appreciable
difference as far as out of scope from the back of the house. I know that two houses down also did an addition in the back of the house. So just speaking on their behalf, I don't have an issue with that. I am directly across the street from them. So to the extent there's any impact on me, it would be the front
expansion of that portico. Um a lot of the houses in our neighborhood have portico on the front of their house. my house has a portico front of the house. You know, from my perspective, you know, if it increases the value of their property, that increases the value of the street. And so that's beneficial for
the neighborhood so long as that front portico is aesthetically pleasing. I can't imagine that the the pump is going to interfere with the enjoyment of my property. So I just thought >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
Any other comment? You swear on testimony you're about to give you go through. >> Yes. >> Your name and your address. >> Um my first name is C X I A O. Last name C H A N G and live in 16 uh 16 road. >> Can you spell your last name again?
>> Uh first name C X I A O >> and last name CH C H A N G and also go back to Kevin and they were all that was good but that's Kevin. So um so as you can see um I live in 16 Rob just the
next door neighbor working road and um I actually inherited the house uh with a front porch uh being proposed here in this application and we're actually use that as a mud room and it's a really convenient feature of the house and um
it's also a lot of our other neighbors have that feature and it's a property of within our streets. So I really want our neighbor to have it as well. Um so I really support this varian application and also same goes as the backside
extension. So initially I don't know if uh my previous owner um have any backside extension. Looks like you did um based on the presentation but um our next door neighbor on the other side um talked to me about their backside extension.
>> That's hearsay unfortunately if they were themselves. Yeah, I know. I I know it's there. It's just just try to keep my points and they also encourage me to do the best extension too. So, um uh it it's I would say it's a very common
practice uh with our street and um I really hope their application will be approved. >> 12 or 16. >> What? >> You said your address is 12. >> 16. >> That's our right.
Any other comment from the audience? >> Anything further? >> No, I just um I understand this is a number that appears large on paper. Um it is um already over on F. We know it's locked instead of you know but this application does not create additional
bedrooms or the property and and really the scope of what they are with that how can the site accommodate additional core area is to and through arguably one of the most important rooms in any dwelling as those heard there was an application
um some some some some years back they thought that's what they needed on paper and then the reality of it is is we just we're just slightly under what we thought we needed and um you know this 5 foot they believe will get them to exactly what they need. So with that I
I'll conclude um and for the board I don't know if the homeowners have any additional comments they'd like to make. I just wanted to add that we have we have lived in this house for a little over 23 years and we choose to remain
here and make the necessary changes to meet and improve our everyday family life family needs. Approval of this application will allow us to enjoy this older home. It's nearly
90 year old 90 year old and with reasonable improvement that many newer and also renovated uh renovated homes already enjoy and we thank you for your consideration
and respectfully request the board's report. >> Thank you. Um, with that I will close public portion of public meeting the board members or thoughts. >> I can go first. >> Go ahead. >> Um,
yeah, I think I think it's exactly as the the planner testified. It's bit uncomfortable on paper. It's a ton of variances. Um, but then you hear the explanation. I think the, you know, the testimony, the it isn't incremental. you
know, I have I have no issues really with the broad port to go. I see framed a shed. I I think that can be very useful, you know, improve the utility and I think the pictures were compelling. Um, as far as a rear yard setback, you know, you take a little bit of exception because you showed us the
adjacent neighbor except their front yard setback is 10 feet. So I expect it to to be involved by this calculation and I understand the perception and the experience from the street and for your neighbors um would be dimminimous if it's in the backyard. So um though parts
of it make me feel uncomfortable. I think I can support this application. I stand >> I would not support this application. Um F being a 10% deviation in the 10 years I've been on this board. I don't even remember coming close to that anywhere in this town.
Um when you look at the examples you gave okay and you look at the averages of what we approve here at F in many cases that's what it is it's the two points it's the three points a nine the 10.4 deviation is I think is detrimental
to zoning plan and master plan. Um the moving the house that much closer to the street again I feel detrimental to the zoning plan and master plan. I do not think that enabling moving that much closer to our front yard setback and that type of deviation is a massive
deviation. This house is already thoroughly overbuilt for the lot and to increase this further I don't think is beneficial to the zoning plan master plan. So I would not support the application. >> Yeah, I I I think I tend to agree with
that. I I mean I struggle with it because I I do think that certainly the ask is not substantial. Um but it's an ask over something that already is substantial. And so I just you know to point I don't I mean we we don't we
don't approve FS that are more than 10%. And I do worry about you know what this would look like. Again, it's not much additional, but it's already something that's fairly vulnerable. So, um I just
I just think it's too big an ask. I'm going to go one step further with that. You know, 36% is the town permits. Uh you do have an undersized lot by 500 square feet. So, if you adjust to that, you're probably like 37 or 38%.
This to me goes past varying ordinance. We're when you're talking about a deviation of 10%. We're past actual municipal land use variance relief, it's now into actually new ordinance by us approving 46%. And it's it is
groundbreaking for this area. So that's another thing that has to be considered is when you look for relief that's this large, it's now getting far past almost what we're looking at here. I mean, we're we're here to grant relief for
from what the code says, not to write not to write new code. And that's where I feel that this is going. He's talking about getting close to 50%. Anyone else have a >> Well, I raised some of the issues that I had with it and I unlike my colleague
here, I I do have problems with um I understand every argument here about usefulness what you want to do, but it doesn't feel like a lot the lot's there to do what you
I have difficulty. >> Can I make a >> No, the public portion is closed, but we can we can reopen in a second. Go ahead. >> Do I have a motion to >> Yeah, do I have a motion to open up the meeting with
a second for you? Um, I think I understand the concerns and the numbers live on paper and you know the only way to alleviate this FB which is a number at least on the paper because the homes are left to right across street larger by a buildout. Um,
you know, before the board takes action like they would caught the application. Maybe there's an opportunity to work with the industrial property behind us and grab land that and exceed past the river. That way our FDR would be substantially lower on paper. But the physical reality of the lot itself, the functionality of the lot isn't going to
change. It's going to just change the number on paper because I hear what you're saying. Um, but from a planning standpoint, that number lives on paper strictly and not in the reality of that neighbor. >> It's not that doesn't necessarily mean you you get it right. No, you still have you still have front yard deviation, >> right? Buy all the land you want back.
That's still not going to change. >> But but if a D variance is substantially different than a C variance from from it, you know, >> agreed. I mean you if you can wipe out your T variance then that's by as of right >> so nothing >> well >> variances are are not as of right
yeah >> um so yeah why don't you maybe take a pause here and speak to the homeowner the other thing that's um something we can't avoid is that you don't have um an architect here you don't have an engineer here and because
of that it's not like that we can we haven't heard any testimony from an architect or engineer in terms of a justification in terms of hardship or otherwise. And I think you make a good point in terms of the land in the rear. Um, and you've heard what the board's
comments are and allowed it to be reopened. you might want to talk to your um client about maybe considering a possible redesign before a formal vote because once a formal vote is taken if it doesn't work out for you there's this
doctrine restal stop which means that you can't then come back with substantially the same >> I'd like you to go real quick because the next one is going to be more likely Yeah. We're going to ask you and let us
further notice next month. We're going to try to talk to see if we can chop the public behind us. We hear your concerns. We know what the ask we're asking for big. We're going to see what we can do to reduce that. Um I'm not an architect. So uh we we need to contact
point engineer to see you know we can redesign the site uh to get >> sure. Um when is the next meeting? >> Not next month. I know that's very >> September 14. >> September 14th. Um, if you have any
plans, please submit the move in 10 days prior to uh the application date for circulation and uh so in terms of the location for the library. >> Okay. So do we have the address for that?
>> Wait, sorry. >> 2001. >> So this application has been carried to the September 14th, 2026 meeting of the board um at the library which is at 200 Avenue in Milburn. No further notice
will be provided by the applicant and for those who are in the audience interested in the application that that further chair there's going to be any modifications to the plans they are to be submitted at least 10 days prior to that period of September 15.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And uh next up this evening we have um calendar 40 254 Essex Street. >> No. Are you guys attorney or something?
>> Okay. >> Groupies in >> That's right. Move back down. Sorry. Yeah, it was the craziest here. >> Chairman, where do you prefer
>> the building of a question? >> The next are on that was a lamp. Oh gosh. Um probably just kind of give when we start
kind of an overview as to you know where it was where it is right now and then also because I'm related issues what you hope to accomplish tonight. >> Absolutely. >> Mr. Chair members report my name is Ger
Taylor. It's great to be here in front of you all on a beautiful evening when the Knicks are playing the Knicks in four if we may. Then the games at 8. So I'm here on behalf of Gap last appeared before you in
three I believe. Um I represent one LLC. We are the owner of 44 Essex Street. This is your formally identified as block 703 lot 9 on your official tax map. We are seeking preliminary and
final site plan approval with 1085 uh Barry for me as well to construct four apartments over the midst restaurant with parking and other physical site improvements. Now, as this
board will undoubtedly recall, the applicant previously sought approval for a four different projects on the subject property. Uh, in particular, on October 2nd, 2023, the applicant presented a proposal to construct 10 units over the
existing restaurant. Uh, and that application was ultimately denied by the board on November 20th, 2023. Now, in the many years that have elapsed since that original held, the applicant has considered the board's reasons for
denial, and we have devised a substantively new and different concept plan or or plan the board's consideration this evening and at subsequent hearings for boards to consider. And we believe that this application is not only substantively
different, it is effectively a new application for the board's consideration and one that was particularly designed to address the board's original reasons for the denial. So as uh Mr. Simon has indicated and as the board is undoubtedly familiar with
there is a document of breastata, right? So what does that mean? What it means in the context of Milbour is that if an applicant gets denied on an application, they can't come back in with the same application and represent it hoping for
a different outcome. Instead, what Milurn requires and what the law requires is a substantively new or a materially different application for the board's consideration. Now, interestingly, I've looked at this issue across many
boards in Essex County. case to be the planning board attorney in Fairfield and we had a uh bylaws in Fairfield and other boards do as well and they had a clock on the rescue issue of two years by which you were barred from presenting the same application on the piece of
property. Now Milbour does not have that here. There is no time bar on on the on the presentation of an application for the same piece of property and it's of no um you know as I'm sure Mr. time will tell me it is of no legal precedent here, but I just note it to give you
some sort of context in terms of when we presented, how long it's been, and now we're back. And we're we're back with something that we hope meets the board's liking. We're back with something that is new and different and and much more in keeping with the downtown zoning
district. So, to present the application, the application was denied. It was for 10 units, two stories above the existing restaurant. was the on parking and obviously many other features that the board had a particular interested back again. Uh we have
significantly modified and reduced the proposal. We are now at four apartment two levels above the existing restaurant. Um in terms of a D5 variance that is your density variance we are at
0.5 above what your zoning ordinance permits from a density perspective. So just a tick up um if the if the rounding were in my favor or the rounding were in the applicant's favor uh it would be before the planning board but we are not
um and and that is accurate and that is what we submitted for it. So in our perspective um there's also been other revisions to it. Uh the original proposal, I'll just go through it in a minute here, 10 units. Uh those units
included two one-bedroom units, seven two-bedroom units, and one threebedroom unit. So we have reduced the scale and scope of that project to be again four units. Those are two twobedrooms and two threebedroom units. We have also reduced
the ground floor area of the development proposal for your consideration by approximately,00 almost 1,200 square ft. Um we've also modified the parking layout as my professor will show you on their plan.
Uh we have increased uh the the parking amount by a result of the communications we've had with the DRC, your development uh review committee. And we've also modified the striping and and the plant things and other considerations that we
received from your subies. So when I look back at your original denial, it was primarily focused on the fact that hey guys, you are almost three times what the density permits in this zone and you have a deficit of parking as a
result thereof. We have sought to address it and we hope to present to you an application uh that meets with your liking that is much more in keeping with what Milburn envisions for its downtown corridor. Uh I do have for the board's
consideration this evening, my engineer, I have my architect and I have my planner and I also have my client Brett. So >> counselor, I'll tell you this real quick. I'm sure if you were here 10:00's a hard stop. >> Yes. as we've heard people get booted
out of the building. So, >> yes, sir. >> I would ask you to judge accordingly to finish your testimony by then. >> Okay. So, what I'll say, Mr. Chairman, right off the bat, uh we were hoping to get updated reports from farmers. >> We did not receive them. Yeah. >> Okay. So, obviously, uh we're coming in
with reports that favorably. Okay. >> Agreed. >> Understood. They're from December, right? They're from December 20 25. My professionals have addressed those issues. There's no extended violations and we've addressed the issue from the fire department and the police department. Have they issued new
reports? No, they haven't. >> We need to review those. >> I'm sure that was the first thing I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you would ask for. So, part of my pushing to present this evening because I have not been so successful is perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you
could put on the record a request for updated reports from fire and police. >> Yeah, I mean, that's not a problem at all. and and we have actually meeting scheduled uh my planner Rich Keller, my other the professionals are meeting with them tomorrow on Thursday. >> But perhaps uh Mr. Chairman, if you were
able to request that those reports be issued uh in response to the revised plans in advance of next hearing. >> I don't want to start off with you all. No, I was just a waste of time because we need to see those and how we're going to move forward because I said I doubt
you want to move forward with sitting on the table today. >> I do not. >> So, um I mean let me ask you a question just thinking about your your back here. Um, is there is it worthwhile to maybe start
with architecture is that may have the least impact on any future fire and police commentary. I'm just thinking if you start with your traditional engineer and there's reports that we're going to get after the fact, they're going to have to do
some of that testimony. I'm just trying to think about efficiency here. Or maybe I don't know what you're gonna have the I'm gonna call the operator testify to. Does it make sense to maybe have >> the operator and the architect testify tonight >> just to kind of get some some things on
the record? >> I don't want to put the operator up yet because the revised reports on parking and the like impact the operator. I save them for later. >> That's fine. >> Okay. If I may for a second. >> Okay. What I think I agree, Mr. Simon,
Mr. Chairman, if we could put up a new plans with the architectural buildings that would make sense to get something in that power wisely. So, >> thank you. And again, the um my world is
and it's just my view, but the board's going to want to hear the full application before they render a determination on the rest of your want to hear how different the application is from the prior one. So I put that on the record to you all. I did prepare a letter meeting today. Nobody
read it. I understand. I will come back to that issue at a later point if we may. >> Okay. >> Yeah. In other words, so Mr. Or submitted a rer. I have not read it, but he did provide courtesy to provide a heads up that he was going
to be submitting it. Um, and I don't see at least at first blush any should stop it. But I told him what this court typically does is to observe until they hear the entire case to then come back
and determine whether you know Judic here, but there's nothing um, like I said at first plus that says, hey, we should have more of a presentation on Jakata, but we might stop you dead in your tracks. I don't think that's the case, right? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Sandra. So, uh, my architect here, he's not yet been appointed. Conrad qualify as well. Swear from testimony given the stating duty on the website. >> Yes, I do. >> Your name, the record spelling your name? >> Certainly. Conrad Ronati, R O N C A TI,
principal of the firm architectctor, located at one executive drive, Fort New Jersey. I'm a licensed architect, uh, New Jersey. I've been practicing over 40 years. I've since in 20 or so other
states and I've testified at well over 1,500 planning and zoning board uh meetings in New Jersey alone. >> Thank you very much. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Um I was also um the architect from the prior application
that council referred to. So there's some history with respect to understanding what was uh applied for previously and this new application which is substantially
uh different. Um uh as council mentioned uh this project is not only different but it's different in a much smaller uh way. We've gone from 10 units down to four. The building is the same height.
the mass of the building is a little bit smaller which I'll explain in a moment um but generally um the same height less footprint about 1100 square ft less uh than the prior application I have uh
four drawings they're all dated March 10th 2025 AO1 through AO4 these have been submitted to the board I don't know if we need to mark those separately uh But I do have a rendering
that I'm presenting uh this evening. This is a color rendering of the corner of Essex. Uh it is called perspective 44 Essex Street and it's for the date of June 8th, 2026. I could mark this. You
have one second. We're going to mark the same one. >> Yes. Thank you. Right. >> What? >> We don't have We don't have this paper. We'll submit this also electronically uh tomorrow morning to Eileen.
>> Okay. And just reference where the car is is Essex Street. >> Yes, sir. On the right hand side is Essex Street. Um and the parking garage entrance is on the left side of this rendering. the the
left side of the rendering. >> My best white. This is Essex Street. This is the cross street >> with the entrance to the garage on what street? >> The street is driving
this way. It's not correct. Disregards are drawn in backwards. So essentially the garage is where the curve cut is today. >> Correct. >> That is correct. >> Into the lot, >> right? >> Um the applicant application proposes a
redevelopment of an underutilized commercial property. Uh this is a threetory mixeduse proposal. We believe that it strengthens that S6 street uh frontage while providing much needed
housing uh opportunities in the downtown area. The project as proposed is 11,958 square ft gross floor area. The ground floor of this building is the restaurant
2018 square ft. That's the existing building that's there. Now, we're proposing to build this building above and adjacent to the existing building. So, we'll be spanning over this building will remain
and then be renovated and integrated architecturally um into into the project. Uh as council mentioned, there are four proposed units. Very simply, there are two residential units proposed per
floor. Uh there's an elevator of course that serves these two floors that's accessed from underneath uh the parking structure where there are a total of eight parking spaces. Uh this of course uh is a prominent corner as we've
discussed. My apologies for the cars being in the wrong uh direction. Um the design activates both street frontages. this architecture and aesthetics are similar on these two frontages understanding that it's a corner. So, we
worked hard to make sure that the building worked from two different uh corners, two different elevations. And I would point out that if we look at uh the other exhibits, uh A1 through AO4, the other two sides of the building are
consistently detailed design and incorporate the same material. So there's no front facade to this building that is then less in terms of treatment um or detail or quality of
materials in the back. For example, it's the same and consistent on all all four sides. Uh the design activates the street facads with our with a combination of commercial storefronts,
the residential entry and then the parking garage which again architecturally is very heavily screened. So although it's an open parking garage, we've incorporated the design of the screening into the design
of the building and most of that parking is not visible from the street at all times. So it's very heavily screened um contributing to uh the the street facade. Uh parking is provided at the ground level in the garage with eight
parking spaces as we mentioned curved cut from homes. Um bike bicycle storage is also included in this lower level. So if you're coming by bike, we do have bike storage underneath
the building. And there is dedicated trash facilities also incorporated into the building further. The building has been designed uh architecturally as a contemporary interpretation
of what we see as a mix of modern and traditional downtown uh architecture and aesthetics in other mixed use developments uh in in the town. The facade utilizes a pallet of white
aluminum cladding. That's what you see predominantly in the rendering exhibit. Combined with a warm wood grain aluminum accent panel. So these other panels are wood um grain aluminum panels. So
they'll be durable. They won't fade. Uh but they're very realistic uh in terms of the finish. They appear very woodlike, but they won't need to be treated. They won't need to be um stained and repeatedly painted. They
don't fade at all. Very common material in this type of uh building. Uh it's a lowmaintenance uh uh exterior. The building's massing is carefully articulated through changes in materials, recessed elements, and varied
window patterns to reduce the scale and the perception of scale of the structure and to create what we were striving for, which was a pedestrianfriendly environment. So, the architecture of the building is defined by a series of
facade plane changes. This isn't a flat building with a flat second floor and a flat third floor. There's a lot of articulation along both facades. And then the mixture of materials and the window patterns uh we feel adds uh
strongly to the visual interest of the building. The building uh height uh conforms. We're at 42 feet uh to the actual roof deck. Your ordinance requires measurement from average grade to a
parapit wall. Uh in that case we are 40 7T 10 in to the parapit wall. So as a defined height we're at 4710.
Uh we do have a bulkhead which is at the top of the elevator and stair tower only. So only a small portion of the building rises up five more feet to 52 feet 10 inches.
>> Sorry, you just use the term roof deck. You just clarify that >> roof deck is a term uh referencing the deck or roof plane of the building as shown here on G A4.
>> Would that be intended for people to >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, there's there's no uh resident uh access to the roof. On the roof, we do have our kitchen equipment, which I was about to speed tubing screen. Uh but
the elevator does not go to the roof. The stair does, but the stair only goes for the purposes of maintaining uh kitchen and restaurant related uh equipment. So if I may again just point out that small little bulkhead area.
This is the only area of the building that rises that extra 5 ft. Still in conformance with the ordinance, but the majority of the building which is measured at the parapit is significantly less uh at 47
feet 10 in. Um so sorry I'm sorry. So 47 feet 10 in. is the height of the building coordinates >> to the parab >> average grade to par. >> Okay. And then the bulkhead is five more >> five more feet of 52.
>> Um all of the equipment that's on the roof is concealed behind the parapit wall. So nothing that's going on this route will be higher than the parapit which means that it won't be certainly won't be seen by the street uh based on
our early equipment selections will be no more than 48 in off the roof deck. So we'll be less than even the 5 foot parapit. So that power was designed purposely to conceal any of the equipment uh that was on the roof. And
that equipment would include uh exhaust systems, condensers, uh drainage structures. Uh again, all um understanding that this is a prominent corner visible from distance, we wanted to make sure that none of that was seen
or with a 5- foot solid parapit and not the fence or rail type um sound also uh will be mitigated because sound will be blocked by the solid parab. Where I think it would be helpful for where is
this equipment currently? It's on the roof of the restaurant now. >> So there's no additional equipment. You're just raising the height of it. >> So we're building up and above and over the restaurant. Then any rooftop equipment that we have on that
restaurant will be relocated to the top of this >> and the ducting will go through the building. >> The ducting will go through. to now any exhaust for example that is at 18 ft will now be at 40 something
which I would submit is a a significant improvement um >> how high is the garage height inside >> so the garage height will be 13 1/2 ft inside we have a very deep super
structure deeper than normal because we have a bridge over the existing restaurant. So, keeping that building intact meant that we needed to span across that structure columns on either
side. When you span far distances, I'm sure this board is well aware, structure gets deeper. So, we have an 18 foot floor to floor on that first level. That's about 3 ft higher than it would
normally be uh in a structured building with parking underneath, but that's a function of having to get up and over that building. So, the parking garage will be accessible should it be necessary even for an ambulance uh or
box truck to access, >> which is unusual. >> Yes, that's that's a unique feature. Um so uh just to wrap up um the the the
floor plan uh we've provided aometric drawing showing the two layouts on AO4 but on sheet AO2 two,
we've provided the floor plans of the building. So, sheet AO2 bottom left hand corner with Essex at the bottom of each of these plans. The restaurant is shown in this tan color. The eight parking spaces in the garage. Underneath the
building, we have a very small lobby elevator barrier free. We have a fire stair and then in the back we have our bike storage, our trash bins and then we have the existing restaurant. Again, that building remains, we're building up
and around it and then aesthetically integrated. Uh the second floor of the building has two units, unit 2012. You see the elevator, small corridor, and the fire stair. Uh again, Essex is
at the bottom. Unit 202 has frontage on Essex and then to a deck at the rear. And then unit 2011 wraps the corner of homes on the left and Essex uh at the front. The third floor slightly
different um unit. U this is a two-bedroom, I'm sorry, a threebedroom. This is a twobedroom with a den uh >> on third floor. on the third floor, but generally the same layout. Unit um
sorry, this is the first floor. Um unit 101 having the frontage on homes and Essex and unit 102 having the access to the back but really fronting on Essex Street. You still act residential on the fourth
floor. Is residential on the first floor? >> No, the first 101 unit. >> This is the first res. This is we're calling it ground, first and second. >> Yeah. So, first first floor is the first
residential, second is the second. We have a threetory build. ground first second >> talking to the restaurant. >> So, uh I'm gonna let the site engineer handle that uh question. There's been
discussions uh with the with the planner and with traffic regarding not only parking but circulation and movement. Um and there also testimony about how employees come to the site. That's not going to get much. >> We we anticipate a longer discussion on
parking. Not tonight because we want to get the reports back updated. >> But yes, that will be top of discussion on on sheet A2. >> Yes. >> Um where the parking area is. I think you're showing you're showing some
columns there in >> Yeah, the columns are shown in red. >> Right. So is do the column locations necessitate any variance relief because it's less than a a 9 by8 space
or otherwise. >> No, we have all 9 by8 spots and we have a 24 foot dry. We had originally on our notice >> um and I think it's been revised with the revised plan submission 9 by19 was
required 9 by8 was proposed I believe we have corrected that >> okay I see that >> yes we >> now here's 9 by19 >> we originally noticed that I think 9 by8 >> does have a requirement for 9 by19 we
picked that up one of our >> 9 by9 required >> yeah Yeah, I'm more focus in terms of the columns. I'm more focused on the width. So, it looks like that there's looks like it's less than you take the
columns into consideration, but >> we have we all of the dimensions take the columns into consideration. Okay. >> The plans are accurate. We're holding 9 ft >> on every single sky. >> That's what we're going 9 by9 is what we're doing. 9 by 9 by 18 is what we're
proposing. Correct. Mr. Chairman, >> we asked for I believe a design waiver, not a var. I just want to make sure we're capturing all the >> and actually Congress before you continue if I may
just summarize the variance for consideration. We have the the D5 density of 0.5. It's the density permits 3.535
units for proposed. That's D by Tren. The minimum parking was 24 required. We've eight uh eight proposed plus one E credit. It's also an expansion of a previous
non-conforming condition. There'll be further discussion on that with the engineer at the next hearing. Your maximum building coverage is 90% permitted in the zone 37.44 existing. We have 97.85%
proposed. That's building up. uh minimum loading requirements. We are proposing no loading stall, but there'll be some testimony on where we're going to accommodate that as part of provided testimony. >> That's residential and commercial you're
talking about for loading. >> Yes. >> The parking space uh size as proposed 9 by19 is required. This is a design waiver or a design exception. uh we're
proposing 9 by18 as compared to 9 by19 that is a design waiver that does not all are various we have a uh 88 parking space size the board requires 12 by 20 design requirement we are proposing 8
by8 another design exception we have a couple of pre-existing non additions >> one of which we can't change minimum lot size 0.75 is the lot size we have 0.4 door that's
existent. And then we have a premium sign uh geographic wall sign for we have 2.97 which seems to be no change. Now as we work through the plans
and the applicant has shown me at least and hope we're going to show the board. We're having to work with the board on modifications to these designs and other requirements. Um, so that's where we're at today. That's where we're at for presentation purposes. We're looking forward to engaging in a collab with you
all to get something that works for everyone. Can I wrap up? >> Yeah, we have some questions for you too. So, >> yeah. >> So, uh, sorry. >> Um, I just wanted to point out on sheet A2A, uh, is a roof plan. Um my firm
uh design designing thousands of residential units at the moment, but we also have a specialty and a concentration in restaurants. We're really uh very conversant with restaurant requirements. Um, my office
not only showed a roof plan on this sheet, but we've shown the locations of all of the exhaust, the roof drains, where the commercial kitchen exhaust will be, and all of the rooftop equipment. So if you look at this plan,
everything is moved mostly to the middle, which improves uh the ability to to uh conceal it with the parapit even from great distance and also helps with sound mitigation because it's at uh the
middle of the building. And then uh just before I wrap up with my last uh couple of comments, sheet AO3 are the four elevations of the building. Uh so homes in the upper left with the entrance with
the garage, the two stories of residential above, Essex Street in the upper right hand corner of this building with the entrance to the restaurant, the opening that goes through down to the residential lobby, the screened parking,
of course, the two floors up above, uh and then the uh east side on the bottom left and the rear longer uh elevation with those two stacked outdoor uh porches in the rear on the upper leftand
corner of this building. These drawings also show the signage for the building which uh we believe is still very modest and well integrated. Uh the restaurant name is above the glass into the dining
room on the Essex Street um side. And then around the corner, understanding that we're a corner building, we want pedestrians or people in vehicles to see uh the name of the restaurant on the home side. A small sign uh on the
corner, 2 feet tall by 9'6 and the same size uh over the main entry block of the restaurant on St. Wait, is this going to be 2 feet tall or
2.17? I'm sorry. >> It's 2 feet tall, >> 24 in by not seeking any varian relief for the summer. Correct. >> So just remaining the same non-forming
right now. Correct. Are you increasing that? >> I'm seeing two signs there. Right there on on the building wall. I want to confirm that. >> Okay. There's two now. >> There are two signs now in each facade. The parking lot home side
>> existing. >> And those will not be increased. You're going to keep them the same size area. Correct. >> Yes. >> As an existing nap before me, but not relocating them, Mr. Chairman. We're relocating them on the building, but yes, they're they're remaining the same
signs, same size and proportion. >> I have a question. Um, please educate me. Uh, on the first one, nonconforming exit non-conforming minimum lot size is 75 acres. That's for what? Minimum
>> in that zone. >> In that zone, >> correct? >> Yes. So it's a substantially undersized lot >> but it's existing business >> it's in your B4 zone which >> permits
commercial business in the ground level residential >> so this was a use for which D1 use variant would be a either one variance was required effective or adding residence to be
intensification of that use. The use is permitted. The fact that it's an undersized lot, you're allowed to still um you don't know this. That's totally fine for someone else. Uh the entrance
and exit to that parking garage, is there any type of notification system for people walking down the street when you pull out? >> Can we tell? >> All right. Is that is that your if that's your >> it's on the I remember that being discussed the engineers indicating it's
on his drawing that morning. >> We'll get to that. We'll get to that. That's fine. >> Um council also handed me the letter from November 26, 2025 um from the uh uh fire official Captain
Michael uh Adob. Um, and since there are some things that relate to the building, I just like to quickly run through these. >> Yeah. Are those going to be changed based on your most more recent meeting with the fire
official in your upcoming one? >> He has about 10 or 12 items. My architect's going to address about eight out of the 10 or 12. >> Let's not do that. Let's do it all in one shot. Okay. Very good. Um, but the good the upshot is we're
going to Well, I'll >> let's wait. Why don't um why don't you touch upon >> lighting? >> Sure. >> Okay. Because that's something that's purely architecture. It's not going to
affect police or fire, right? In terms of outdoor lighting or somebody else. >> Was that your testimony? If it wasn't, that's fine. >> No, I I was >> I was just uh checking with my associate. Um, we have lighting in the
parking garage, right? So, general lighting within the building. Um, the way the the design of the building um is put together with these slatted uh areas, that base of the building will
slightly blow through those slats. Again, you were not looking to make a solid wall so that it looked like a block, a windowless block. We were trying to articulate that. light is actually a big part of that. So, there is light within the garage and then
there's light uh that will be inside the entry on Essex to the residential path. Um and then there's the the signage on the restaurant. There's no other site lighting um that's either on the site plan or the architecture. So you don't
have any up lighting onto the building or security lighting. >> We're not when the signs are lit >> and we're showing I'm sorry. We're showing two um decorative lights left and right of the dining room window on
the S6 street facade. My apologies, but >> this is not intended to provide security lighting or safety lighting. It's more of just an up and down accent um on the facade. >> And is that are those lights going to be on a timer or are they going to be
>> They could certainly be on its own >> with the operation of the restaurant and David >> um I and I I don't want to revisit the fire officials. >> Wait, before we leave here for a sec. Okay. So, security lighting. Is there
any security lighting on the building? >> Not on the building. No. We have street lighting and then we have the lighting in the parking lot. >> Um I not to touch on the fire officials letter, but this building will be modern
and code compliant in every way. It will be fully fire suppressed or fire sprinkler, fire uh alarm, uh etc. So, this this won't be a >> not to surprise, but I'm assuming the fire department has approved that that
uh EV exemption underneath this building, the charge underneath this building. >> How about TVD? >> Yeah, >> we can leave that TVD. That's fine. >> I'm I'm not sure if that's been happening in Milbourne. There are >> there are some jurisdictions that um
>> commenting on that but it's a case by case town by town. Can >> will you will your um engineer testify about the amount of parking by restaurant agents because as I recall
last time I wrong but we didn't have any testimony on that. >> Yes sir I will. >> Okay. and how the workers get to the restaurant. >> Yeah, that was there wasn't any test on the amount of cars that were coming to
the restaurant. >> Yes. We will provide some parking council closure. >> I can skip. >> Any other questions? I know we've sort of been like spitballing here as we go along. So, >> can I just ask real quick?
Are these apartments going to have a name that's going to be RSI or just >> we do not have a monument sign proposed and to my knowledge we don't have a name of the community yet if
>> they see as much there's no monument sign for folks that would indicate >> these are going to be rentals. >> Yes, that is the current anticipation. I have a question. When we come back, would you be able to bring a sample or show a picture of what the that wood
material board, right? >> I mean, a picture of >> Yes, we can bring All right. Can we bring material board? >> Uh, yes. Yes. Uh, then if that board's finished the question, they just open up the the public. Does the public have any
questions for the architect application? any comments will be left at the end of the testimony. So, uh, council, >> Mr. Chairman, that's as far as I think it's wise for us to take it this evening. And, um, something I'd like to do, which take a if there's any kind of
comments or or thoughts or questions you may want to have to think about before we come back. I'm always happy to receive that. >> I think we're just too premature at this point, you know. So, you know, basically what we've seen so far has been pretty dry. So, I don't want to speak for my
colleagues here, but >> I don't think we're there yet. So, >> we're good then. Thank you. And when will we hear the next? I mean, know where we're going?
>> There might not be leaves on the trees, but >> 14th, October 5th, October 19th. There's nothing in I would love a full contingent. >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Short a number as it is. I think if
anyone else would not be >> agreed. I don't know. I understand what's going on with the with the buildings. What I would just ask for uh Mr. Chairman Eileen is we may not have a set meeting date. However, if you could carry us to your
next meeting date and then strike a date at that point and announce it, that would >> we could strike a meeting now. Yeah. Kind of. Let's just Yeah, if we can. Absolutely. Like I said, the next available
is >> There you go. When >> September 13th >> 14th. So September 14th >> and that's and that's at the >> No, the library. So 200 Glenn. >> Yeah.
We're gonna >> Rich, unless So if I may accept and then if I carry it all right out >> that's wise. Yeah that way. So, so, so September 14th, >> September 14th, 2026
at 7 p.m. at I don't have the exact >> public library. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Simon. No further notice. >> No further notice is required by the applicant >> unless you're seeking to modify your plan that requires more.
And the Knicks are down by >> not with that. Is there anything to discuss this evening that has not been on the >> second