than all right you want to turn on your lights hope tonight okay in accordance with Section Five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advised that a notice of this
meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board town hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at Town Hall at 700m on March 3rd
2025 shrew har here be here Milo Roberts here David Bradford here Joseph Coffield here Jess here okay we are going to start with approval of minutes uh the first set of minutes is
for January 13 2025 um do we have any changes Corrections additions would anyone like to make a motion open second all in
favor uh the second one is from February 3rd 2025 do I have any additions changes Corrections would someone like to make a motion Mo to accept a second I can second
uh all in favor I I okay moving along we have a few resolutions um the first one is calendar 3993 d24 that's Jonah rurn 61 slate and
drive Short Hills do I have any changes or Corrections someone like to make a motion I just had a question about that that they did they reviewed it as well right the they received it because I was reading it um they meaning the applicant
has opportunity to review it they have an opportunity they don't um this board does not send the applicant advance but the applicant as often as the case has the right to come and they can make sure that the act that the resolution was
adopted and they know when it's going to be adopted if they have any questions yeah I was just ring it was mostly what I remembered with how we you know resolved the backyard I was like guess you know I was just questioning myself but I don't have any specific comments so no problem thanks
yeah um in that case would someone like to make a motion I Mo second oh sorry I who is eligible on this um shrew Gary are not here Beth Jo
Joe and Jo okay so that it holds sh har yeah Bol yes Joseph Coffield yes Jessica glat yes and next up we have calendar
3991 d24 that's 368 har LLC from 368 her and drive um and who is eligible on this eligible are Beth Joseph and Jessica okay the others were either voted no or
are not here okay um do we have any um changes and it's only 3 would someone like to Second that's all
yesi yes just yes yes okay next we have calendar 43-24 that's git Singh 34 Winding Way Short Hills who's eligible on this um
shandrew Jessica Angel okay um any additions Corrections uh motion to approve uh 43-24
second yes josephi yes Jessica yes okay and last we have calendar 3950 d23 that's Sharma 29 Winding Way Short Hills who's eligible um shandrew
Beth Joe and Jessica any changes I just noticed one thing on the bottom of the first page there was like a number one and I think it meant to be a footnote it was just all the same size I don't know I if that's how like it technically
I noticed that too and I was like we'll get that I mean that said no other okay would someone like to make a motion I can move to Second that's all yes Jose
yes shre hardani yes Jess good yes okay um next up we have new business uh the first is calendar 3964 d23 that's Del as Alber from 53
sore Road have applicant here Richard scholnick on behalf of the applicant with my client Mr Valdez this was an approval that was memorialized on March 18th of 20 24 we're asking for some additional time on
that oneye requirement to get the building permit the relief here was very minor uh to start off with essentially uh bringing uh a floor up and going further and not extending the house but
just going up if I could have the clients warn I'll tell you why he's looking for more time these were from Tes about to get in specific seing to the truth Tre times of the truth I do thank you members of the zoning board good
evening my name is Jose Valdez along with Laura hobber I'm the proud owner of 53 Sagamore um I come here today to ask for more time to get the building permit um and extend the variances reason being we were blessed with the arrival of our
son a couple of weeks after you granted the variances and we severely underestimated the amount of time and energy it was going to take to you know raise our newborn um we thought that we could damn it those kids we thought that
we could balance you know ra raising him and um finishing the design of our house uh regrettably we didn't progress as fast as we wanted to I've been advised by my architect that we have about three months left on the interior design
process they're very busy um after which they asked uh us for additional three months to finish a schedule that would go into the construction agreement um after that um we would love to have a year to collect bids and V vet the right
contractor we're not turning this over to sell it later on this is our forever home we want the time um to make sure that we choose the right contractor and once that is done uh we're going to have to move um temporarily while the
construction project is is ongoing um so we need a a couple more months after that that's why we're asking for 18 months if you could be so kind to grant that request exion right so so it's 18 months and not 12 months is what you're asking for yes 18 months uh please Adam and we
would we would ask for a year but 18 months would be really wonderful if you could um that's what I did put in the letter I don't know on the agenda only said 12 but I did have 18 on that so it's up it's up to the board what the board typically does is a request like
this is to um Grant oneyear extensions under Municipal Landings law for various reasons you can ask for up to three oneyear extensions and typically Bo grants of one between a six month and a one-year extension um and then if the applicant needs more time certainly
it'll be a record that they did originally ask for 18 months but at least keep it uh you keep it on a shorter lease but at the same time the board does have the power if they wish to to to Grant an 18mon extension on T um does anyone have any questions of
the applic how many kids do you have we have one yeah he's a one-year-old he's wonderful um he's such a blessing um honestly he's much more fun to deal with than um you know deciding what's going
to be the finishing on our bathroom at times U so but yeah hopefully we'll have another one at some point um but the focus is the house now candidly that's what we're focusing on so has any work progressed on we have yes we so we've
started the interior design we're pretty much almost there but our architect is just a little behind he's swamp with work so he's told us that he needs three more months to finish the interior design process so honestly if it were up to us we're we want to start as soon as
possible candidly um we're a little bit um sort of tied to his schedule as well fortunately we do have a little Quirk here in the law because if it was site plan approval we get two years under to just to start under the municipal land use
law but there's no site plan approval so we have this one-year requirement so that sort of brings it in uh a little bit the other point here is I think these sorts of ordinances your councelor will uh advise you are to get somebody
back in the board if there's been any changes in the neighborhood or any faction so here um we have very minor relief but nothing's going to change in this neighborhood the adjacent houses aren't moving you know they're they're they're in their footprint so nothing's really going to happen that's gonna
impact the relief that you granted a year ago so we don't have those sorts of concerns which I think is the reason to bring people back in if something changes in the neighborhood but this is a sort of a static neighborhood so we have those two factors is playing in to
this a little bit question so um now you asking for 12 months the biding process you know what's the sort of guess from your perspective how did you come up with that well as far as I can tell there's a lot of competition uh right now there's
the housing market and the construction Market is pretty busy um and you know we just need time to meet with people bet them and get to see their experience while also balancing our professional and personal obligations as well so I
think you know 12 months is is a reasonable amount of time I think with that we'll have the certainty and the confidence that we need to make sure that you know we choose the right person for again our forever home this is really um it's a project really meant to
to um provide for our growing family hopefully so um that's really what we what we're aiming for any other question question M question for Rob is this 12 months or 18 months to completion or is that no it's not to completion it's just to secure a
permit to commence the construction right it's not it's not to get a certificate of occum any other questions from the board um I think the the first comment you made is like it's sort of typical to to create onee extensions sort of a one
year which could happen up to to three times sure yes it's typical for this board certainly and for other boards that and I think the um to the applicants credit I think that they've given you know certainly a justification for the extension the question is
related to the board as to have sure are there any questions from the audience pertaining to this I don't see any um what does everyone think I mean we've seen 12 months in in in
reality so I don't know 18 months would be something which is you know everybody's comfortable with I mean we always have as as Rob just mentioned we can extend it for another couple of years if that's the case um so you just keeping in you know in Trend with what
we've done in the past 12 might not be out of I had to jump over you but I i' go with 12 months and if you need another one come back you know put the record show for 18 that's what council was saying as well that would be where I would think yeah I think that feel that seems
reasonable it seems like a reasonable amount of time the original approval was also for 12 months was that was that that's you had been that's there an ordinance ordinance or the resolution yeah I think they they go hand in hand think doubling that amount of
times you have some months left for one year so I guess it starts from the end of the first anniversary for another year I guess that uh 365 from the date of publication right uh of the notice of decision so that was probably about a
week after the resolution so so of March 28th March 365 for March 20 so to Mr sc's point the applicant actually also gets the benefit of the fact that we we're gonna run the one year from the date of the adoption
of the resolution so they actually get 13 months for the price so you could stretch that out a little bit no rush make a motion to make a motion to extend uh the time for 12 months on 53
side War Road do I have a second second you want call yes that's all yes neilo Roberts yes David Bradford yes yes yes thank you very much
congratulations thank you one resolution not follow um okay next up we have calendar 42-24 this m matter was carried from uh January 13 uh the applicant is Schwin Mundra and
the location is 55 Locust Avenue um we're going to have our counselor advise us a little bit with this matter yeah just just in terms of Eligibility so this was an application
that started year on uh December I guess December 2nd of 2024 and it was carried at the end of that meeting to uh January 13 2025 for scheduled purposes to that on the January 13th meeting it was
further carried to uh today's meeting so this is an F variance it's a form of a d variance it requires five permanent votes so one of the things we need to determine obviously we have one two three four five six board members but
the issue is um which board members um listened or did not listen to the tape of the prior uh December 2nd 2024 meeting and then we have to ascertain who's still eligible to vote on the application so you want to uh I received
notification from Beth and from David that they have both watched the tape and certified to such um Nino did not so we have five eligible voters so we had Beth Beth David Joe Jessica and
Shandra so so Mr B I see you're here with the applicant you're the new architect on board so to speak on this application yes should I be SW hold on before we do that it's one so um we have five
eligible voters so that means for a f variance to get approval of that variance you need to go five for five you need to have five appr votes for approval so if one of the five eligible
members says no then it's a denial it's what's called a statutory denial so even though you have four in favor and one against that would be a denial because you need to go five for five so the question U of the moment is whether
you're comfortable proceeding with the application at this time understanding the parameters of of the vote add normally it's F 7 Sean Drew has reminded me um that
normally the pro of the board it's five affirmative votes out of seven board members because a couple board members are not eligible to vote on this application because there was continuation of the prior hearing we need to go five to five thank I can discuss this I don't need to
be sworn in right not yet okay so the question is of the two missing members were they at the present at the December meeting or are they new members um and if they were present they could be eligible to vote so there's of those two
members is one of them more eligible do we get six votes well it's all three were I don't know if they were here but I of the Miss three two were were here one was not at the
December meeting and I don't know if he if he is up to but two but two two three yeah and if we were to adjourn we could request that our newest member listen to the tapes or today
disavows his ability to listen to those tapes and make himself eligible for the April so what what this board has done in the past is under these circumstances allow the applicant to continue with
with its application you know you have a quorum to consider the application and have testimony provided since you're here with regard to the application and we would proceed um with you know public comments or questions what have you
questions from the board and then we would essentially adjourn until a future meeting and at that time typically the applicant would ask that the board have the absent
members review both sets of transcripts in essence or the or the or the videotape the first Hearing in December and then and then tonight's meeting there's no obligation for a board member to actually do that right right I don't
know what their circumstances are so just want you to be aware of that that we could get to a f meeting and then the board member says well I didn't have a chance to I had things going on in my family um and then you're you're you're
back where you are right now the benefit the benefit of adjourning until a future date is that you're not asking board members essentially to review two sets of tapes because they'll be there for that sure and we can wait the board I
can see how the testimony is going and at the end request at adjournment at the end of tonight's presentation yes you can you can do that too you can assess at the end whether you want to take the chance and ask for a vote yeah where you'd have to go five for five with the understanding though
that under the doctrines of rri dead and collateral stole that if there's a vote and it's four to one 3-2 what have you and it's not five to five it is a statutory denial and for you to
subsequently come back to the board Bo that would require you to quote unquote substantially change the plan whatever that is or you could of course appeal course so you know you have a bunch of options that you can proceed with you
want to have a moment and speak your for it you kind of follow what he con let's present it and see yeah I think we should move forward let me reintroduce what benefits I brought to the project I could read you guys as you
read us and we'll if we get to that point we'll request an adjournment if we feel like it's going to go bad and we always have the ability to change it okay everyone good thank you now let's get s from teson about to give uh
tonight's proceeding to the truth you know the truth yes yes St state your name ashin Mundra and Thomas Veo architect for the applicant do you need qualifications from me
please so I'm Thomas beo I've been licensed to practice architecture in New Jersey this is my 34th year not till later this year so 33 technically um I have designed um three or 400 homes in town I've been before this board over
that 34 years 100 times or so I've testified on many boards across the state I remain licensed in good standing with the State Board of Architects I've not had any problem problems nothing has fallen down yet so qualifications have been accepted thank
you so explain why I'm here yeah thank you for having me and good good evening um we came here in December and there was a lot of questions obviously I learned that we my architect was not prepared I was not prepped uh and we I
decided that I need to change tracks and hence I had to help me understand it better and and also make sure that we're presenting something which is more legitimate and based on
facts so thank you okay well the predominant thing I'm going to testify tonight to is how we've changed the application materially to try to bring it into something that this board could palatably approve um Mr Simon am I allowed to show
the prior Architects plans that was presented by him I think you certainly I mean if it's part of the record you certainly can um present those plans just to provide the board with the background as to what the
board was presented at the prior hearing yes and then to show by comparison the changes between that plan and your plan I would like to do that I think that would be I think that that's appropriate okay just just to remind the board um
without taking away Mr B's a thunder that the last time we were here for this application was an F variance uh 36% is permitted in the zone 34.6% existing and
43% was proposed does that sound right Mr B 34.65552 square feet terms of the numerical number the allowed is 3242 that's 36% okay hold on a second so the testimony
at the prior hearing based on my notes is different okay so just so so the so what was in the record y was 34.6 I think it was 64% existing or 3120
Square fet what is permitted is 36% or 32 37 square fet and what was proposed osed at least based on the testimony from the architect was 43% or 3863 sare ft that is all correct it is
perceived okay so the prior application had a deviation from the standard of 36% which was almost 20% 19% over which I've been doing this a while that's a significant number there was some push back and I believe Mr mra's um
expectation would be that the architect would better defend the plan that he was presenting and found himself not able to properly explain perhaps what he could do to change it or so they adjourned and he literally
called me the next day and want the fire his architect and I said well wait a minute are you in good standing is He Paid in Full what happened and having gotten satisfaction of all those things I accepted taking on the project in probably late December um and I tried to
materially change application because it was a very large deviation on F so the prior application simply put this was his plans called for a big box addition on top of the
first floor enclosed room the application had 214 square feet of first floor expansion in the screen porch and 534 squ ft of expansion on the second floor
which is what Mr M wanted he wanted to have two bedrooms for his two daughters with their own closet and private baths because his daughters are fighting and therefore he's trying to give them enough space even though and have a guest room and an office for himself so
that they're equal and that they no longer argue over the use of this one Hall bathroom the question is what can I do to make this better the first thing we did is I reviewed the opportunity of taking off this screen porch it was not
core to his initial wants it did add 200 and 14 square feet he understood that I needed to show something and he's agreed to eliminate the first floor Edition completely so the second floor Edition is now going to sit on top of columns
like it did before except it won't have the benefit of the right side having a screen porch under it so my plan has an addition similar in size on top of Colum that benefits from not having any first floor F number
one number two my new application seeks to present sort of instead of a straight back so Tom you're you're referring to plans now your plans yes I'll switch so just identify the plan sheet you're
referring to um I don't recall that the sheets that we have are colored colored is only for presentation purposes there's no material differences from the sheets I'm presenting today this identify what sheet number you're refering sure so now I'm going to refer to my architectural plant which are in
your packet dated 22125 and I'm referring specifically to sheet A2 I'm sorry A1 A1 can you confirm if the date is February 10th or February February 10 I have the 10 you just mention February 10 yeah you know
what my sheets are different dates you can stay with February 10 okay well hold on a second the plans that you're referring to any different than the plans that the
board has so the first sheet C1 is dated the the 10th A1 is the 10th A2 they're all dated the 10th did you make any further modifications um to these plans I did
not okay so you just have a new date we did the day we print these believe it or not the date updates okay so why don't we do this why don't we Mark your plans um as February 10th sure I'll enter my plans individually sheets as exhibit no no no we're not going to use them as
exhibits but for purposes of the hearing we're going to assume that every plan sheet that you're showing us is the one from February 10th because you've just testified under oath that they haven't been changed at all correct is that fair
that's fair okay so good to start yeah for now we're going to not mark them separately but if it turns out that there's markings that materially change them in any way shape or form we are going to mark them understood so I want
to illustrate the differences so that's what I'm really focusing on the differences are we don't have a first floor add whatsoever the that's number one number two we also don't have a straight back so there's an articulation in the form by jogging it in by jogging
it in I'm able to um technically articulate the back elevation so it doesn't look like this large shed Gable on the back of the home and instead I'm referring now to two my elevation sheet introduces a stepped assembly of
two Gables one that's two feet out from the other the square footages on the second floor are nearly identical between mine and the prior Architects the differences are that are articulated to form a little bit differently this allows for the back elevation to be a
compos composition of two Gables that's the second difference between plans and the prior architect PL um very subtle but the third difference is the interior layout by me putting inside the plans
the bathroom and closeting as opposed to the other Architects which had it on the perimeter my elevations are able to have windows on both the sides and the rear again facades that don't have Windows tend to look more massive and a little
bit more out of place than facades that have Windows and some side articulation and I'm referring back to sheet A2 showing two side elevations with that placement of Windows minor perhaps
trivial but an important way that makes this thing look less boxy my plans result in a f of 4.62 whereas the prior Architects was 43 my deviation is 12.8% above the
36% the prior Architects was 19.4 that's a significant change in terms of the floor area ratio combined with the architectural embellishments and the elimination of the first floor I believe
this plan is a better plan did you is is that the only thing that you changed the the floor area ratio from the prior architect like the lock coverage is that the same as the prior architect and the building
coverage seeking variances for all of those and there's one there's another variance Miss but it's the combined side yard so even though the addition is stepped in from the alignment of the current house the new uh the way the uh
combined sidey guards is interpreted is that you take the least amount of the left side side yard and you apply it to the new bulk on the right side and those two numbers together must equal 35% of the lot width or 21 feet in this case our left side results in
14.22 and our right side results in 14.24% those are 7t less than the 21t required for the combined sidew so even though my addition and I'm pointing back to the four plan sheet A1 even though my addition does jog in
from the existing house and produces you know a betterment to to neighboring houses because it's not a line um it did not change the prior variances in that respect and that these side Arts setbacks stem from the
existing home's second floor Dormer the current house has a dormer of that width so by aligning with that Dormer width which is not the side of the house it results in two non-conformities for side yards sorry no no it's fine I was just going to ask so it's just a little
confusing with the new plans and the old ones so you're you're now seeking variances for maximum building coverage no there's I'm not seeking uh building coverage variants and and not lot coverage variants no so it's just combined side yard and F
correct okay well on your yeah on the on the zoning table you don't identify a variance for Combined side yard right right yeah looks like left it
as there's no change all right so I left it as NC because the existing side yards are way less conforming than my new addition but the new addition must still apply the 35% combined side yards from the least of the left side Dimension to
the new right side Dimension and from the existing right side Dimension to the new left side uh proposed addition therefore I show it as NC because the lesser of two evils are we have existing non-conformities but my addition still doesn't meet the required combined side
non Conformity but it brings you closer to Conformity than oh the addition is more conforming but still not 35% combined thank you okay so the so the required combin is 21 feet that's right okay and you're
proposing 13.4 I'm proposing 14.22 for the left side and 14.24% um it's it's not Illustrated on that survey cover sheet and that number comes about by using the existing right side
non-conformity in combination with my proposed new left side so my left side is stepped in 3 what is the proposed combined side yard all right so there's
two for the left side Edition the proposed side yard setback is required to be 21 feet and it is 14.22 okay wait wait answer my question the requirement that I'm asking about is combined side
yard combined yes right which is supposed to be 21 fet 35% of lot withd okay what do you with the addition what are you proposing as combined side yard
this is the uh this is the difficulty of this question it's applied twice it's applied to the new proposed left side expansion and it's equally and differently applied to the new right side setback so it's applied twice the
addition on the left side and I'm referring back to sheet A1 in the back whereas this setback from this property line to my new addition should be 21 ft it in fact is 14 22 and on the right side so your left
side setback stay with your left side setback is 14.22 ft to the new addition no my left side combined setback as applies to where the wall is requires the right
side non-conformity applied to the new Left Side Edition and vice versa the existing left side non-conformity to this new right side wall so there's two combined one for the left and one for the
right this is how um I you swearing I don't have this plan so I'm looking at the old plan survey yes are you able to explain what Mr B is
trying to tell us yes do you want to see a copy of I don't have this plan no the addition is not shown on it but what it's shown the survey on the foran I'm pointing to the same she you have just for her
edification yes we're talking about not the side Ard setback we're talking about the application of the combined so I have because well so for the application of combined side setback you take one side
plus the other side right and is that greater than 21 feet in no case are we greater than 21 ft right have 17.68% 2 fet is that accurate No I that's on the combined I'll give you the left side
setback one that's a simple question it is the left side is 10.74 okay so 10.74 feet is your left side setback what is your right side setback the
existing I want I want to know to um what is it 10.74 left side what is it for the right side what's your SE 6.76
6.76 175 okay so that's so that equals 17.5 ft you with me Mr bab I am I I okay so if
theot what I'm sorry 29.1 and wind up 29.1 and 29.4 because the old plan was a different was different so it was different you have a different
combin I mean I have the left side being 10.74 in and the right side being 10.81 in just said 6.76 because your left side is 10 What U
10.74 and the existing is 6.76 correct so I have to use the right side 6.76 left side and then the left plus yes I did a d I did a deduction 21.1 I think 21.1 294
correct that's just the that's just the new construction I get the left side not I get the left side combined as 17.69% if you're combined sidey yard setback is required to be 21
ft and what your propos it is 17 and a2t yeah I'm going to amend my prior testimony right yeah 17.69% okay you add the two up 17.5t with me yes okay so the minimum
required so that's your combined side yard setback right 17.5 uh 56 17.56 17.56 the what's required the minimum required is 21t combined yes with me so
you need a Varan of 3 and2 ft roughly roughly is that accurate yes that's the least of the two but don't you apply it to both sides e yes but well you can use the worst case you can use the worst case okay so I'm testifying that the least of the two is the right side
setback which results in a combined side guard setback of 1756 whereas 21 is required but we go by percentages so let's make sure we wait we now now we're going
to extrapolate that into percentages so if the 21 ft or the 35% is required what is being proposed what's the percentage something less than 35% yes
29 226 yes 6 266 percent okay now miss Glide asked the question and I'm sorry can you just tell me doing percentages again what percentage you're
proposing for the F yes like what percentage the F under our proposal is 4.62% whereas 36 is is the maximum allow but what what are you asking like what what um what percentage over 12.8%
no she's asking what percentage of Devi like if we looking on the deviation is 12.8 you're saying the deviation is 12.8% correct for the F and the prior application that was before you was 19.4%
deviation okay so um I I understand that you're reducing things from the prior application but I mean it's still a massive f um I I I haven't heard I've heard you know the testimony of what you've done to
reduce the um you know the the previous Architects um you know overages but I still haven't heard any testimony to positive or negative criteria I mean really right now all we have is the letter to the zoning board saying that
the applicants had to take over their daughters bedrooms for work purposes and so now they need to you know build them new bedrooms like can you give us testimony I mean these are enormous overes for for they especially well they
were more enormous um so yeah but I mean not it's you know um the house will will render itself from being a three-bedroom second floor to effectively a five-bedroom second floor because of the use of home office and guest visitors they have in-laws who come in who use
one I understand that but you know I mean you're an experienced architect you know that that's personal circumstance ances that we don't take into account so I'm just saying can you give us you know positive and negative criteria and I mean right now we I me I don't think we have any testimony as to that so
testimony you know as to personal hardship is not something that we can take into account sure and you know justifying it by saying well it used to be this much over but look we've reduced it is nothing that we would take into account either so where's you know where's the the stuff that we need one
of the things I see from having done a lot of these home it's also an oversized lot it is an oversized lot big time yes so yeah so a lot of the homes in this neighborhood it's unusual to have a a house with this large with three bedrooms on the second
floor three bedrooms on the second floor is vastly different from the current market meets in the neighborhoods on Locust Avenue alone most of the homes there are four and five bedroom second floors to have bedrooms on the first floor and is it really breaks up the
family keeping in the traditions of what I see in the neighborhood a five-bedroom second floor would not be a big deviation for the expectation of what a house like this could have it is an oversized lot the oversized lot conversely does support a larger home
the larger home still has a percentage over the 36% because trying to stay within the 36% doesn't give him enough room to have a bedroom and a bathroom and a closet for each of his daughters so while the personal needs are personal and needs to get to the standard of a
five-bedroom second floor which is not inconsistent with what is happening in South Martin um I believe that this application could be approved given that it is an oversized lot and it would support it especially in light of the setback improvements from the side yards and the architectural benefit of the
back facade it takes a facade and makes it I think a very palatable neighborhood Intervention when people look at it they will say I kind of like the what he did and the way it turns out it's not as faulty and I believe those facts can
materially guide your judgment do you have any other questions from board members it was as it stands now it's a three bedroom two bath house corre it's a there's a bedroom on the first floor
oh there is one yes yeah I was referring to the second floor it's the second floor is a three-bedroom um to bad standard um given his family circumstances and how they have changed work from home and given the oversized lot and given the fact that many homes
here are four and five bedrooms on the second floor which is how families are living I believe that that you stated that in this neighborhood there are four there are houses with four and five bedrooms on the second yes okay what are you what
are you basing on i' I'd have to bring that data and I would be willing to do that I had I could do a complete survey up and down behind them and I'll show that that the vast majority of the homes are in fact four and five bedroom second blor standards the house next door to him on
the left is a brand new construction two houses on both of them both of them so they've been knocked down he's not knocking his down he's adding to it what's happening to the bedroom on the first floor what do you do with the bedroom on the first floor
bedroom uh the first floor it's uh it's right now used like a pantry right now for us for the kitchen it's like small the 12 by 10 room yeah um I will say one thing I you know
I drove by and I appreciate that this application is looking to keep the facade keep the you know the character of you know the South Mountain neighbor Hood it does match I think number 61 or one of a few houses down and I I did also notice the next door you know kind
of the Big White massing new construction style that we have seen which may have more bedrooms on the second floor I'm not entirely sure whereas I understand the pitching of the roof May limit the square footage on those upper floors um
so all three of them we have three I I know those neighbors very well all second floor have more than three bedrooms each one of them and they're massive bedrooms thank you actually how big are those lots what the dimension to the Lots I
think there are similar Lots like there are similar Lots I don't know I don't we can bring in the data but that three houses which are massive second floors that might be but again and they're similar then yeah I don't know exactly the size of
them so so in terms of square footage how much over are you from 36 to 40 40% something 4% would be roughly around um we are proposing a house of 3659 square feet whereas it is currently
3121 square feet so that's sounds like 5 and8 36% from 36% it should be because we reduced everywhere last time 400 something because we reduced the downstairs and we also reduced the
current whatever the architect yeah 417 Square F feet over what is allowed I appreciate all the effort you've done to bring it down but I'm sure you heard the testimony from last time uh where the concern was that
overage was very high did you even you know consider of if we were to stay within 36% of what is actually allowed uh was that a starting point for you how did that go from you know 100% 400 sare
feet is basically a bedroom with a bathroom he would have the situation adding one bedroom he would he couldn't add the two equal bedrooms for his daughters he'd have to add one bedroom that could be conforming under the 36% it would bring the second floor from three bedrooms to
four bedrooms we did consider that so the house will have five bedrooms in that case one one yes in that case we have five bedrooms as opposed to our case which technically has six six bedrooms three four yeah and two so that
takes away the 4% extra that brings you down to 36% basically if we were to only add one bedroom yes it would bring us down to 36% but also we'll have to reduce and completely we have to move out of the house in this addition we
don't have to do that no I think both in both cases smaller or or size like we have it it's a outside the realm of the home we can construct most of that you can live there during that time in both cases the issue is one of that do we add two bedrooms and come before this board
show that we've made some bet betterments and introduce better positive and negative criteria I explained some of the proofs that I'll come back with the positives being I think the LW could support it given its oversized nature given the setback benefits given the architectural ual nature of it given the placement it's
behind the house not in front it keeps in the charm and character of the South Mountain better than a knockdown um and I'll show you lot sizes so I owe that it's and that's a criteria that I can certainly meet any other questions from I'd like
to see the comparison too because I you know this seems you're testifying that this is standard in that area or not uncommon I'm saying that this just feels like it's um this feels like a very big house for that
area so I'm saying that the improvements that we see as Architects are all going in this direction where a lot of these three-bedroom homes built in the 40s really need more than three bedrooms on one level because of expanding families the nature of work at home the nature of
how people live today with vertical living and more people living in the house those for those reasons just to clarify one you said that if the two bedrooms were made one you would knock off 400 square ft yeah but I would lose one bedroom I mean we have a
political problem it's two two daughters so so so is that one bedroom 400 feet is that what same the combination of bedroom bathroom wall thickness room itself could be yeah 400 square F feet but you're saying if you took that away you'd be you'd be um
there would be no F yeah there would be no F variants would' probably still be here for the combined sidey yard yeah right you know maybe I make it narrower so I can avoid that because it's so close I mean we're only four feet away so it's possible to avoid
that but it doesn't meet his primary goal um so um this is next to it looks like some form of is this um like Garden Apartments or something like that
adjacent to bour Avenue there's one side is the apartment complex and the other side is the new construced house he's the first residents along Milburn Avenue behind the apartment there almost every street that's asking so the apartments what are they Garden Apartments I don't
know yes they're two story and three story Garden Apartments depends on what side you're looking for and there's a large parking lot next really his neighbor is quite a bit it's a big parking lot okay thank
you are there any questions from the audience anyone here for this application any questions any comments from the audience um okay I I'd like to hear some comments from the board but I'm just
going to start by saying I mean in I would not be comfortable approving this application as it stands I don't think you've met any of the criteria um and I don't even know if you came back to me somehow proving that there are other
houses you know in the neighborhood that have five bedrooms on the second floor we didn't we didn't approve it so you know they they weren't coming before us where where we approve those so they were obviously built in conformance but I think as it stands right now asking
for 12.8 % you know f is outrageous um I'm not as bothered by the combined sidey but the f I think is completely troubling and I don't think that you've given any any you know justification for
it besides personal circumstances and personal hardship so I don't know what my fellow board members think I would agree with all that that's that's what I think um also you mentioned something about um like thinking that the lot is big enough that you can support all this
but if we're working with percentages so you're getting the benefit of that bigger percentage area based on the size of the Big Lot I mean your your lot size is 6,000 square feet you're at 9,000 square feet yes that's a you have a bigger lot for the Z yes it's
counterintuitive um to to say it's a big lot could support a big addition but we're making an argument to show how we can possibly get there with this addition it's doing a one better aition I I doubt is serving the interest of why he initially did this and one of the
reasons he probably changed Architects was somebody who can at least have this dialogue and go back and forth and you know where we were last time much much yeah if the proofs don't I mean I'll have to consider the testimony from the feedback and I appreciate your feedback Miss glat as well as the rest of the
board members um we'll do the best we can I can only try to do what I can try to do uh and if I'm given an opportunity to rejourn this that's the opportunity I'd like to come back and address simply that if I can bring the proofs and if I can't do it then um
that's the consequences anyone else W to give I'm I'm I'm much less disturbed about the sidey yard than I am about the other looking at the property you know the way they're built and even the ones next door and that have very very tight
side yards I've stood in that parking lot of the of the apartment building and look over the fence and into there and you know I get all that I I don't like the F issue understood so it sounds
like that you probably want to carry the application at this point I do I just have a question like do we have another date hard to say all right the how much longer this would
take I didn't not that long I would say under 30 minutes if I can't make an argument in 10 minutes I know where these things go okay so would you be prepared would you be able to get something together and be prepared to go
forward on the 17th or should it put you up till April 7th probably April the 17th I wouldn't have any time do April 7th or April 21st we'll take April 7th it's available April and I would also request um just
to get better voting circumstances that the board members who are able to be here just I ask if you can listen to the tapes and perhaps provide a role in the you know Regina they'll both Gary will they're very yeah they're probably
watching the meeting right now great all right that's all I needed to hear thank you I ask if we're still going to be here on April 7th I was told that we probably would be able to have the meeting here on April 2 we're gonna have to adopt the
new calendar because we can't meet the first and third Mondays anymore wait what we have to change our dates we have so so for now we are able to carry applications to April 7th and April 2
and or April 21st for this room location okay question so so that we I am better understanding it then I can discuss with Tom I just want to get the feedback from you guyses so we went from obvious 43 to
40.6 so that we are we do the right thing can come back to you what what do you think is is not a big number like that's so that we're going down is is 40 is it I just know that so I would want
to so if we can start making smaller right so it's certainly a understandable question that you may have for the board unfortunately planning boards and Boards of adjustment which this is one cannot give what are called advisory opinions
to applicants like you know if we did this will you approve it or are we in better shape like it's really not appropriate for the board even though it's it's not a bad question at all all it's understandable that you're asking the question to give you an opinion as
to you know what will pass muster or what will not pass muster I think that to your architect's credit you've gardened a whole bunch of comments from the board members so you are much better educated than you were when you walked
in tonight to understand a little bit about what the board's concerns are and I think you got to take that in consideration and speak to Tom and decide how you want to proceed that's my advice to the board okay thank you than
you all right thank you board this matter has been carried so uh April 7th 2025 at 7 o'clock in this meeting room no further notice will be provided by the app okay uh next up we have calendar 40
21-24 That's 35a spring Spring Street the applicant SK on behalf of the applicant I think those board members are watching at home because they knew I had two applications on pretty much the
reason so so again in terms of this application I'm going to say the same thing I said the last one in terms of um this is not a a a form of a d variant correct correct okay so it's just a bul variance so it just requires a majority
vote uh and ien who's eligible because this was carried from February 3r 2025 everyone that's here tonight is great chairwoman thank you as I mentioned uh off the Record before the engineer Mr
Roth couldn't make it but there's not too much uh to go there were some concerns expressed last month uh asking for some more information we submitted a picture of the adjacent existing garage
we submitted some photo simulations uh how could we hav't sworn he was not sworn thank you and how you're the owner along with your wife yes and you took the photo of the existing shed at your
neighbor's house actually we took a picture together with my neighbor okay and uh you had some simulations uh prepared that I submitted to the board MH and you measured the height of your neighbor shed yes I did and what was the
height 8 feet okay you're willing to uh not exceed that height yes I also so Mr Wang you're referring to some photos that were submitted by Mr skull's office under cover of February 19 2025
letter right yes yeah so the first photo is the photo that is up on the left hand side there um and it's written their existing adjacent parcel right you took this phot up take this right yes can Rich can you
have um Mr Wang identify where this is located in relation to the prop so this CH actually locates uh where the Shaded area is on 35b so this is the 35d shed yes which is the
neighbors yes my adjacent neighborhood okay go ahead that's important and you measured the height of that shed yes I did and what was your conclusion as to the height it's not 15 ft and eight okay and you're willing to
stay at the same height that was one of the open issues yes so you could stay at the same height and you hired somebody to do a little rendering of your proposed shed okay and I submitted that and I this is part of the package that the
board has can I just ask a question about the rendering for for the rendering it's it's we're just paying attention to the rendering of the shed itself right because it looks like it's its own property surround corre that's not really the way that it looks it was
a Disney background there another shed right next to it and it's Tech it's it's all the same property right that is correct yeah okay um then I'm not testifying but
just to point out this is a plan that's in your package that Mr Ross submitted we added some landscaping and uh the proposal is for 200 square feet of new impervious but
we added a note that said the pavement can be chopped up 100 square feet of imper a 4 foot by 25 foot section of the existing driveway because we're over on
impervious The Proposal was 200 thought that was modest but the board expressed some concerns so we went back and we said look we can sort of uh carve out some of the driveway so that the proposal is even more modest now of over
a 100 square feet so is the proposal 100 square feet of new impervious or 200 it's 100 net 100 net question are the dimensions of the ones the pictures here also 200 I think they
were more than 200 right this one was measured 300 Square ft Okay so neighbor is bigger so the proposed shed is going to be much smaller in size 2 of this it will be 2009 with eight feet height yes eight in
the front and seven in the back so it's a sloped shed for a total of 200 square ft regardless of these pictures 200 but we're giving back 100 100 correct to
address the board's concern and we've confirmed the height when we were here last month we didn't have the height Dimensions that was his intent but he didn't do that so we can stay within the same height and then um
this true it had a concern think some other [Applause] members about distances to the neighboring properties I think the concern was that there could be a a 15 foot in height shed that would be a detriment but he's
clarified he's not going that high but you can see from this sheet you got quite a bit of distance um I measure it in the setting these that one inch is 40 feet so this is the neighbor's property
this is the shed would go so you got a pretty big distance and you can also see that these sorts of sheds I thought they were old horse barns they're not
uncommon in the in the rear yards of the other properties are they sheds or were they old maybe the the uh garage for the garage I think it house that was there it's it's it's you know prior to becoming a two family house maybe was
that like on this on this property do do you know if he had it as a car garage your neighb I mean it's huge you're calling it a shed but I mean it's it's enormous like I you know so 300 Square yeah I
mean that's just the gome and cl whatever it was just a word I picked garage yeah but now you're asking for another one on the same piece of property it's not the same almost the same um he he owns it in
fee he owns his side but it's all the same in Fe property right um an interesting question is a cond he he he took he took it in fee that's what I thought at the
beginning there's a condo to take care of it all but he has a deed just for 35 B now I think it has a meets and bands I'm not sure it should make a difference from a land use perspective so well I I think for purposes of assisting the
applicant I think that what we need to consider is that the left side where he's proposing to to do this project is going to be considered legally as what's called a limited common element what
that means is that as opposed to the other two family residents being able to utilize the left side they can't that is for the exclusive benefit that's why it's called The Limited common element in the law for the owner and the renters
of of in essence that side of the property does that sound reasonable Mr SC I think that's accurate okay can I can we swear in the zoning officer swear
proceeding I do elen I know that not everything counts as an accessory structure could the applicant put anything in their backyard like any size
sh shed that wouldn't you know what I mean that wouldn't trigger any variances and if so what what size would be because I tried doing it I did it as this is one lot so basically that large
whatever is that's on the adjacent on your kind of took up everything that could be done back there because the house pretty much and between the house and the driveway you're really at your your maximums
already but is there is there a size like okay well if they were putting up like a 4 foot by you know what I mean like something where it's it's you know where there's literally nothing that you could do we need to count as
an I I understand the coverage is coverage and L coverage are over yeah no no I understand that but I feel like in the past you know not not everything if it's a certain size it doesn't necessarily count towards coverage no it always
counts towards coverage just when it comes time for um storm water management anything under 200 square feet they will not so it's 199 square feet there's no storm management but from a zoning perspective regardless of the size you
know there's really no I mean obviously if someone came to me and say hey I'm putting a you know a little pad for my garbage can it's 2 by two I'm not going to you know you kind of have to what are you proposing I forgot if
you mentioned it last time to put in this shed what are you using it for uh storage for the uh Toys outoor equipment uh storage for toys and Outdoor Equipment yeah like
uh La MERS and the like no removal equipments all that there's no garage here yeah there's no outo space for the for the a park of that does it have utilities I don't plan to put utility on
it will just storage yeah I mean just looking from the rendering it's a pretty opulent shed with Windows and I just it's my neighbor's request he wanted my sh to be in con consistent
with case oh so that didn't like damage the value of his his property obviously it cost more for me to construct it I would rather get his approval oh you need I've already got
his approval actually your neighbor shed which is a picture was attached to that did they use that for living space no they use that for Storage storage yeah there it looks like that there's a couple of
Lights I think it's like the the solar lights there solar lights yeah okay do you intend to have solar lights on yours you don't show them in the rendering no I no okay I mean I mean just put a like a a post on the on the ground just for
decoration purpose thank you SC I have a couple if this is a condominium and this is a limited common area usually is is is the owner responsible for the maintenance of the exterior property
here because you're your limited common area the association has responsibility for the maintenance of The Limited common area I I don't I don't know there is a condo because I originally filed having them as agent for the condo then
there was some questions and we went back and they they took a deed they have their own deed to unit be here I don't know who's responsible I I think it's your intent that you're going to be responsible for practice the practice is
for the like ceilings and outdoor equipments outside equipments like fixings all that we share I own 45% and he owns 55% we do that but everything inside in the walls we cover
our owns right so if if your driveway needs to be repaired replaced whatever that's going to be separated you pay for that yourself yeah cuz that's my own driveway he has own the driveway on the left side of the house which is yours you're responsible for name that's not
written in the in the condo D in the condo D but that I think that will be the practice so is the rep to to that point so is the representation in terms of Maintenance of the shed in the surrounding area
that's going to be born by you or the or the association me so conversely when when he has to do something to his shed he doesn't call you up and say uh I need a new roof on my shed let I need your but he doesn't
say I need your I need your 45 cents on the dollar put no that's uh I don't think that's how we kind of like have a I don't know is agreement but we understand the situation and that's how it works you have like a a meaning of
your mind two one yeah so there wor and you're representing you're also representing this St is six feet tall but the existing fence the existing fence in in the back is in the back and also divides you from 30 you could see it in the
picture here actually that's I know I stood there and it came up with my notse so that's about six feet so I think that was m true it's concerned how much would really be sticking out so and that's why the eight point represent to me is important and then s feet in the back so
you're hardly going to see it from over the fence from exactly and I I think we have a rendering of the the view from the back I don't know yeah I just wanted to make sure that fence s was that we weren't sure the rendering actually shows it
higher than that but if it's only seven feet in the back it's not g to be much over and and the issue is really the lot coverage building coverage and and uh we can take out 100 so you're talking about a very modest the setbacks are okay we
don't violate anything and now confirm that height of accessory structure these setbacks are all okay you can have a an accessory structure back there we're talking about uh 100 square feet of new impervious we got some landscaping and investment and uh if you allow me a
little leeway uh you know the purpose of the mlul is to to have an appropriate population density reasonable place you appreciate it's a tight area but there's no garage here so some storage is needed
and I think somebody asked last time you know can you just move it into the house but it it doesn't really work like that with the house you're mowing the lawn all right more I don't even want to invest in that kind of equipment because
I don't have a place for them so well who does you want your D service yeah it's quite expensive I know my hourly rate was a little Hefty for that I just I had a business growing up in P
sipp just uh for the record uh maximum lock coverage permitted in this area 45 45 and we're going up you know 1 point2 we're going up 100 square feet in
numbers well yeah just St what the percentages does so it's 45 and presently it's at 58.8 looking at the going 15% over the yes but it that's not the the new Delta obviously what is it well we're
going existing is 58.8 right going to 60 yeah I'm just looking at the overall that's correct so here is a question now you are already way over on the lot coverage and building coverage
right to make this net increase of 100 go away and you you know did you consider whether you know because this 200 square ft that you're making is essentially 14 by 14 that gives it 196 12.5 * 16 our
dimensions and just a question here if you went down to 10 by 10 which is 100 and I'm you know just a question so that would take away the request for the extra so because I mean the concern that you're hearing is that you're already way over
and this was expressed even last time from where we are 45 allowed 58 going further up 60 was there any consideration given just a question look you could always make it small you can make you can make it the shed
smaller but it'll be less useful like thinking about long M it's it's quite big that long will take half of that 10 by 10 shed and mean
it how about we give give give away make that a little long what is that the 4 by 25 you want to try to go another foot there yeah how's that that sound to try to you know you're to to
bring out he's saying to lower this you'll give you we'll go to 5D to get to 125 so it's a 75 the net I we appreciate the numbers but the net is this is it's 100 square
feet 10 by 10 of the new imperious coverage that's the goal of the the regulation is to control impervious and as it is today we're at 100 square feet I would submit that's a pretty
minor number to to give a person who has a very significant investment into the community something that's that's livable and usable and reasonable this is not I would suggest a huge ass to to
work in in the in the Milburn area and a and on a smaller lot size to to g a decent balance when he's come forward with only 100 square feet it's it's more I appreciate the number gets higher but it's marginal
what we're proposing here only 100 square feet of new impervious coverage with some new Landscaping to give a Community member a decent size shed Rob can I ask you a question
because I'm still having and I don't know if anyone else is having trouble with this that this at the end of the day is is one property that you know someone put you know the Builder or someone put a big fence right in the
middle of it to give the illusion of it being two separate properties but I I I still not quite sure how we're supposed to you know interpret it because when I'm looking at this I'm I'm envisioning that big fence divider not being there
and having two structures I'm sorry I I don't consider you know a 12 a half by 16t uh structure as a as a shed um you know and the other one is even bigger on
one property that's feels very overbuilt so I you know I just I'm not I need to know how how we're supposed to sure so this property I I this property is in the R7 Zone and in the R7
zone two families are permitted right with certain both criteria so it's not like this is a circumstance where this is a pre-existing non-conforming use or structure and now they're trying to sort of prep you know push the envelope and
expand or intensify the use the actual use the two family use is permitted so if you start with the premise that the two family use is permitted then like I said earlier when you have limited common elements each family unit right
has their stuff whatever it is starting with the house driveway backyard backyard area sometimes to your point Jessica you have circumstances where the two family
essentially shares the backyard and the barkyard area the way this was constructed it was constructed that each unit has their own essential backyard area as if it's sort of split into two in this case they have the fence you are
correct there's no requirement for the fence the fence could come down tomorrow um but I still think and I and I was just checking in terms of the bulk requirements in terms of sidey yards and setbacks that I still think that it is
functioning as sort of these two separate Lots even though it's leg done lot with two kind of limited common element areas and I think that that has to be considered by the board sort of like you know what's the reality of the
situation on the ground like we can just look at the numbers and say Hey you know you're at 60% this this doesn't look right um and that may be the ultimate decision of the board but I think you also have to consider sort of you know the way this this lot
functions and maybe the way other Lots in the area function um to to make that decision you know these these two families are really difficult because it's not like that the zoning ordinance necessarily contemplates that you're going to have a condo and you're going
to have limited common elements and general common elements it doesn't do that and it's actually a real FL on mpal generally to sort of ignore that and coming up with zoning so you know it puts the it puts the applicant in essence in a bit of a tough spot in
these circumstance it's not the say I don't have a you know dog in the fight as to whether you're going to prove or deny the variant but but you should look at what what you're dealing I don't know if that helps no that's helpful um I think you're right I
I appreciate chair's you know distinction of like we're looking at one lot and now we're talking about two it but but in other ways we're looking at a lot divided with the fence with two separate owners and two separate desires to be able to use their property and to
maintain it um I appreciate that the give back of the H hundred impervious I I want to acknowledge that I you know you heard us and and took a step towards it I don't know if all the board members bill it's far enough or there're still
troubl with it um I think would be nice to be able to afford you the opportunity to have the the shed you propose that with comments are there any other questions from the board okay I just want to open it up to the public is there anyone in the public
who has any questions on this application okay so I'm going to close public portion and now we can move on with comments you guys said uh you know that that the the lot coverage and the
building coverage being way over does trouble me and uh going taking it further more uh doesn't seem to be the right thing but based on what what you know Rob just mentioned keeping that in mind that these are two separate Lots
two separate owners uh the opportunity to afford creating a shed that you want to mirror what you have from your neighbor and smaller size and giving up 100 square feet uh and with
the net increase of 100 um I know you propose something lower but again you know I just want to hear everyone's view i' would love to you know be able to give you the opportunity to what a reasonable number is and you know that can you know we can
come to a collective number uh but that that's where my view is although the other side um we're way over on this and anything that you add to it is just gonna create tremendous overage as I look at
the the aerial photo of this place which is I think I think it might be I request engineer the area is so much impervious coverage between parking lots driveways sheds big sheds in some cases we're just adding
one more structure impervious structure and we have flood issues down no doubt about that so I'm probably the that side of the spectrum that's against it I I agree I'm I'm just troubled by the application still even with taking
out um that that area of driveway um I feel bad because I I think that you know with with our you know with the way that these to family houses work I think that this is a problem actually with the ordinance that you could have your next
door neighbor taking up all this space with an enormous again I don't even want to call it shed but it's like a mini house you know and then that leaves you no no ability to put in anything um because it's just so overbuilt already
by it you know I I'm just I'm I'm troubled by it so uh you want to make it a little smaller you got at least two board members who are expressing some concerns can you go we're at 20000 can you go 150
yeah to try to make it then we're we're talking about 50 square feet of new impervious here we're closed back for Bo discussion I mean for me I'm still against it so that meant anything know I don't I don't like the idea that
the the neighbor has more footprint in the building than he has he's just in the building itself then he's got all the footprint in the in the accessory building I Equity tells me that we
should let them up something 10 by 15 is 15 you know I'm I don't like going over the numbers but um this feels like a you know a case to me where the equity would
fall with Mr can I ask a question just on the math part so 50 square feet over would be how much percent from 58 it would take to 50 square feet over existing 7,991 so so the 58 Point whatever per
goes up to like a half a percent we're going up 5T on 800 yeah 6 or 7% okay got A's in law school but I don't know how I'm going to do on the math here we're going 50 on 8,000 we're
going 50 on 7991 50 divided by less than 1% 6 6.2 62 to to have something that is is more functional in downtown
mbour I would say in the in the in this Zone the more intense Zone I've got a comment here just just wondering um you know how feasible is it to give back more payment you know so we go 4 by 25 now
you know it's that's that's where the par cars parked so so right now one car uh girl is is on the way so soon I will be needing two cars
uh do you back out of the driveway or do you um turn around yeah that's where all the you able to turn in the back are you able to turn around right now come out yes yes squeze there will you still be
able to turn around with even if you take away that 100 square fet I think uh so I'm to be honest my thinking is the car can probably pull like the wheel can drive far A little bit so that leave me
some space to back so we're talking about 50 square feet new impervious here 50 square 50 square feet to to to have him
have a more usable and livable home that's a benefit to zoning to have a a a reasonably sized unit so just for the record the proposal for the applicant that board is to consider is
is a shed of a size not to exceed 150 square F feet Yes with a condition that a 4X 20 foot section of pavement be removed and turned
into pervious area so that the water can flow down so we're talking about a net 50 square foot addition of impervious significantly less than 1% almost a half
a percent on an 8,000 square foot lot to give a resident a usable outdoor storage area this is a resident of of your of your community who's come back spent very significant amount of money
to get to this point and in good faith has compromised on the size added landscaping for fully engineered the site and and made what I believe to be a reasonable accommodation and a movement towards the concern I I would hope that
you could uh find a spot to uh proove that this is this is an entirely uh reasonable proposal not not a not a crazy ask someone like to make a motion
I'll make a motion that we approve it at 150 square ft with the 4 by 25 give back on on the driveway and I could second I could second is that with additional driveway other than what you already
offered to take just what's on the it's on the plans the 4 by 25 so we have six eligibles tonight so we will need four affirmative for an approval so this it's so it's a motion it was a motion to
approve at 150 feet with 100 square foot the give back from the imper the pur you have a question yes I do have a question ahead we are six what about a three3 right that's what I said we would need four in favor an approval tonight that's what he said
so so a three three tie is a denial do you want to vote or come back I think that's that's what's that I interrupted rudely and gave him
the option of coming back but he he would like to go to a vote okay and and just you understand Mr SCH is a very seasoned and excellent attorney and he will explain to you that under the doctrines of restri cot and collateral and stole if you were denied on the
application if you just as an example came back and said well instead of 150 sare feet I'm going to make it 147 scare feed under the doctrines of rest to conic collateral stole he would likely be foreclosed from coming back because it wouldn't be considered the
significant enough of the change to allow the board to consider something different do you understand that you can make a significant change but the board gets to decide whether it's significant enough for them to hear it
again okay yeah I think you get we don't know that's the thing we don't know in advance okay so there was a motion in a second to approve at 150 square feet with 100 square foot of the uh impervious given
shandro hard yes V yes n Mino Roberts yes David Bradford yes Joseph callfield no Jessica glad no congratulations te thank you for your
time thank you so much okay next up we have calendar 43-24 two Woodfield Drive the applicants are Elliot and Aon vanto you s from testimony about to give this proceeding be the truth told truth
the truth yes your name is to the speaking tonight um good evening to the board nice to see everyone um I'm Aon I'm eron de Santo this is my husband Elliott we moved to Short Hills almost four years ago from the city we first time home owners we hope this to be our
last home we moved here with two kids we now have three kids um and we're finding that the sizing of our house is not necessarily working for our family we have two bedrooms on the second floor so we have a 5-year-old and an eight-year-old on the second floor we have a two-year-old on the first floor
in what used to be my home office and we're on the first floor so as you can imagine there's a lot of Little Footsteps up down the stairs which you might say we knew that when we moved in but we learn that very quickly on the second week of living there that maybe this perhaps wouldn't work for us so we
have hired Steve here who we've been working closely with we're hoping to change the design of our house to expand and have more bedrooms upstairs my name is stepen Hawkin first name St ven last name h o c k s i n I am a principal of ahm
Architects 281 Main Street in mbour New Jersey 281 Main Street mbour New Jersey and I uh my license is active and current in New Jersey your qualifications accepted
um so so as um eron explained the house that they are in now if I can uh show you the the floor plan these are the plans that you have there's two bedrooms on their first
floor and currently there's two little bedrooms on the second floor which you can see on A3 on the right side um so we were hired to do is to change the house so that we have four bedrooms on the second floor and because of covid and
all the things that are happening now the first floor one of the bedrooms will be used as an office and the other bedroom will be used as a guest room and also uh a second office for when they're both working at home um property um it's
interesting property it's it's um a compliant lot but the thing is the house that's there uh now is if you look on the site plan the house is it's a qu a lot so two fronts but the house is skewed to the
left and the current house even as a one-story part of the house is non-conforming for side setback um and what we're doing is we just want to vertically go above what's there we're not going any closer to the property line we're just going higher but because
um in this Zone as you go higher you actually have to go further in so the setback requirement for a second floor would be 25t we're only um at uh 14 14.1 on one side and 15.3 in the front
so we're just asking for two variances we're asking for uh an a vertical intensification of the side yard on the left side um and then we also we want to put a portico in the front and there's a slight uh encroachment on the front yard setback um everything else is compliant
on what we're asking for um but obviously we're not moving the house we kind of have a little bit of a hardship that just going above what's there now um we're not moving the house and we actually studied the option
of of doing an asymmetrical house and it just didn't look nice um the existing house that's there now if you look on your A4 I know kind of looks like a Pizza Hut to say it but um so what our goal is to is to
take this second floor off and um sorry that's all I'm goingon to see now I my and and so what we're going what we're proposing to do is is put a second floor on some of the things that we did
to mitigate the side yard um encroachment is we we did a a a hip roof so that the the slope of the roof on the left side we where we are asking for the variance we sloped it back we didn't put a Gable on that side so the height will be less intense on the left side
neighbor additionally the house that's on the left side that's most affected um their driveway is on that side of the house and also the garage is on that side of the house and I measured it and from their property line to the actual garage nextor it's 37
feet so in total we're 42 feet from the building that's there now and that side of their house um doesn't have any windows on the garage so it's really we're not really hurting them and then the other thing which is important to know is the the left side neighbor is 5
feet the property is 5 feet higher than their house so the fact that they're higher even makes the the height of of their home less of an issue because see how you're talking about elevation the ele I'm sure yes I'm sorry the ground is five feet higher on on number 10 which
is to the left of them so the fact that they're going vertically is is less imposing on them because their house is already 5 feet higher than then number two which is where we're asking for the addition um we also feel that um some of the
things that we're doing is we're modernizing the house we're making it more better for the housing stock in Milburn um we're having four bedrooms on the second floor and as Ain said having three kids and having two bedrooms on the first floor and two bedroom on the second FL really doesn't work in a
modern house today um but the um we also feel that what we're doing is in scale with the neighborhood we're not asking for a huge house we actually think it's going to improve the Curve appeal of the house and
um you think what else I want to say uh that it's that's really um what what I want to say is we feel that the both requirements of everything else were were compliant questions
yeah you said that uh the neighbor's garage is that facing garage no it's actually the garage is in the back of the next to neighbor's house so you're just driving past the house and coming around and entering it from the back so the house looking from the front the house to the left side they have a
one-story garage that they you just drive by and come around into the back it's a on story garage they don't have any rules on jobs no so it's 14 feet from your property line to the to from your it's almost 15 it's like 14 so 15
and then 37 so it's almost 50 plus feet between the buildings to your building correct so there's a lot of air and open space between the buildings turnning to A7 your sheet did you do that it shows the left side of
the building one as Clos as the side and well by the way this is intentionally we minimize the windows facing the neighbors so they maintain privacy to the left side neighbor that's why we only have one window there we we really emphasize the front and the back have
you I mean you eventually put a hip roof in there and give it less of a massing absolutely we we sloped it back so that it wouldn't be as imposing on the neighbor uh is there any maybe break between the first second floor like a kind of a there's a break in material the lower levels what is that the lower
levels brick and then we're going to do siding above it just to get that's a little better yes we're also we're actually considering taking the Breck off and putting Stone on that's still different it's yeah it's not one continuous yes it's not going to look
like a massive big piece and there's going to be trim and nice things that as we reside the house and put new you know new windows in um I don't know if this is relevant or not we are also making an addition on the back of the house but everything
that we're doing there is compliant we're putting a covered porch and a little family room Edition said there was a convenience which is the yes we're we're doing a front Portico um just this little porle just
it sticks out into the front yard setback which just to give you the number because at the time that you applied for this they had taken that out of the ordinance and since the time that you we did the denial they put it back
in so the ptico will not need a bar okay I take it back we need one VAR just front step back is now gone yes we're just asking for the for the left side if I wait long enough maybe that one will be done too any other questions for board
members anyone in the audience do has any questions on this any comments from the audience board members what do you think I St um it like a pizza hug
have sorry um I'm very familiar with the area I grew up here and I know that my best friend lives around the corner so I know that house really well um I am supportive of the application uh my only issue would have been if there was a massing thing on the leftand side and if the neighbors from the left hand side
came up and said something then I would you know take another look at it but I think it's a pretty I think it would definitely add to the neighborhood U just based on what the other houses are acoss the other side have for this I would be supportive as well and that was my question in terms of massing
as just mentioned that it's far away from the neighbor's property and it's also one-story garage so it's not going to obstruct any Vision into any of the rooms on the second floor so I would be supportive as well I went to the property and all the testimony you gave
I've noted all the same things changing the topography the fact that the driveway was next door the fact that the garage had no there's a blank wall think is it corre and by the way your dog makes a lot of
noise the dog I rang the doorbell the dog barked a lot since no one came I figured you weren't home yeah but yeah he Bowser protects the kids um yeah I'll just add that um first
of all I did not see the Pizza Hut when I was looking at the house more more Pizza Hut on the plan but I do think that there is a hardship here um you know you're just intensifying the pre-existing
non-conforming um setback so I like that this application is not over intensifying anything it's not asking for f it's not you know we're not trying to get more square footage we're not you know trying to overbuild you know on on
the property um I could support the application would someone like to make a motion I would move to approve application as set forth by the I can second shrew harani yes Soul yes Neil
Mino Robert yes David Bradford yes Joseph corfield yes J yes thank you you're all welcome to Pizza Drive I mean never that okay uh last up we have CER 40
22-24 the property location is 21 Great Oak Drive um and the is Hello uh dear members of board did you want to sare First yes yes
okay do do you swear from testimony about the EV that's truth you come to the truth yes yes your name's for the record uh Jonathan Joe cou Dana naano nap you are and I'm the architect so I don't know if you want to
yeah can I have your qualifications please um I hold a bachelor of architecture from NJIT and I'm also NCB certified I have a license from the state of New Jersey since 2013 and it's in good standing and I've also been sworn in as an expert before other
boards in the area including the ChatOn Madison Summit ands qualifications beened um hi good evening everyone um dear member of the board my name is Jonathan um this my wife we moved to
Short Hills in 2022 from Jersey City um in order for our daughter to attend the school in the areas um we came at a time when the housing inventory was extremely low um but we're fortunate to have found our house which we really like you know a lot of things about it especially it's
proximity to everything um we love this area and we plan to stay here longer term but after we moved into the house we noted a few issues with the house that we hope to fix both as necessity and to add value first of all all of our bedrooms are on the second floor this
presents an issue for my in-laws who are staying with us um and they're both close to their 80s and they have a lot of trouble climbing the stairs every day so one of the main reasons that we're um you know building for this project is to add an in-law suite on the first
floor second um the laundry room in our house is in the basement uh so my wife has to carry loads of laundry up and down the stairs two flights up stairs actually on a daily basis um she has lower back pain um and also shoulder impingement so this daily routine causes
a lot of inconvenience and pain for her so in our um for us it's a critical for us to add a laundry room to the second floor third our current house has a very narrow entryway it doesn't have a mudro um so we hope hop as part of this
project to add a m mudroom um fourth our house has very limited storage and closet spaces and expansion will greatly improve the situation finally because the laundry room were the place that we're currently envisioning for our laundry room will take away one of the bedrooms on the
second floor we would uh hope to add a new bedroom on top of the garage as well as the newly added in-law suite on on the first floor to complete the project um so with that I'll turn over to Dana to share the details of our project um so as as uh they mentioned
they engag us to design their project located at 21 grade Oak Drive identified as block 1605 lot 14 uh the house is a twostory colonial style home built in 1948 and there's a one story attached garage uh the lot area is
14805 where 14,500 is required the property has a lot width of 93.5 ft measured at the required setback and then it tapers inward towards the back of the property line uh there's a line of tall
vegetation that starts about halfway up the driveway and runs about the length of the existing house the driveway is actually located along the right side property line and goes around into a parking area for the rear entry garage
um in the this is the V1 drawing in the aerial photograph that I provided and in the Google Street View you can see that the neighbors driveway actually runs right along their driveway sharing this property line so with regards to the house
itself as they mentioned they are looking to add onto the first floor to create a modest in-law suite and a mud room so right now we have the at the right side of the house the existing two-car garage with a front entrance to
come into a small vesu and then access from the garage directly into the house we're not looking to change that access we're just closing up that front door and basically moving it forward so when we look at the proposed plan on V2 we've got that mudro door slid forward set
back a little bit from the main wall the front facade so we don't have confusion about which door is the front door uh we have a small mud room that has space for a coat closet and the massive amount of shoes and book bags that are currently toward right in this little corner here
as you walk in the front door um the bedroom we feel is a very modest size and it has an on Suite bathroom and a small closet uh should note that on the first floor the line that you see going across the plan that's actually the building
envelope so we are stepping in the addition so it does comply with all the required setbacks so it actually steps in from the edge of the existing garage by 4 in at the second floor level they currently have what is their
smallest bedroom at the back right corner of the house so that's about 11 by 11 all the other bedrooms are pretty good size so what we're doing with the proposed project is creating a hallway to access a new primary Suite over top
of the existing garage and the proposed first floor Edition that allows us to add some storage closets for that much needed storage upstairs and a mod sized laundry room so that we don't have to go all the way downstairs into the basement although I didn't include a basement
plan I can tell you with this existing house it was added on we got SE a couple times over the years but there's only basement below the living room dining room kitchen and Center so their laundry is currently down the stairs around the
stairs and all the way in the back corner of the house in the unfinished part of the basement so we're moving laundry upstairs creating that hallway and then adding a primary Suite that gives some space for a bedroom about the same size
consistent with the other three bedrooms that remain a bathroom that can accommodate a tub which was one of the things that they were not able to get in the current master bathroom that's there now and a walk-in closet slightly bigger than the one they have now um one of the
one of the things we paid close attention to as well on the second floor is is maintaining those required setbacks to the second floor of the addition because as you know this the height is different once we're above 18 feet it changes the setback so the second floor actually does comply with
the required setback to the portion of the building over 18 feet uh we are also making an effort to step this area in because one of their criteria was to maintain that side facing window in their daughter's room just to make sure she still gets good light in there um
another thing we're doing is setting the addition in on the second floor from all sides so that's not only to comply with the setback but it's also to reduce the massing when we're looking at it from the outside for a second so when we look at it from the exterior you're seeing the
existing elevation up top on the V4 sheet there's no change at all to the house from basically the main facade going across to the left the only change we're really making is replacing the roof with a new roof because it's wood shingle now and we're switching the material we have the one-story portion
of the garage here with the current vestibule entry we're pulling that forward so we still have the door tucked in the corner here we've made an effort here with the design for the portion of the one story Edition that projects forward of the main facade to have that
be a low roof line so we're doing that on purpose so that we're not overpowering the main facade of the house the front wall of this