In accordance with section five of the open public meeting act, be advised that notice of this meeting was made by president hallic designated newspapers to indicating that this meeting will take
place at the board of education building on Monday, January 12th, 2026. Okay. So, at at this point, we're going to administer oats of office. I believe the only two uh who that applies to were
David Bradford uh who's I mean boarding board of adjustment member as well as Craig Plner. Welcome back, Craig. Also, zoning board of adjustment members. I'm gonna ask you both to raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name.
>> I do solemnly swear or affirm or affirm >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States. Constitution >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> Constitution of the state of New Jersey. >> And that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
>> and to the governments established in the United States >> the government established >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people. >> Authority of the people. I do further solemnly swear or affirm >> that I will faithfully impartially and
justly >> perform all the duties of the office of zoning board of adjustment member >> according to the best of my ability. So help me. >> Congratulations. >> Ask me one of you to sign these and I
will notoriize your signatures. That's the number. >> David Bradford >> here >> this time we will accept nominations for chair. I would um like to nominate someone for
chair who has uh held previously held the position for quite a while. Um he took a brief retirement but I knew that he would not be able to stay away for long because he's wonderful on this board and um and we're really glad to
have him back and that is great pleasure. >> Thank you so accept the nomination. >> I do. >> Yes. Are there any other nominations? Chair. >> Did you need a second? >> Um, I think
there's >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Would you? >> Yes. >> Joseph Cfield? >> Yes. >> Yes. There we go.
>> Well, welcome back. >> Okay. Uh, moving up from here, we also have to nominate our vice chair um in in keeping with um sort of what was and uh and a person that has always
worked incredibly well uh on the board and one who who's been on the board I think the longest now in a long time. Um I would I would like to nominate Jessica Glad. Um, and I'm certainly open to any
other nominations, but otherwise, if I could have a second roll call on that or >> Yeah. >> David Bradford, >> yes. >> Craig Bner, >> yes. >> Barry Rosen, >> yes. >> Regina Truit, >> yes. >> Beth, >> yes. >> Joseph, yes.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, next up we have the uh appointment of our board attorney. Um, I um I'm not sure there's anyone else for this. So, could I have a nomination, please?
>> I nominate Rob Simon as board attorney. >> Uh, anyone else up for the nomination? I will second that. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. Gary Rosen. David, >> yes. >> Yes. Does it help you? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Thank you very very much. >> Now for the most important god in the room. >> Okay. All of us, >> right? All of us ceremonious. >> It's a fiveyear term.
>> Exactly. It's like a superior court judge actually. Uh so Supreme Court judge uh for the appointment of board adjustment secretary. Um, the bench is deep. Uh, but we're going to, uh, see what we got
here. So, can I have a nomination for for board adjustment secretary? >> I nominate Eileen Davit as board adjustment secretary. >> Uh, are there any other nominations? >> Unfortunately, >> I don't get a choice that I can't decline, right?
>> Still can't decline. Uh, do I have a second? >> Back in >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Um,
next we have the annual notice. Um, so the dates we have listed here are through June. Um, >> I will say, um, >> I'm assuming that's >> the May date. Um, currently I can't have it
>> testing and not at night. They're kind of hesitant to let them to that date. So, >> you want to put it on and then I wouldn't be here any day, but >> Well, I guess I guess it comes down to are you going to schedule applications
for that day? >> I probably won't. >> You know, I might find out later in the day later in in you know in a few months that they might give him they might give us we might also be in the library. So >> we also have two meetings in April and
two meetings in June. So if you miss that you can catch up. >> All right. So let's leave it on. Okay. >> And then if if we get more concrete then you can put applications on otherwise we won't. So um currently presented as through uh January through June. Um
>> can I have a motion to uh approve that as presented? Second. >> Okay. >> Do a roll call. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Regina Truly. >> Yes. >> Beth. >> Yes.
>> Joseph. >> Yes. >> Jessica. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, next up, we're getting some more into our business. Now, we have the approval of the minutes of 12825. Um any corrections or changes?
If not, who's eligible to >> obviously not? >> Everyone. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to approve business? >> Second. All >> in favor? All
>> in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Uh motion passes. Uh next up we have memorializations starting with calendar 4025 uh marked panter at one marine place uh
short hills. Any corrections or changes to that moralization? If not, can I have a motion to approve that? >> Eligible are David Brad. That's all. Joseph Cfield.
Make motion to be approved as written. >> Thank you. and second. >> Second. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Virginia Troulet. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Just >> Okay. Uh, next up we have calendar 40 50
G Casey Schultika Dal 22 Hobart Avenue and Short Hills. Um, second. Uh, >> any corrections or changes? If not, can I have a motion? Make a motion to approve founder 40502-2. >> Create in a second.
>> I'll second. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Regina Truit. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Joseph Pio. >> Yes. Just >> Yes. >> Next up in calendar 40 6025. Howard Drew at 50 Farmstead. Um Sim Crew.
>> Eligible are David Gary. >> Uh any corrections or changes? Not a motion. >> A motion to approve calendar number 4060-25. >> Second. >> David Bradley. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Regina Throw. Yes. Jessica.
>> Yes. >> Lastly, calendar 406125, Ying Zang at 15 Ridge Terrace and Short Hills. Um, who we have? >> Uh, David, Gary, Regina, Beth, Joe, Jess. >> Any corrections or changes? If not, a
motion to approve. Motion to approve as >> David Bradford Rosen. Dr. F. >> Yes. >> Joseph Coldfield. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to our first application. We have a couple to be
carried first. Um, so if you're here this evening on calendar 405125, uh, which is 521 M8 properties located 521 L Avenue, that is being carried to a date, uh, to be specified later. Correct.
>> They're notic they're be noticing for February 2nd. >> So if you're here for that, February 22nd or if you're playing along at home on YouTube, >> uh, calendar that'll take place at this location and no further notice. Well, I guess I have to get notice of that. >> Yeah, they have.
So calendar 402525 also will be carried uh that's 44 Essex Street 3 which is triple 1 holdings. Um that one uh will also be carried. Is that slated for similar date or >> I have it scheduled for February 2nd for scheduling.
>> Okay. February 2nd for scheduling only. There's probably going to be an update to that. So those two will be carried. >> Right. So, but we're going to because it's for scheduling only, that application will be carried to the February 2nd, 2026 date. This location 7:00 for scheduling purposes only.
Correct. >> Thank you. >> So, first up this evening with calendar 405825 Diamond Towers 137 JFK property. Mr. Skolick, come on down. >> So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be recusing myself from this particular
application due to a conflict. We have John Duca from San Shaw who's going to be uh filling in for me on this application. So, I will exit stage left. >> Thanks. >> Stage the standard. >> Yes.
>> Hello. >> There's no microphone here. >> Disappointed. Congratulations. Thank you so much. >> Clearly not Mr. B. >> I was worried you were going to maybe take the agenda out of order, maybe try to adjourn the meeting before we got
started, but you're spot on. You're right on it. Thank you. I'm representing Diamond Towers 5 LLC, which is a tower company, and it's the successful bidder on a municipal bid to install Communications Tower on Township own
property, 137 JFK Parkway. It's block 5401, lot one on the tax maps. It's the township's leaf composting facility, and we're in the seed zone. I note even after about 30 years of cell phoned and
the wireless business, the township has still not adopted a wireless ordinance which would give the cell tower community some direction on where to go uh and where to place their facilities. There's no conditional use standards.
There's no bulk standards for towers. So anywhere anywhere that uh a tower company or a carrier would see to place the antennas would require the D1 news variance and by votes but we're guided
of course by the bid that has gone out by the township committee and my client has uh won that bid. So we're proposing the tower at the leave composting facility. The tower is proposed to have antennas from Verizon. That's the the
lead carrier. There's also going to be municipal antennas on this tower that was part of the bid. So, there's a a municipal element. We have the township engineers November 21st review memorandum saying that we're handling
storm water adequately. We have a whole series of other review letters. No issues. We can add uh landscaping. We can widen the the little road that comes in. No problem with that. will endeavor to be relatively uh brief. Miss Davin
told me no jokes. No jokes. I disregarded that, but we'll see what we can do. I have Josh Catrell. He's the civil engineer just to explain what we're doing physically. The radio frequency engineer is Andrew Peterson. He'll explain why Verizon needs this
site for its network. And then we have a planner, Brian Sideel, to sort of wrap it all together with the criteria. Hopefully I can do it in 10 minutes. Uh enjoy this, but we'll see what the board says. We'll endeavor to be brief and if the board needs more info, we'll we'll
go that way. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Uh Josh, if we could have them sworn in. >> Do you solemnly swear that testimony by the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Just qualify everyone right away for me. Thanks. >> Okay. Your qualifications.
>> Sure. I have bachelor's in civil engineer in Ruckers. Um, I've been a licensed engineer for 23 years. I still hold a valid um, civil engineering license to the state of New Jersey. I've testified before over 100 boards throughout Jersey. >> Thank you. Your qualifications are
accepted. >> Okay, Jeff, can you go over what we have? Pull out the sheet numbers. These are the revised plans that we submitted after we got those comments. >> Uh, sure. So, I'm just going to refer to the plans that that you guys should have. Um, it's last revised October 27th, 2025.
Um, so I'm just going to go right into the V. Um, I'm going to flip the sheet SP-1A, which is the third sheet in the set. Um, so as as we had indicated, um, the subject properties block 5401, lot
one. It's over 12 acre parcel operated by the DTW is a existing compost yard and storage yard. Uh uh there's an existing access paved access driveway
off of uh John F. Kennedy Parkway. Uh so the existing access is going to be utilized by Verizon and Diamond. Um we're going to uh propose a new gravel access drive off Pay Drive back to uh
the proposed power location. Um so that driveway currently is proposed at 12 feet wide. The fire official had a comment that they would like it 20 feet wide for um fire apparatus. So we will comply with that. So it'll increase to 20 ft wide. Still
gravel. Uh the proposed compound is 50 foot by 50 foot. It's going to be a 6 foot high chain length fence with a foot of bar wire on top for security. It'll have a 12t wide gate. Uh inside the compound, Verizon Wireless will install
a 10 foot by 25 foot concrete equipment pad along with their equipment. Uh there's also space allocated for municipal equipment. Uh if they have the need to uh install equipment and antennas on the tower, uh the the 150
foot monopole will be located within the center of the compound. 150 foot Verizon Wireless will install uh three antennas in each of four sectors. So a total of 12 antennas at the 145 ft centerline elevation.
Um again Verizon Wireless will install a 10x 25 ft concrete pad included with that equipment is a 30 p value diesel power generator. >> Okay. You move to sheet SP2. >> I just moved to sheet SP2. >> Same revision date. same revision date.
It's just a blow up of the compound area and it shows the tower elevation as well. As you can see, there's uh ample space inside the compound for future carriers. Also, there's space on the tower for carrier antennas for future V.
Like I said, Verizon will take the top elevation at 145. Um the site is remotely monitored. So there's no permanent employee occupancy, so there's no need for water or or other utilities. The only
utilities you'll need is electric and uh fiber. Uh we're proposing to pull electric from an existing utility pool that's already on site overhead to to a few uh new utility pools and then underground from there. Of course,
that's all subject to the utility company's approval and and availability. Um the site gets visited about once every every four to six weeks uh by a cell technician for routine maintenance. Um and they just drive in a usually an
SUV type vehicle. Um between I just want to point out between John F. Kennedy Boulevard and the compound. There's about on average about an 8ft high burm with existing vegetation on the top of that burm which
acts as a visual barrier uh to the to the ground equipment within the compound and from JFK blower. Um and I think that's about it unless I miss a chance to review the review letters. >> Yes, I did. >> They're all agreeable.
>> Um yes. Um the planner uh did recommend uh additional new vegetation. Um but based on the location of the compound based on that firm between the compound and JFK um you know that's that's a
conversation to have if it's really needed. >> Yeah. You're prepared to have that conversation right >> if if something uh that would add a little value can be added. >> Yes. >> Okay. And all this is designed in accord with the municipal specs that went out. Correct.
>> Yes. That was like pretty much dictated by the township committee. >> Yes. >> Any questions? Go ahead. >> I think I might have missed this in your introduction, but please tell me what is the need for this tower. Our country, >> we're going to have the the next witness is going to be the radio frequency
engineer, but essentially to add capacity for the Verizon system. >> That's capacity. Do we need capacity? >> He's going to explain. >> He's gonna Okay. So stay tuned on that. Um, back to the reports, the professional reports. A couple of them had a I think you've addressed them over
an overview lightly, but I wanted to dig down a little bit on that. Um, if there was an issue about the timing timer on the lights and what the lighting would be. >> Okay. Sure. Uh, Verizon Wireless will install work light um at their equipment platform at their equipment pad. Uh, but
it'll be on a two-hour timer. Uh, so when the cell techni if the cell technician does need to come at night, um, they'll turn on the light with a timer and if he forgets to turn it off, it will stay on indefinitely. >> Well, that's good. And then they mentioned something about soiling
capacity. >> Sure. So, if um if the applicant gets approval for the tower, they'll start going into construction phase. Uh, one of the first things they'll do is go out and we'll do so, see what what soil types are there for the foundation design of the tower. So, you intend to meet all of the questions that they had
on those professional documents. >> And then, um, I think you answered my question about the lighting. Um, and then lastly, migratory birds, which is probably something no one's ever asked you about before, but it does come up, um, in some of the boards that I've been on in my life. Um, so is there concern
about migratory birds getting this? You address the lighting, which is good. It'll go off in two hours. That's really good to worry about aircrafting. >> Um, there's no lighting proposed. Um, typically anything above 200 feet would require FAA lighting. In this case,
we're at 150 ft. Um, I believe an FAA study was conducted. Um, which indicated no hazards? I'll have to check. >> Yeah. But the birds, it's great that you're not only having lights on a timer. Then the last question, um, actually two last questions. Is there
alarm going to go off if something happens to it? You need people to come check it out. >> Uh, so yes. So everything's remotely monitored. There's there's several alarms on the equipment on the generator that do that notifies um uh the Verizon wireless people that
are monitoring it wherever it's monitor from. I don't know what that is, but it is monitors. >> And will the neighbors from the residential neighbors from any of the neighborhoods be able to see this tower either during the daytime or at the night time? >> Uh we'll have a commander come up with some focus that'll go over the settings.
Any other questions? >> Question. Um, you mentioned the security gate which is right on site. Is there one close like the access road from which the gravel road? >> Yes. So, there's a sliding gate at the access road. Um, which when I saw it was open, I'm assuming it gets closed every
night and lots. >> This being a monopol, is there a guy wire for this? >> No, it's just self support. >> Well, essentially it would be closed, right? I mean most of the time the gate it's not open daily right it was be closed goes to timeless it's being serviced
>> the talking about the gate to the actual >> yeah to the actual there's a there's a sling gate at JFK that >> and and the monopole itself at 150 ft I don't know a lot about cell towers how's that compare to cell towers we might see
when we drive around the city >> 150 ft is a common height >> usually yeah usually between 120 150 150 And does Verizon have I know there's the congregational church has it cell to powers in the steeple. Verizon have one
up there. >> I don't know that I don't maybe the RF engineer knows that. I don't know. >> This doesn't seem that far from there. So it's not next door but and that is at a high much higher elevation. Hold that question because we'll have
some information on the network. That's the next witness. >> One more brief question. Any ability to add solar power? I mean, I know it's not sunny in New Jersey, but just sustainability. I know you guys don't need that sustainability
>> I haven't seen ever. >> Any other questions public? But no, we'll do public further. >> Any anyone from the public has questions regarding testimony that's been given. >> Next witness, radio frequency
engineering. Thanks. >> You can do it. I can do it. Do you sound so swear the testimony about P Whole Foods and other group? >> I do. Thank you. >> Your qualifications, sir? >> Sure. Andrew Peterson Per SN. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in
electrical engineering. Uh both from Lehigh University. Um I have a baby. >> I've been involved in the design of these types of facilities now for about 25 years. Testified hundred of times before municipal bodies. um uh testify
in federal courts, state courts um and I hold a New Jersey engineers license as well as a license in several other states. >> All current your licenses? >> Yes. >> Your professional uh qualifications are set by the board. >> I appreciate that.
>> Uh Andrew, this uh is for the Verizon network, >> correct? >> And Verizon has a license from the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. They did >> and it's been allocated radio frequency spectrum from the FCC as well. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And you work with Verizon's
engineers to uh produce these maps here which are customary in the industry to show the need for a site. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Could you explain to the board members uh what the coverage is and what the issues are and why Verizon uh sought
to work with the municipality to find another site in this area? >> Sure. So currently, uh, Verizon is having coverage and capacity issues in central portions, um, of the township here, particularly along the JFK Parkway
and then, uh, in the, uh, many residential neighborhoods, um, along the White Oakidge Road, um, which is kind of this area here, central to the exhibit. Um, this exhibit is first and foremost a map of the area surrounding the proposed site.
>> Let's mark it as A1. >> Sure. with today's date of 1126. You want to give it a name? Verizon wireless existing reliable coverage map. >> Return here is going to need to describe what that is.
>> So the location of the proposed facility is here. I'm circling uh the icon that's labeled Short Hills 2. That's the internal Verizon Wireless name for the facility. Then we have a whole host of other facilities um that are also indicated with these target shaped icons
on the map and they're producing the green and yellow coverage thresholds that you see on the map. The yellow areas are areas where there is adequate signal to serve someone in a vehicle. Um the green where there is adequate signal to serve someone um in their home and
their place of business. Inbuilding coverage. So we've got inbuilding and invehicle coverage. Um so there is as I mentioned a coverage issue particularly uh in building um with some in vehicle issues to the south that the facility is going to address to enable service we have to have coverage and we also have
that capacity. So this is just one ingredient that is lacking. There's also a capacity issue which was also mentioned earlier but we're going to first talk about coverage. Um so to address the site or to address the coverage issue uh the proposed site and I and I'll mark this A2 um is going to
add significant areas of inbuilding coverage um concentrating mainly on those residential areas. is the one with white oak bridge road. Um so we can see that all these neighborhood the neighborhood here south of the
parkway all those homes now would be able to enjoy a strong inbuilding service. >> For the sake of the record could you just describe what the distinction between the first map you showed the second map you showed? >> Sure. So they are the same view the same map view. The only difference now is through propagation modeling. We're
activating the proposed site with the antennas of the 145 ft center line. We're turning that site on as if it was uh built over to the network and we're and we're able to do that through the propagation modeling software. >> So green is good and yellow is not >> Yeah, green is better, yellow is okay.
Yellow is in car. So where you have yellow folks are going to have issues in a building like this or you know in any in their home in their basement things like that. So the idea is to apply green everywhere. We can't do that all at once. Um but this is another step towards that. Um so you can see with the
addition of the site we're adding a lot of areas of green here um providing for that strong inbuil service particularly to the uh the neighborhoods there all those homes. Um so that's the uh the coverage aspect of the site and and as we mentioned this is
>> can I just when when you did the bid with township >> did they go through all this did they have specs on what you had to be able to do? >> I don't know the answer to that. I was involved in the bid process. I don't know.
>> I don't want to replicate. >> Okay. >> Do do you have a copy of this exhibit that you could leave with the uh board secretary? >> I can leave I can leave these too. >> Sure. >> Thank you.
So really briefly we'll look at the caffy aspects and this is a bit more colorful chart where we >> another new um this is not a package correct >> uh no this is no it's not I'll market >> and please describe what you're looking at
>> sure >> want to call it capacity map >> sure yeah it's it's titled Verizon Wireless existing best server coverage but but what it's showing is where each of the sites the existing sites and and more specifically each set of their
antennas is covering. Um so without going to every last detail of what's being shown here, we can see uh that the site called Short Hills uh which is on a rooftop to the east is producing this yellow coverage uh this yellow coverage area and the site called Milbour 3 which
is that steeple that was mentioned earlier where antenna Verizon does have antennas in there. They're about 110 feet in the air. Um they're covering those two sectors are covering into that neighborhood. >> Is that to the east or to the west? The Milbour 3 is
>> the one to the left. >> That is to the west. >> Hotel. That's to the west, right? >> Yes. Is that the hotel? >> I think it's either a hotel or it's it's uh >> building 150 JFK. >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah, that's what it is. Um and then the
Milbour, which is the steeple, is to the southeast. um they are covering into the neighborhood now and the antennas and the radio resources that feed those antennas are being overburdened with capacity demand. So the other colors represent
>> so the colors are just showing geographically where each set of antennas is covering. So they're not distinguishing service level or >> quality coverage >> quality. Yeah. It's just this sector is covering here, this sector is covering there. So we can look at it and say yes
these antennas are covering into that neighborhood or those neighborhoods and then so are these um and and we look at the network statistics and we see that those are the sectors that are overburdened. >> Is there any micro sites that are set up also? >> There are there's some there there are
some uh small cells we call them. Um there is one here that is labeled Short Hills SC11. Uh there is one here short hills SC9. There were a couple others that were just approved. Um,
>> side of the exhibit, >> right? >> Yeah, they're on telephone poles. They're of a lesser stature, >> right? >> Um, >> they're not really a great sol they're not really a solution to cover an area this big where we need to add a whole lot of capacity to to a neighborhood
area like this. Um, so if we if we activate the site from a capacity perspective, we can see a >> A4. >> This is A4. Yeah. >> What do you want to call this? >> This is Verizon Wireless proposed best
server coverage. >> So this is sort of with the site turned on, >> right? This is the site turned on. We're now adding the uh four areas of new coverage from the four sets of antennas that are pointing in four distinct directions. Uh this red area, this
greenish area, a blue area, and then a yellow area. So we can see that those sectors are now going to absorb that traffic that was currently being processed by those sites that were overburdened. It's going to alleviate that. So it's going to add new capacity to the area, going to add new coverage.
Uh so it will affect that service improvement that we're trying to achieve here. >> Question of course in all the standard modeling that's regular in the industry produce these maps and you've interfaced inhouse Verizon folks to get this
information and these are sort of standard form plots and maps that you've presented to the board. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. uh destroy big >> I don't know if it's a question for you but I'm wondering what is the lifetime of of this sled >> I I would defer that I mean from my
experience there there's cell towers that have been around since the 80s that are still on the air um >> quite there are structural checks that have to be undertaken of course when every new carrier comes on I think they
anticipate that this will be the site and so the other carriers you know you're not you're going to have one structure it's going to be seen. It's It's 150 ft. It will be seen, but you won't have or other carriers, you know, going right down the street.
>> You've got three empty pads here. Looks like on the map that would be potentially used by other carriers and they use the same. >> Yes. So, this is a T. My client tonight is the tower company, you know, and they're in the business of creating the real estate and then they try to get the
other carriers on there and then eventually they will come in accordance with their business needs. The idea I think from the municipality standpoint is to find the best spot and put it in one spot under the assumption people
need the wireless coverage and so get it into the one spot. The township committee selected the spot here. >> Any other questions, Mr. Peterson? >> Any questions from the public? Uh,
testimony heard from our engineer. >> Okay. Our final witness, uh, Brian Sidell is there in variance. So, we do need to buy votes. Uh there's some special um
criteria that the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth back in 1997. So we're sort of like a hybrid. We're not inherently beneficial, but the court said that we have the license from the FCC. We serve the general purpose, the
general uh uh purposes of zoning and general welfare. We do have to show the sites suitable. And then on the negative criteria, even though we're not inherently beneficial, you have that four-step balancing test, uh, where it's
lessly beneficial, you look at the the benefits, the negatives, and you balance them. So, it's a little bit of a of a hybrid of them all, and we'll try to be succinct about that and wrap it up with Mr. Sidel. We could have them survive. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony
you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. your credentials, sir. >> Sure. For the record, name is Brian Cidell. First name is B R I A N. Last name is Syidell. Si Dell. I'm a New
Jersey professional planner, New Jersey landscape architect, also certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. Um, all of my certifications, licenses are current and good standing. I have testified in front of numerous boards and commissions out throughout
New Jersey uh on a variety of applications including considerable number in telecomunication specific. >> Great. Qualifications are accepted. Please proceed. >> Thank you. >> And Brian, you've analyzed uh this site in accordance with those standards that
are set forth in that famous smart versus fair lawn case. >> I have. Yes. >> Okay. Can you give the board the benefit of your analysis of this matter? >> Sure. Um, I think the witnesses before me did a good job of explaining the site, the need for the site, and the
proposed site design. So, rather than going back on that, I'll just rely on their testimony. I'll adopt that as my own. Uh, in summary, the property is owned by the township. It's used for the leaf composting facility, what I refer to as generally public works type of
location. Site is located in sea conservation recreation zoning district. And the applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval with use, height, and setback variances to construct a 150 foot tall monopole on
subject property. It will be utilized by Verizon, and it will also accommodate an antenna for the township uh and use of emergency services. uh standards for approval that we discussed that need to be shown both the positive and the negative criteria and
more specifically that the positives outweigh any negatives. So for the positive criteria the site is particularly suited for the use uh as I mentioned it's located on a township owned property. It's on a major arterial roadway uh previously disturbed site
combined with an existing municipal use or public works use. No new access is required. uh minimal site improvements are required and really minimal visual impacts. Uh considerable amount of vegetation on the property and
surrounding the property and even on JFK Parkway and in the curves of the roadways uh the curve of the road with the vegetation really obscures the views into the site to the point where believe the only real visibility from the tower will be from JFK Parkway. Uh you just
heard testimony from the radio frequency engineer indicating this is centrally central to the gap for Verizon and that this will satisfy the coverage needs for Verizon in this area. There's also no other available to all structures that could be utilized in place of the
proposed tower. Uh variance will also advance purposes of zoning and the general welfare. Uh the carrier is licensed by the FCC which the New Jersey courts have found to uh serve the general welfare. In addition to that the
application will advance the purpose of zoning particularly purposes A by guiding the appropriate use of land to promote the public health safety and welfare. Purpose G by providing space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses. and I to provide a desirable
visual environment with appropriate sighting quality design a screen view of the tower. Regarding the negative criteria, no detriment to the zoning plan or to the zoning ordinance. It's important to note and referenced this in his opening um new tower anywhere in the
township would require the same variances that are being requested here. Uh since the zoning ordinance is generally silent on those regulations, uh township's desire to locate the tower on township own property and this conservation district and a generally
undeveloped area on the side of JFK Parkway is really the best way to control the location and minimize the potential for any adverse impacts on the community. Uh the in addition the setback variance
that's requested will allow the tower to be located closer to JFK Parkway. However, what this does is protects the environmental sensitive environmental areas to the rear of the property uh which I believe is consistent with the
underlying zoning district. No detriment to the public good. Uh passive use, no traffic impacts. It's a simple monopole design of guide wires as was indicated. It will be available for publication of additional wireless carriers will
improve ordinary emergency services to the community within an already disturbed site. Uh the only potential impact is the occasional visibility of the tower and as I mentioned there the visibility is really limited to the areas on JFK Parkway and even more than
that really just when you're almost on top of the tower within that quarter mile uh near the opening and the entrance way to the facility itself itself. Uh so in my opinion the uh proposed application does provide the best opportunity to serve the community.
positives outweigh any negatives and the relief that's being requested should be approved. >> Brian, now we've talked about this just one more minute on it. We sort of have a somewhat unique situation where the town has chosen not to have a wireless
ordinance or hasn't given the wireless community any direction, but then it put out the bid and that's what the governing body said. So, how do how do you fit that into your analysis on, you know, impacts on the zone plan, zone awareness, sort of thing? >> Uh, and as I indicated, I do believe
this is the township's way of controlling the location of that tower uh by providing on this property and and agreeing that this is is the most appropriate location. Uh, looking at the master plan, the master plan does address small sales and the impacts of
small sales in the rightway. It also addresses the 2012 collocation act um that encourages collocation of antenna on existing structures but really no other regulations regarding the sighting of macro sites or towers such as the one
that's proposed here. So, you have to do that four-step balancing test for inherently beneficial even though we're not exactly positives, negatives, conditions of approval, and then on whole. You have a conclusion on that? >> Yes. Uh conclude, like I said,
conclusion benefits outweigh any detriments here. Uh no significant impact. Uh I believe the applicant and the site design really as it's designed is controlling any negative impacts.
Again uh set back from the environmental areas and public works area already disturbed site. I heard the engineer testify regarding the burning along JFK parkway and the existing vegetation. So the location is appropriate to to screen views of the tower and any ne negative
impacts. >> Okay. made the sort of the technical changes or T made the technical changes required by the fire department and engineering in terms of storm water and we did a storm water report. >> That's correct. >> Chairman, that uh is a little bit of a thinner version, but we're here for any
questions. >> Uh the question, >> so one of the variances you're requesting is of the setback. Can you review with me again why you're not doing the required 100 ft setback? >> Sure. the couple reasons in my opinion uh locating
adjacent to JFK Parkway or closer to JFK Parkway where it does require that setback. Uh really no negative impact to locating it closer because as I indicated the engineer indicated there's already a bound along that roadway. There's already vegetation along that
roadway to screen that area. If the site were to be moved in further uh off the the JFK parkway, uh that would impact the leaf composting area, the operations there. It would also move the tower closer to uh environmentally sensitive
areas, wetlands, and flood plane that's that are located in the rear of the property. Uh and would certainly impact circulation by doing that. So, I don't believe there's any negative impacts that are caused by grain. I I can you may not have been privy there was some
sort of negotiate the town selected the site at the end but it had to fit in with the leaf composting facility so you had to sort of place it so when the town puts the bid out finish so Mr. just to make sure I have the order of the roof in my head. Did
the township decide we needed more coverage and come to them and say we've got some weaknesses we want to solve. The township said, "Well, if you're going to do that, this is the best place to do it and we'll hold a bid." Is that kind of >> It is the latter, but that's how it
that's how it happened. Sure. That that process took about five years. >> Yeah. I don't think something like that committee was an expert on >> Yeah. you know that and that's standard and there's many of these municipal bid sites we call them in the industry where
you know it's going to be carrier initiated from time to time town say look we got a great site we're going to put it out to bid and they try to attract the carriers um I think it's fair to state that you know Verizon has
been coming to the town for a number of years trying to find more sites because there's there's issues and as people use their phones more and more you need. So I I call it the latter, but it's a collaborative effort. Obviously get, you know, some nice revenue from this.
>> And if I can, the township kind of has a monopoly on this uh side of JFK Parkway. It's a long skinny parcel uh parallels that roadway and covers a a good amount of roadway frontage, so to speak. >> Correct.
You mentioned that it's a conservation district and environmental sensitivity is a is an issue. Talk to me about putting a cell phone tower in the middle of an of a conservation district. >> Uh regarding the conservation district, I actually my opinion here. Well, it's a
conservation district. There are other public utilities that are permitted in the underlying zoning. So, while this cell phone or cell tower isn't a public utility, it has characteristics of a public utility. Um, and regarding the conservation area, well, it's a
conservation zoning district. The entire site is not designated as an environmentally sensitive area. There are areas, as I indicated, to the rear of the property that are environmentally sensitive, but those are generally undeveloped. Uh, the site of this
proposed tower is developed. It's a disturb or a disturbed, I think, would be a better word, a disturbed area that's being utilized for the leaf composting facility. Uh so this is not an environmentally sensitive area. This is already a disturbed man-made area.
>> No studies are required environmental studies or environmental the previous application. Do you need an environment with this? I thought there was one submitted >> for another has to do with NEA. That's the National
Environmental Protection Center. The federal government regulates all towers. Um I don't recall that we submitted one here. Not seeing it in my
package of November 12th which had se September 18th. Uh >> required. >> Yeah, it was required for the water company. >> You have one. We're happy to submit it. >> We have one that's available that we we
can >> Okay. So, but >> okay. >> We can say that the federal government reviews some of the issues with the birds and and they do all sense.
>> Can you have an EIS said? >> Uh, yes. The document that was just handed to me from our project team and our project engineer is identified as phase one environmental site assessment project >> and have you reviewed that? >> I have not.
>> Well, it's going to be reviewed by the township before anything any permits are given anyway. So, >> who reviews it? Does the environmental commission? >> It'd be reviewed by engineering, I would assume. >> Engineering filing. >> Yes. else. >> It's basically a concrete path.
>> Should it be submitted for the public to review or >> um public can still review it? It's you know the points are given. It's not really for the public review. That's to meet the standards of the state not public has no comment but
would have been great if we have seen it. Any other questions? >> I I think it fairly self-explanatory that the stallion feature here is this municipal date that the the governing body has said that this site is appropriate after a long gestation
period and has said that 150 ft is appropriate. It's it's what we have in the absence of a wireless ordinance. You have evidence that the need is there. People are using their cell phones. I think the board appreciates that. They
want to have coverage. This is intended to provide that in building and incorite. Uh going to be pretty hard to see. not going to say nobody's ever going to see it at any location, but it's on that winding portion of JFK with some pretty
good screening. So, uh it's a balancing at the end of the day. We think the balance is reasonable and we place sufficient evidence to satisfy the very unique criteria that the Supreme Court has called out for wireless towers.
>> Thank you. Um, any questions from the public regarding any testimony you've heard this evening? Any comments from the public regarding this application? Then I will close the public portion of
this hearing. Um, board members shall say, >> I'll go first. Oh, you have your mouth open first. >> You should take a breath. >> I will go first. I was taking a breath. Oh, you were talking about >> I will go first. Um, I actually uh lived
in the PO section there. We had horrible coverage with Verizon for 25 years. So, yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. Um, I think it's beneficial to this the township to have that. Uh, it was rather maddening to do anything uh there. He make regular calls, not even
to use it for data. Um, as far as the ability to see it up and down JFK, you probably will, but other than that, you won't see it at all because of the golf course that you pointed out. Jirro Park rises in elevation and the woods to the west of the golf course or a buffer for
Canber Road must be 300 ft deep. So, I have no problem with this. >> I don't either. I think it's of all the places you could put it, this is one of the few least objectionable. Um, I just
would like Diamond would get some of the other carriers on there real soon, too. >> I do believe that is their desire. >> I'm sure that's what we're trying to do. That's where all our mobile guy.
>> Uh, any other comment? Uh well, you know, so just a couple of things that I would if the board uh agreed with me, I would like to be added as conditional for improvement. Um that approval rather that the EIS review and approval, which I think would happen anyway. The FAA,
there was some question about the FAA. >> Um >> do we have that? >> Okay. So we can we could submit there's >> so public portions closed already. So, >> I mean, you can certainly consider these if you want to have them as part of the
>> as the conditions of approval, but >> there was a question earlier that wasn't tied up, but it sounds like >> once again, most of these things have to be met in order to get so >> much. Well, the FA is kind of a weird one, but >> No, it's not. They're an airport near
it. It has to be met. You have Martown airport right there. >> Okay. So, just as long as the FAA approves this and um all recommendations met by the professional reports that were outlined in this extensive one by the planner, which I think you would do, but just check to make sure that that's done.
>> So, um ironically, my parents house is probably closest to this town. Uh they live on the bottom of Arlington Court. >> Oh. >> So, um I know you couldn't see it from there. The trees there are incredibly high. Um it's actually miraculous how tall the trees are down there. So, I
would I would not even worried about the visibility of it as I stood in our yard the other day looking at that leaf dump. There's no way you could even see this thing from there. Um, so I think the that benefit to the township far outweighs any detriment and uh the
coverage along JFK is awful. It's awful for all carriers, but it's just coming from Livingston to the Short Hills Mall, it's hard to get a ball out. So, uh I think this will be definitely a uh a boon for the township. So, uh, with that, is there a move?
>> Move to accept. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> David Bradford, >> yes. >> Gary Rosen, >> yes. >> Regina Truit, >> yes. >> Beth Saul, >> yes. >> Joseph Pio, >> yes. >> Jessica Plat, >> yes. >> Great pleasure.
>> Yes. Thank you for your time. >> You didn't believe me, but we did it pretty quickly. >> Yeah. Thank you so much. Next up, We're in a calendar 40 53. We're just let our uh get going
25 325. 28. >> Oh, no. I actually did notice people. Go ahead. >> Oh, wait a second. >> Thank you.
>> Passport. Oh yeah. Uh, >> would the applicant like to come forward? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's see. I have to call
>> good memory. Okay. Um, >> yeah. >> Let's uh swear you in and uh get back. >> Want to raise your right hand? Can you swear from testimony to give a nice proceeding to be the truth? Hold truth for the truth.
>> Your name for the spell. >> C H A O M UI. >> Why don't you tell us what your relation to the property is and what you want to do? >> I'm the property owner of 28 Glenn Avenue. I was here two months ago. Um at
that time I did not have my architect. Um was not aware of that. So today I architect. So hopefully I'm well equipped um and authorized were authorized to handle effectively. Uh we like to so when I purchased the property um uh it was a um underdeveloped
property for the size of the lot. Um and um you know the intention was to um uh pursue the vision and remodel the the property. Um and when I um originally did the uh plans with my
architect um at that time we had no idea that you know there was a 36 in solar um drain that was running diagonally across. >> So when when were you enlightened of that? >> Yeah. So um um so so the original
application and I had explained this to you know two months ago. So um um so we submitted the application um back last April um and had gone through the entire process um uh for the permit. We were nearly through the entire process had
through zoning um building fire. So, you know, nearly just at the last stretches getting the permit um just happened stance that I was um at the building department asking questions as I was we were preparing you know for the project
um and I was standing um uh you know with you know Christine the engineer and I asking her questions uh you know about the um the streets and the storm sewers and she had pulled up a map on her computer. So, um, when I was looking,
um, on the map on her, uh, on on her computer, I saw this, um, you know, this black line putting a diagonally on the property. So, I asked the township engineer, "What is that?" And she said, "Oh, well, let me look. That looks like
a um, storm sewer drain that's going across the property." Um, this was unknown. It was not on the tax maps. It did not come up through the initial title search when I bought the property. Um it was not on the survey um because nothing popped up. Um so when I saw that
>> it is interesting how nothing was built over that. >> Yeah. Um and um so so when I saw that you know the next day I went to the property and I went to um you know the drainage kind of ditch where the pipe
has supposedly um storm water runoff. So I was just, you know, just bounded by the train tracks, you know, got access, you know, there and um and I found the pipe uh outlet um to verify that it was actually there. And I peaked under the
pipe see that you know I um you know had a flashlight look and you know it was pretty straight and it was pretty much um lines up with the um the storm water uh map uh you know that Christine had pulled up on it um and that's um I
believe I provided that as part of the um application so you can >> soa engineering that produced this >> that you didn't have a survey done in the property when you purchased Did no one discover that? >> No. >> But there were two questions. You had a
survey done when you purch and the survey revealed. >> No. >> Do you have the survey that was done to purchase the properties? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so the um so the survey um you know that was provided um was done after the property was
purchased. >> So you bought the property without a survey which you can. >> Yeah. >> But did you buy it with title insurance? Yes. >> Did they do a title search? >> They did. >> And did this get picked up? >> They did not. >> I see like you submitted a a supplement to the application which shows the
recorded instrument. >> But >> yeah, so after this was discovered, I went back to my lawyer that helped me with closing of the property. >> We went back to the title company say, "Hey, you know, there's there's apparently a storm um sewer line that's
running through the property." And so the title company did did a further search and they did find um a document from over 100 years ago um that the storm line was uh built before anything was built in there. >> Did going back to your initial title
search, they did not take an exception to that. >> It did not pick up. They they did not find it. >> So we spoke about this last time. You now have a claim against your title insurance company. >> Yeah. I've not gone through the process to file. I'm not I will but I have not started
that process. >> Okay. Just just to remind the board we talked about this a little bit that typically when someone buys a property or all they do is a 60-year search and then I'll do let's go to 120 year search
and they do 120 year search. >> So uh let's hear from your architect and what you want to do. Uh, we're going to swear you in first and then we're hear. Go ahead. >> You swear from testimony about to give thanks for proceeding. Be the truth told the truth. I say the record spelling,
please. >> Eduardo Garsa. E D U A R O. Last name is G A L A R Z. >> Mr. Garza, can we have your credentials please for the benefit of the board?
I uh graduated NGIT in 1986. Would be 40 years this year. I've been working continuously. Um about to retire but uh a lot of work. So >> have you presented in front of boards
before? >> Uh to many boards yes the first time over here. >> Are you licensed in New Jersey? >> Yes. >> Is your license in good standing? >> Yes. >> Very well. Please proceed. >> Yeah. As the owner explained, the the hardship that he had regarding this is
what he calls the that pipe the sewage pipe over there. And the house is actually located right over here. It's a small house. It's about a,50 square ft right now. This house, the ranch type has three bedrooms and two
bathrooms right now. So the only way to if you wanted to add add something there some additional space. So we proposed to extend this way to the front inside because this is a little more difficult.
So um we added another floor and um because some constraints that we have with the the um front yard and sideyard. So we um measure the prevailing um front
yards in the neighbors front right and left properties of building. We find out that the uh prevailing side is about 30 31 ft 34 uh
30 33 ft approximately. So um our proposal goes to have a front yard of 23 23 21 ft 23.21 ft. So that's because you
know not complying a variance for that that's what we are here for and the other one is the height of the building. The height of the supposed to be uh the height will be uh 32 ft.
The post is just 33 ft. Just one high and there's a reason for that because the the driveway goes down into the building. So there is a little room for an 8 foot door garage
door. So um the owner wants an 8 foot garage door so it can maneuver to get into the building. And in order to have that we need um space 9 ft high garage that give us um
um this over here is yeah goes this over here. So we need you know
We need a 8ft door. So we have a 9 foot garage. So that give us a space 8 foot room in the first floor. And then we have a 9 foot 9t 5 in room on the second floor. Then we have an attic right here.
And the attic uh goes to um 178 ft is 1 ft above the wall 33. >> Is that is that habitable space or an attic? That is an attic. There's an attic. This is about 6'11 in the heaven.
I'm going to explain. >> Why? Why put windows like that in that? >> Oh, no. No. There's no window there attic. >> Here's the attic. >> The attic. The attic has rooms, right? I mean, plants. It's a family room. It's a
bed. >> Okay. Let me just go through the space. the balcony of an attic. >> No, that's second floor. >> That's a third floor. >> No, there's attic or door. >> It's an attic. >> Okay, let me explain to you.
>> Here's the entry to the garage right here. There's a lower going to the basement. We the basement is just this part. The building is right this part over here. Very small build. So, we expand this to the front. Now this goes
down there about five steps and then from here in the new uh addition we enter the front of the building go stairs down the way to the to the base basement we have a bathroom we have a bathroom there's two closets over here
four stories and mechanical room so from the first floor we go up to the second floor and the first floor have dining kitchen and one bedroom right here with bath and we go from stairs up to the Second floor. We got in the second floor. We have
three bedrooms. The master bathroom, master bath and closets over here. So there's there's two bathrooms over here, additional bathrooms. And then we have accessory stair going to the attic. The attic. We have a big space there. You
can use as a storage or that here. The owner wants to have a a bathroom there. >> Or what? >> A bathroom there. An attic. >> An attic. Yes. >> What? What is the What is the bedroom that's identified on the attic floor?
>> He said, "Well, we we discussed that." I said, you know, may not be a available as a bathroom as a bedroom. Can have a storage. It's probably a >> What's in that other closet, utility closet that's in your drawing >> over here? >> Yeah. What's that? >> That's a It's um um air hunter
>> for what? >> Right here. For the air conditioning. for the ad. >> Yeah. >> So your >> No, no, no. This is for the for the attic. Yeah. >> Yeah. So So your So the just one mechanic was well two units. So there's a zone for each uh floor.
>> This will be for second floor, right? >> Yeah. >> Second. So this is this is a mechanic room for the second floor. But the the um attic, just to be clear, the the um it's it's not a fully functional space because the highest point is 6 feet 11
inches and that's at the ridge, >> but practically it pitches down. So the average height of the attic is much lower. >> Yeah, it's very low about less than five. So we don't >> how many bedrooms are to move
>> right now? I am proposing uh in the basement. >> No, no, no. Total >> six. Six bedrooms. >> Six bedrooms. >> And and and how many bathrooms? >> We have one, two, three, four, five.
>> Five. Five bathrooms. >> Five bedroom. >> Yeah. That includes the attic. Bathroom. No. No. Including the the attic. Yes. Six bedrooms, five bathrooms proposed. Okay. Thank you. What's a balcony coming off the attic?
>> Balcony? No, it's not the attic. >> So that's off of what? The second floor. >> It's on the second floor. >> Like when you're looking at the exterior, the rear elevation, it looks like >> the second floor.
>> The balcony off the attic. >> It's up the attic. Yeah. >> Um, >> talk to me about the variances. I want to hear some testimony regarding um, your criteria. I haven't heard
anything about what you're going for here. C1, C2. Well, uh, basically is, you know, because of the, uh, of the front, uh, this.
>> No, that's not going to work. You You got to give me something more than that. It can't be because you have a pipe that you need to come closer to the street like that. >> Well, >> I mean, talk to me about the positive and negative criteria of how it affects the zoning plan and the master plan, how
that's beneficial. Well, we we walk around the the business next door, right and left of the properties on this side and the average and the average of the of the buildings next door are 27 ft.
So that's the two next door and the other size as well is about 34 ft on the other side. But the ones on the right is just 27 ft. So saying that besides we have a long sidewalk over here. So we
are proposing see we can have 23 foot two and a half inches. Roger. >> You're saying the prevailing is 27 ft. >> No. >> So it's 32. >> It's 3 31 31 ft.
>> 31 31 is prevailent. >> Average. No, permitted is 30, the required is 31, the existing is 32, and you're requesting 23. >> That's what that's what my zone chart
says. >> That's right. The prevailing is 31 ft. >> Prevailing the existing is 32. >> The existing is 32. Yes. >> Right. And you're requesting 23. >> That's right. >> Yeah. And the reason is that the only
direction for the addiction is the front part of the hard track. Um there's no way to expand it the other direction due to the the uh storm sort of pipe. >> But that's how that's how you're designing the house is is you know and
explain to me the hardship or why you need to go over building height. And don't tell me because you want a bigger garage. You actually have to explain to me through proper zoning why you need variance relief for that. >> Well, the only one >> how's that benefiting the zoning plan
and masting plan to go over height. >> The only one addition addict with the storage and we decided to have this storage idea with you know >> I think we're past that >> you know as much as possible. So the embraing on the existing property
is sloped downward. So you know the the data points in the rear of the house it's relatively low. Um the neighbor houses uh have grading elevations higher than my property because they at some point had raised
their grading level. Um and so you know their their average height elevation was higher than >> right there like three full stories above the ground. Well, this would be two and a half. It's the at the um you know,
two and a half. What I'm confusing me about this is your documentation says it is living space. Your documentation says there's a bedroom there, there's going to be a bathroom, like there's a whole bunch of stuff there. So, is that not accurate and you're just going to use it
for storage or are you going to are you gonna are you going to use it as a space? >> Yeah. So I mean technically the the height so technically the height the maximum height is 6 feet 11 that's at like literally just a dip right and so the average is going to be substantially
less than that. So it doesn't qualify to be a >> doesn't qualify what right it doesn't qualify. >> Do you intend to use it? >> That's my question. >> As a bedroom it's labeled as bedroom it's labeled.
>> No have to be intended to be a bedroom. It's it's more just extra space storage. >> We have a discussion about this. I don't not permit it, but >> we recognize it's it's technically not a >> you're not going to have a bathroom or
you are going to have a >> uh it'd be nice, but you know, >> why would you need a bathroom? >> Well, so um you know, it's just more accessible to have a bedroom on each level. Um, so the the attic, it can be
used as like a kids play or it can be used as just, you know, extra office space or something like that, but it's not a hover. >> Are you aware of any other houses in the neighborhood that are at or the height your height that you're proposing or
above that? Are you aware of any other house? >> Um, I mean, I don't you probably have more data on that than I do. Um, I would have to research look at research recent applications. I know that there are other houses that's being built um uh in the vicinity where you know the building
height is high the house the the house there's two big floors with a roof >> so but that's not what this is you want to do you want essentially three4s >> well uh you know we have the top part
just because we wanted some additional space there about with us. It's just this area over here because this is the ceiling of the bedroom below.
>> The roof is over here. It's very flat. It's almost >> Yeah. E doesn't always have pitch rose like that is ordinance now about that. >> Well, it it's what what is the pitch of that on? What is it like 312?
>> About half. Um, it isn't pitch per se, >> right? >> What about the balcony on the third floor? Is that permitted? >> Well, there's no Yeah, I mean, we don't
say that. >> There's no or so that's a question. There's no ordinance permit like against about >> any further test. >> Yeah. Um so for the the the main part
for the billing um the increase in build billing height um you know as um Mark had illustrated is you don't need a garage um because the for the car to enter car into the garage needs to be 8 foot
high garage door um and uh and so the garage itself needs a 9 foot um ceiling. the floor above it. Um the the room above it um on the first floor is only um uh you know the second level above it
and the attic. And so that's how we came up to the calculation of the requires variance numbers. >> So the attic theoretically could have been designed in a way that you would not need to vary. Right. >> Um well it wouldn't really be
there wouldn't be room for an addict. >> Right. So I I think what we're getting at here is a self-imposed hardship. Things are building up, >> right? There's no hardship here because you're self-imposing hardship based on your design
>> or why I mean, you know, I mean, come on. This this is this is self-imposed hardship based on the design you presented. >> Um >> much like your ex said that. >> Yeah. I mean I would well that's not self-imposed though because there's a pipe that was put into the property over
100 years ago >> but the design you're coming up with >> but there's no other way to um do a addition in any other direction other than to the front can't go behind you that can't go to the right you know where the pipe is. I guess you also have
to determine whether or not house can the property accommodate six bedrooms. It's >> not a lot of six bedrooms in R six. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, we're we're going by the um um allowances based on, you know, the zoning ordinances.
>> You're not you're going you're you're going you're coming from you have a lot area and you're using and you're using that to your advantage. you have an oversized lot, but your buildable envelope is not allowing that uses of space.
>> Well, that's only because of hardship of that >> otherwise would be able to the the original design that we had submitted. >> But see, that's like us saying the property, >> okay? Like you know, it's your due
diligence about pipe. It's not it's not for us to grant variance based on pipe. I mean, it's it's a hard it's inherent to the property. This this is the problem we're getting. Like I I haven't heard any convincing
any convincing evidence that even remotely addresses a C1 or C2 variance here. >> Well, >> anything compelling? Yeah, I mean again you know it's a unforeseen you know there's no um but our our adjudication
has to be based upon criteria positive and negative criteria has to be met regardless of your addict or anything else you want to call it at the end of the day there has to be some compelling there has to be some meat on the bone right
>> I haven't heard any compelling argument here regarding the positive and negative criteria. >> Yeah, for clarific I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> Just for clarification. We discussed that about this to work on that. You
know, I told him, you know, it's going to be a little bit that way. So, you know, I said, but probably you can use just label everything. I'm sorry. >> Half bathroom may be all right. >> It doesn't change the fact that you're still asking for heights. >> I know.
>> So, I don't care if you put up, you know, what you want to put up. It doesn't matter where you label it. I don't >> if you're still asking for height variance, you still have three floors above the ground. >> Even if you had a hardship, even if we said there was a hardship because of the pipe, if because of that you wanted to build away from the pipe towards the
front, that doesn't explain how we're going to get a sixbedroom threestory home in this neighborhood. Like the height issue is is is your is my real problem. Even if there was, and I agree with Craig, I don't think a hardship's been established, but if it was
established, I don't know how you get to building something overnight. >> So, um, >> the massing is huge. The massing is going to be it's going to just >> So, we we alluded the board alluded to this
last time. First of all, I do I do think as a as a legal matter if the applicant could demonstrate an extraordinary condition because of existing conditions on a property such as a pipe that it
could potentially qualify as a as a hardship, right? But that's only one portion of a C1 variance. just even for the pipe, you still need to meet the negative criteria regarding any type of
C1 data. And with regard to the height issue, what we alluded to last time is that in these kind of applications, especially um when you're seeking excessive height, that you would bring in professional
professional testimony, including professional planning testimony that would do an evaluation of the neighborhood in the R six zone, and demonstrate in support of your variance, arguably that there are either
other properties that exceed the height, you know, requirement and and what they are. Or if they don't, you would you would provide a uh a visual evaluation to demonstrate that there's no uh substantial detriment to the
neighborhood by having a height of almost two feet above what is permitted by the ordinance. So, it's all about presenting proofs in support of the variances that you seek and then it's up to the board to determine whether those
proofs are sufficient to meet the positive and negative criteria for the variances that are required. >> That's I think where where the board is right. >> Yeah. So I um I understand that uh and appreciate that explanation
um and agree that on the fake variance it's more of a nice to have because of the slogan and topographies than a hardship. So I agree on your point on that. Um um you know on the uh you know front setback however um you know given
that there's really no other um direction to um expand the footprint but the front the existing um um square footage of the property is 900 um for a quarter acre lot almost quarter acre lot 900 square foot property um
it's inadequate um and um you have under right and Um, you know, what we're requesting is a front setback that is not too dissimilar from our neighbors to u who are both at 27 ft. Um, and so, you
know, the the reason for the 23t 21 in is so that we can get closer to, you know, the allowable um square footage that we're allowed to do. So, um I would request that you know the storm water
pipe uh being uh diagonally built uh under across the property be considered as a hardship. Um uh and that um you know on the perseverance of front setback um you know what hope that would
be considered as a rational reason why um that's being requested. uh the original plans that we had submitted back in April did not ask for any varants. We had no intention of asking for any variance but it was a unforeseen
issue. It was an item that you know took some work to dig and find it would have been obvious uh that there was a 36 in pipe uh running diagonal across the top. It was built over 100 years ago before anything was um you can barely read the
contract you know on that parcel to have the east which was for $1 over 100 years ago >> within the limit blood coverage and building >> you know I'm sorry >> we we can argue
the front setback and I don't there's no evidence of what the the neighborhood is on those setbacks but I mean just looking at your next door neighbor neighbor. They chose not they did they have a second story, but they chose to have a a low pitched
attic, a very low pitched attic. You've chosen to create an attic that um appears from your drawing like you're going to use it as living space. Yes. Regardless of the height. >> Yeah. So I I agree and I concede that
point that that's more of a nice to have uh you know based on what was just described to me and um you know uh you know I would concede that point uh on that on too um and so in the absence of
the ability to build an attic um you know it would be a um a higher pitch. But we view we would have to see so at this point we're not we're not in the we don't we're not in the business of negotiation you know we don't we
don't design so you have a choice you can we can I can certainly close this and we can you know voice our opinions and then you can decide whether or not we vote or if you want now to you know
take a re look at this uh application we can see when you can come back. That's those are your choices at this point. So, what would you like us to do? >> Yeah. I mean, I think the preference is um uh you know, I understand your your point on the building height and I can
see that, right? >> There's more to it than that, but if that's your only takeaway, I think it's probably best that we deliberate. >> I can before you do that, can I have a question, Mr. I'm just sticking with your drawing there. That sheet that you have up
there, Glenn Avenue is actually Cypress Avenue, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we we came up with that last time. >> Right. You you you show a secondary front yard setback >> from Cyprus. >> Yeah. >> Was that How'd you arrive at that? >> That's from here. This was an existing
patio over here. >> Existing party over here. >> What is it? The same with your sheet. You actually have it labeled the secondary front yard set. What actually is the setback from Cyprus? >> Yeah, this would be the setback over here. >> What's what's permitted?
>> The setback because back is 38 ft is right now it's 38 ft proposed is 23 this setback. >> We have 32 feet for a 12t high build. Uh 12T. No, that's it. What is your setback? Cuz if you're
showing your secondary front yard setback where it is on the plant. >> Yeah. >> That's beyond the the the sewer line. You're showing the storm. >> Yeah. It's over here. Yeah. But is it existing? >> Does that make that move? >> Is that >> if your secondary front yard setback?
>> Yeah. >> Which say is on the plan. >> Yeah. That's beyond the scope of this storm water. Well, >> it's pretty much in the same place where there's an existing one right there. Just moving back a little bit. Perfect. The the 61 is over here. It's a little
larger. >> I realize that, but how did you arrive? Like you're calling it a 649 and 38 in setback from Cyprus. >> That's >> going this way. >> Yeah. >> Going down like what is actually is that
>> over here is about 64 feet up to this point. >> What I'm trying to get at is what is the permitted set back from Cyprus >> and the uh sideyard it should be 38 35%
of the log width >> okay >> the lot width over here is u u >> let's combine >> 73 ft so uh 30% 30 35% of the 73 ft is
28 uh about 28 ft So this is uh you know more than 2050 the secondary setback is 60 >> that's the exist >> well no
>> no that's the proposed proposed but the existing one >> so if that is your secondary then you're taking the storm water line out of play so that doesn't create any archery right
>> well no Um, so >> maybe I'm explain it to me. I don't I'm not getting it. >> Okay. So, so the storm water um line um when that contract was drafted in 1915, 110 years ago, there was a 15 uh foot
easement uh which uh from center. So, so seven and a half feet on either direction. >> Right. Right. Um and so um so the building cannot be built uh built closer to that. >> I understand that, but I'm not. Let's take that apart. But what are you
allowed to build? How close to Cypress are you allowed to >> uh well 7 and 1/2 ft to the center of the 36 in storm line. >> If that does if if that didn't exist, that storm water line didn't exist, how far back would you be able to build recycling
>> to the right? >> As you place the building as you face the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um it would be we had we had this calculated on on the prior plan. Um uh it was
um was over 30 ft but we were well within kind of the front set back your original plan. Yeah. >> You were building over the pipe, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We were never like you know past the front yard set back for the secondary.
>> Is this pipe an active pipe? >> Yes. >> It's just normal. the the secondary art setback was never an issue. >> It's not a township, >> correct?
>> Uh I believe it was turned the it was turned over to the city, but it's not it's not on any tax maps or anything. >> Oh, who's the holder of the >> Dayton truck? um
>> was passed on >> just a city. >> Is it Essex? >> If you're if you're conceding or you're going to be reducing the height of the building, that means that you're reducing
the mass of the building. Yeah. >> By doing that. And it also may impact the board's deliberation and determination on the front yard set >> because you're going to have
>> less building right encroaching upon the front yard set. >> Right. So what our lust attorney is saying is maybe you go back to the drawing board and then represent this case with
something that you can get the ends of. >> Does that work? >> Yeah. So I mean most most likely the the change would be to lower the uh building height to 32 ft. So variance two would
be basically eliminated and it would only be the request for variance one and three. The building itself, the front set back, everything else would remain the same. >> Great. Let's see what that looks like. What can we hear this case again? >> Can I make a suggestion? When when you
come back with that revised plan, you might want to show the amount of the building that is encroaching into the the required front yard setback. And you also might want to present a tax map
showing other lots including those from which you did your front yard setback calculation to show these existing relative setbacks. >> Right? Because it would follow if you're going to make the argument to get a
variance that hey my setback is not going to be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and here's why. Look at the setbacks in the neighborhood. Here's my tax map. I'm going to draw a line. I've now reduced the mass massing and
the amount of the encroachment into the park set. >> This is where a planner would help. I don't want to increase your costs. That's the role of the planner basically. >> Yeah. I mean we we have that on the survey and the neighboring houses and
the distance that the neighboring houses are um you know I don't think we provided it here >> right but that's not >> no >> yeahard
setback calculation where you listed the lots but that's not particularly Well, I >> yeah, I mean, we we have the actual map on the survey. We just didn't include it in what was submitted, >> right?
>> So, we can provide the actual map so you can visually see it. >> Once again, this all goes to to proving your pro getting your proofs of positive and negative criteria. So, this is what we've been talking. So, when can we hear the case?
>> March 2nd. >> March 2nd. Does that work for you guys? I second. Okay, great. >> Good. So, anyone here today um that is changed this case? We're here again on March 2nd. No further notice given um
and you'll have to have what when do you need the drawings in by what? Two weeks. >> Mid February. >> MidFebruary. I figured get the drawings into uh the building department for them to be circulated. Okay. Appreciate it.
Thanks for coming tonight. Thank you. Next up, counter 40 4225 52 Wellington. >> I swear you went first. Sure. >> Do you swear from your right hand? >> Do you swear from detect? Leave your hand. You swear from test about truth.
Hope you go truth. >> Sure. >> Yes. Your name for the record. >> Uh me. M I N U K A U N H U A N T on the property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, good evening. Uh thanks
everyone. I think I said my name is I've been doing I'm J together with my wife here. We have been living a proud resident for the M township for the over 15 years. I
moved here in 2010. Uh with this 13 years in my current property uh we appreciate the the work people are beautiful community there and it's a wonderful place to live. Our home is
quite all day and we need some major upgrade. We need additional space to accommodate our our evolving need. The reason I work from home several days a week. Uh I used to work on that uh uh five days to the to the office but now I
have manager to be able to get a couple days off. My son is graduating from the college and he's returning home now. He's going to go to a a master program in in Stevens. Uh my wife is a social media worker. He had a
lot of work quite a lot. uh she needed some room for her work and also um where our parents uh come here um visit us for an extended period of
time. So uh we have engaged with uh architect and James Ramco here and he's going to walk you through the detail of our our design and uh the variance we are seeking to improve. Thank you so
much for your time and uh thanks for your consideration. Great. >> How are you? >> Yes. Right hand square testing. >> I do your name. My name is James Raml R.
owner of G Architects in Berkeley High School architect standing in front of many boards not many part of his board but many count and all over the >> city is a good standing
over also my guard is a little bit not as professional as I'd like to be. >> No worries there. Um please proceed. >> Thank you. Okay. Um if you want to sit Yeah. Is it more comfortable to sit? I mean
>> um right now I I may do that but thank you for the problem. >> Yeah. Whatever works. >> Yeah. Right now >> I have a point. >> U as as Mr. Wang mentioned uh he has a uh
they own a uh two revival home in on Wellington. Many homes of similar design. There's also the collective group of homes mostly traditional uh neighborhood in general. Some of the parts of the neighborhood have in fact
expanded predominantly on uh on Canterbury in particular and uh home as they missed. Now I'm going to go over the site plan first very briefly. Um I think you all should have play. So
I'll just come on over. So what you have here on the site plan which is drawing T1 heavy line that you see is the original home. Uh there was an there was an addition excuse me there was a variance that was granted I think close to 10
years ago February of 2016 which was the creation of a onecar detached garage and uh the patio. some patio work. I do have the resolution if anyone's interested in in uh present to present
that to anyone if they're interested in viewing. What you see here is the existing second floor. the the unshaded area is what really amounts to the habitable space because the the
tutor style home has we'll call it a two-story house but as you know with the with the sloping rooms uh there's very little space in those angular space around the perimeter that's typical of most traditional home decks specifically the tutor style um so what would like to
do is currently a the project currently has I believe Let me just check my notes. We need five currently six bedrooms. However, what we're proposing to do, there's two on the first floor and then there's uh four
on the second floor. However, as a result of the court, >> uh >> there's three in the sorry, >> two on the first floor. >> Two on the first floor. Both of those uh first floor spaces are going to become
office space. One for um Mr. And also uh the other space would expand the kitchen because the kitchen's a traditionally old kitchen giz. So the the whole objective here is to
improve the home internally for the homeowner uh and also to uh make it a little bit more uh updated for for the finishes. Uh the the area itself uh the
the total The neighborhood itself is uh has got a variety of different designs and I have some photographs which you'll present in a little bit. Um generally speaking what we're going to do is we're going to build we're going to raise the footprint of the house and take out
those shaded areas and make it more of a twotory home uh with 8ft ceilings. um because the the large majority of the second floor is while it's habitable, it's not really usable for furnishings,
etc. So, the goal is to make three reasonable size bedrooms on the second floor. Uh all of whom will have their own bathrooms and the bathroom that's that is located on the first one. I'm going to go back to the sec the next
sheet on my plan is growing happens to be So, the first floor plan, which is drawing A2, uh you'll see an expanded kitchen, which which is taking over one of the bedrooms that's on the ground floor. We're going
to maintain this existing bedroom on the uh first floor, which will also serve as Mong's uh uh box office. We're going to open up some of the walls. Because again, these smaller smaller homes all have compartmentalized
spaces uh as probably many of you know and the objective is to open them up structural be themes to make a little more of an open plan. This area here which is existing is is actually a um an enclosed porch. Uh there's uh it's it's
not a huge porch, but it is enclosed and it's part of the footprint. So that that's how it's designed. We're going to make it a little bit more uh we're calling it a dinette. It may become a dinette. It may become another maybe another family room, but the objective
is to make it more traditional in its shape and its design. And we'll get to that when I get to the elevations of the plan. Uh the kitchen will be more expansive kitchen, more suitable and usable for them. And while while there is a bathroom uh here, we're going to
eliminate the door for the bedroom. We'd rather make that more of a powder room for for the purposes of family and friends. So what I have on the second floor is joining A3. Drain A3 shows what will be
the ultimate floor plan for the second floor. And all of these spaces will be will have currently at 8 foot high ceilings which will be much more usable for the uh for for the client. Uh the other thing that I don't know if m Mr.
Long mentioned but um both of his uh family parents come come home for extended periods of time over the course of uh the summers etc. So there's a need for creating bedroom space that's suitable. That's why each of the the
rooms actually have bathrooms in them for that purpose. The the upper right hand corner, which I'm calling existing second floor plan, shows a little bit of the it's an eighth scale drawing, so forgive it size, but it does show the
size of the existing conditions. And you can see those areas around the perimeter that are really not usable for the purposes of uh of anything below 7 ft. the we were we were going to be in front of this board in November 3rd, but it
was clear that uh we have an F issue which we'll talk about in a minute. Uh we decided to say let's eliminate any type of of finished space, make this just an unfinished attic space. So that but we did want to put a full stair up there so it's easy to access up and down
instead of a pull down stair because it's the difficulty of trying to get a pull down stair in this area was a little bit little bit more uh consuming these these little projected dormers those are uh that's primarily the architecture and we get to the next
sheet you'll see how the architecture is coming together. um go to the next sheet four. This is really just for summary purposes to get into the details of answer any questions that make them come up. Okay.
Now, as a as a revival style, what we're attempted to do was maintain some of the existing characteristics of the tutor style with the stucco and stone primarily on the first floor and then bring a little more
updated materials for the full second floor and and the attic space as well. Um, front elevation. We also there was there is currently no portico uh for entry um when someone drops their their
uh Amazon package they get wet. So there was an the other thing was an interesting I think architecturally was intended to kind of carry the same architectural style with the new design. Um for the most part on the we'll call it the right side elevation. For the
most part, it's right side elevation existing to remain. What we have done is with the new covered with the existing covered porch, we brought some of the similar materials uh that we did for the second floor. That's subject to
commentary of course and we're certainly open to suggestions or ideas from the board. Um the other most important thing and I guess I guess I did miss the thought the right now this is a the existing garage that's there now it's detached. I want to go back to that
that's important back city. One thing I ne neglected to mention is that the existing garage which is which was which did receive a variance some years ago has no connection to the house. So the idea was since we're we're
trying to improve the house to make it a more functional design. We brought we filled this in with a mudroom and pantry and with access directly from the house to the garage without having to go out to go and utilize the garage. Just wanted to make that make that point.
The garage is still broadly still. The proposal is to attach. >> Well, we're calling it the mud room, but it's it's basically a secondary entrance into the house because right now you enter the house from what's called the enclosed porch instead of steps that
enter enter the home. they're undercover uh from that point, but we're refuging in the floor plan, things like pantry space, storage, etc. And since the garage is, I believe, two or three steps below the first floor. We wanted to
bring those steps in so we have the ability to make it one continuous home, which also adds to the F. Just >> stop right there, just one second. So, so I indeed Currently the detached garage does that count
towards that family? Yes. So doesn't make a difference. >> That's correct. Thank you for that. Uh then then the last two elevations you have the rear elevation which is just you see the outline of the garage and then beyond that of course is the
balance of the house the back side and then the left side of the house which is the transition. I think I didn't if I didn't mention it. This is a corner lot. Anyone already noticed that um the left
side of the home would be the as we look at the front the front elevation. This would be along the what's considered one sideyard setback that we have. So this is what the next door negative seas from his front. Couple of these couple of these windows
are existing and the these up here are all new. So that's that's that's basically the summary of the architecture. Um I can pause here and jump into the uh some of the photographs that I want to share with you.
I have two exhibits and what I've done I have fulls size exhibits but I also have for the board smaller so you can see it a little more clearly at your desk there. >> So what does this include that you're
asking here? These are photographs of the existing property. There are two images. There's a P1. These are site photos. There's a P1 and a P2. I'm going to call this uh this this exhibit is going to be called A1. >> P1 is fine. >> P1 is okay.
>> Yeah. P stand for property owner. >> No. P Well, it could be anything you want to do. Got it. >> Typically, it's photo. We usually go with eight, but
>> we're we're gonna we're going I mean I'd be happy to we could either utilize these two images as the exhibits. >> Yeah. Well, we're gonna we're the first page will mark as P1. The second page will mark as P2. >> Fine.
>> And I will do that. Okay. So, what I what I like to do when I'm whenever I'm doing a renovation to a home, I like to show the existing or the post along with images of the existing house. You get a sense of what is going to be versus what
exists. And then what I also tried to do with the other images when I tour the neighborhood, I look at homes in uh uh there's Wellington, there's Canterbury. Those are the two streets that I think are are more specific to this neighborhood, if you will. Um, you'll
see a variety of different styles. >> Okay. So, wait. So, first of all, P1, there's a series of photographs. Did you take did you take those? >> I took I took all the images. Yes, I did. >> Okay. And once you put them approximately, >> uh, these were probably taken in 2024 as
you can see from the vegetation. And you'll see in P2, you'll see the most of the P2 drawings were photographs were taken um yesterday and also prior to that. But I'll walk I'll I'll do clock clockwise. I just walk you through.
>> Okay. And the the photos that you're showing on P1 that you took in 2024, do they accurately depict how that the current house and the surrounding houses look today? >> Yes, they do. They still do. >> Okay. And the in the center square there
you have uh elevation right elevation front elevation that's from you >> that those that's the ar that's the same architectural site same elevation that you presented to the board >> that is correct >> go on >> okay so the upper three photographs represent the existing conditions at
taken from various angles since it is a corner lot you have the you have the front view you have what amounts to the we'll call it the corner view and as we wrap around um to a Well, not Wilmington, but um Claremont. Uh this is more this is you can see the one one car
garage and there's a patio here. Th this patio and garage was part of the variance that occurred back close to 10 years ago. Then the images the other images the images on the right and left of the architectural design are images
uh that are on Canterbury. Uh I do I actually have I I have their um I have their uh their addresses on the next sheet so we can hit them. But it kind of gives a general depiction of the uh of the architecture that's been
designed andor redesigned over the course of you know several years. And the reason I took additional images today is because I realized I didn't have uh locations of these. So on the second p we'll call we're going to move to p2.
if you will. And this will demonstrate where all of these images are. There's there's also additional images I took today. Um, starting from from P2, starting from the upper left, this is 58
Wellington, which is just a couple of doors down from my client. Um, we have 20 Claremont Drive. That is again around the corner from my client. And I the reason I took two images of this
particular house is that this the height of the house and the size of the house. I can't say for sure whether any of these had F variances. However, it's conceivable that uh the utilization of the space was well you could see in the
rear the rear part of Claremont dry right side. You can see how there's a dormer up there and I'm sure that's probably habitable space back. Whether it required F variants or not is another matter. I didn't pursue that particular design. And then 11 Canterbury Lane, 15
Canterbury Lane, 19 Canterbury Lane, 23 Canterbury Lane, 61 Wellington Avenue, which is again down the street. In this particular case, these two I used for the same purposes I did a front and a
side here. I wanted to show the size of this property and the massing of it as it relates to the massing of that you can see on the right side. Now, while there's two windows and what we'll call the attic space, whether or not that's
usable space or not, it's it's at least that's daylight or storage. So, I mean, while I appreciate the tour around the neighborhood, um, we haven't really established any of these properties are over building coverage or any of these properties are over F. >> No, I'm I'm going to suggest my testimony point of view. I did not do
that research. Therefore, I >> So, all right. So, >> it's really just it's really more of a it's really a walk through the neighborhood to show that the architecture that we're proposing uh is not necessarily um at least in our opinion is not necessarily um different
other other properties in the area that have either been approved or assisted. Okay. Okay. board is not a purview over architecture. >> No, no, no. I will uh let that's I'll get to the uh the testimony on the on the two branches.
>> Okay. So, those are those are really the the the quick shot of the of the voter rest explain what those are. Getting back to my testimony. I will say too as a as a footnote to what would have been our prior uh prior
design. It was clear from the original design that the F that was originally proposed that would have been presented on November the 3rd uh was considerably over what's proposed. So we we scrapped that idea and what you're seeing in
front of you those design drawings are what now called the the revised reduced version of them. So we're first of all we're an R2 we're in R six zone and we have two variances that we're covering. The cover the building coverage is
currently 17 uh said the square footage is 1705 which is 25.17 where 23% is permitted max. Would you say was that building
coverage? Uh I believe so. Yes. You're saying you're currently at what? >> So, by the way, let me let me also say this this particular >> these dimensions are from the prior
variance. So, we we this this these calculations were from the prior variance that we granted years ago. So, the different the delta between what would what is currently existing at 17.05 5 versus what we're proposing
which is at 18.94 brings us to 27.95 where 23 is permitted >> for what the building coverage 27.95 >> 27.95 that's why why do I have 27
>> well I I apologize that might that might have just been a misprint on my on my notes >> 27 7 what >> 27.72 >> that that should be on the application if I'm not
>> the original means that while we are on the one that's in front of us today that >> the ones in front of you today should be let me go back to my drawing and double check >> should be 27.72 and >> 2772 I believe >> from the from the the
the variance table which is on >> T1 >> T1. So, so Mr. 272 a whole bunch of numbers. >> Let's just be clear. Let's talk about the F first. >> Okay. You have 36% permitted.
>> Yes. >> You have 30.97% existing. Is that correct? No is a 20 key. Uh, >> stand up please. >> 30.97. Yes, I can answer that question. 30.97. >> 30.97 existing.
>> Yes. >> And I have proposed 39.99%. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. All clear on that. That's what I got. So on maximum building coverage 23% permitted. >> Yes.
>> 25.17% existing. >> Yes. with that's with the variance that was granted you know years ago. >> Well well I don't know but >> it's still it still exists what it is. >> Okay. And 27.72%
proposed. Is that accurate? >> Yes, that is correct. Yeah, that was a miscalculation on my notes. >> Okay. The zoning table we got on here is not >> this zoning table here
is one >> it should be the same one. Hopefully it's on the website. >> All right. As long as we're straight here, that's all that matters >> because there's a U revision that we the original document was uh was submitted and was revised on 112025
and that's what you're looking at today. That's the most recent document you see here. All 20s. My generally speaking, when I do my calculations, what's called general requirements, we go down and we look at
the habitable area square footage. And you can see on item number four is the architectural habitable area. The first floor is 1421 square ft existing. Second floor is 677 square foot existing. We
are proposing 132 square feet on the first floor which predominantly is that mudroom connection and then the second floor reduction. Second floor edition, excuse me, is 479 square feet where you have a total of 611 total square
footage, which brings the uh floor area ratio to 2709. And that should be reflected properly for Yes. So, under floor area ratio under the zoning requirements, when you go to look at the floor area ratio,
you'll see 2709 or 39.99. which is 3.99 um% above what's for so I think let me see in summary well first of all with the with the
devariance requirement of the F um the intention is of course approving the the hardship. The hardship for the most part is reducing the the purpose. The reason
why it was increased is because we we're using 8ft ceilings in all of those spaces. So we have um if there's a if there's a desire to maybe look at that from a different perspective if we wanted to reduce some of the square
footage or some of the floor area that would be the floor area and the uh usable square feet anything that's below anything's below 7 ft. Ideally, home homeowner would like to have a fully functional 8 foot high ceiling in
altered space on the second floor, but I'll leave that up to the board in the comments that that might come back from any of the board members. >> Right. Here's one of the issues we're dealing with here. It's not unlike the last case. We need to hear testimony that in regarding the positive and
negative criteria of both of these these requests, you know, lowering height is not you know, really speaking to Florida integration. >> Well, it it it's it's speaking to the to
what would amount to F because we could reduce. >> Why why are you requesting this F in terms of its positive and negative criteria as as as it relates to the neighborhood >> the understood the positive criteria
that as it relates to the that space is that it's better utilizing from the owner's perspective. This is not just a neighborhood. This is from the home homeowner perspective. It is primarily to better utilize that's that's spaces
for the homeowner. Now our decision >> okay the the positive criteria it's not about the homeowner. It's about it's about why >> intend purpose of the building
>> right like explain why the proposed home can be accommodated on this particular lot not withstanding the deviation yet I want you to make one more point of
this your lot is oversized >> is slightly oversized yes it is >> and you're now asking for a second bite of the Apple on your coverage on floor ratio as well as building coverage. So to try to weave that in as to why we
even need more building like you're overbuilding coverage right now you're exacerbating that condition. >> So I I will respond to that. >> Okay. As well as your floor ratio going from you know now 4% deviation which is
rather sizable. the the currently the corner lot does create a bit of a hardship from the standpoint of usability even though the six it's a little higher than 6,000 square feet with 679 >> it's 67 so >> you still get benefit of that though at times
>> you do it it does add to the calculation it does give it a little more brief but the the um the intent from the from the from a hardship perspective is that the the without without doing some of the
the design criteria that we we've uh requested. Um it will be it's difficult for the homeowner to gain what their what their proposal is. >> Once again, unlike >> the homeowner's use is incon.
>> I mean, it was great that you took us on that tour of the house, >> but I don't in in without sounding insensitive, his his use is of not of our concern. >> Understood. We're looking at it strictly from a municipal land use perspective. Meaning that our decision runs with the land. >> Yes.
>> So when he moves out five years from now, let's say, we have to still look at this property and say, is this kept in character with the neighborhood? Is this, you know, 4% deviation to floor ratio? Can the mass can the property handle the mass? >> Correct.
>> Can the property handle the coverage? I'm not sure you've crossed that threshold. Well, we're not there yet, but there may be a need for perhaps there may be a need for us to uh to examine other properties that I had in those other images to see if any of
those other properties have similar that they are. >> Well, that's up to you if you want to go back and do that calculation, but that would that require a revisit. >> Yes, I understand. That's that's why I'm making suggestions. >> But that's that's a portion. I mean, you know, selling selling zoning relief as
justification for more zoning relief isn't a great compelling argument. >> Understood. So, you really want to speak to the specifics of your piece of property, not so much what deviations the neighbors have. >> Yes. Well, the the
to do nothing and not and well, we have a little room. We have a little little maneuverability uh to go in from the 36% um excuse me from the uh the 36% we're now at at 30.97. So so there is some
>> you have a lot of headroom. >> There is some room there. >> I mean you have 6% ahead. That's that's pretty sizable. >> There is some room. the part part of the functionality and go going back to your point about the homeowner is utilizing first floor space for other purposes
other than habitable space that's irrelevant to the board and I understand that um so there there may be a need to pardon the expression to perhaps go back to the drawing look what how how much else we can reduce this to get it to a
more reasonable percentage 4% of over requirement is significant. I will speak just for the for the record. We were at 45%. We know that wasn't going to >> Well, look, I think I think your best case scenario now is to look at your
plan and you have two choices. To revise it >> or to come up with a compelling argument as to why you need these overages and how it's going to be sold. Okay, considering that you have an oversized lot. So there really is no argument in
regarding the length. In fact, it's beneficial. It's the opposite. Yeah. When can we hear this case? >> Um March 16th. >> March 16th.
Does that work? Does that work? Um we should be able to do that. Yes. Right. So, we'll table this application as it sits now and then see how we can reduce that sub. I guess the one thing I would ask uh the board does grant aid and I'm
not in front of this board all the time so I don't know whether um would there be uh an opportunity to say what would be a reasonable >> No. Here's what we would do for you though. >> Okay. We will deliberate. Okay. in the
open, right? >> Being that you need five affirmative votes, right? Okay. Or you would I'd even split up the two variances if you want. Okay. So, um we would deliberate. You could see what everyone says. If you
see that you don't have the votes or I don't see you don't have votes, I'm going to come back to you and say if you want us to vote or not. >> If you see that you don't have the votes. Sorry. >> That's tonight. >> No, tonight we're moving on. Okay. >> I mean, you haven't honestly you haven't met the
>> just the threshold, >> right? >> So, we would allow we would deliberate. You could hear the comments. If you don't think you have an affirmative response where you're going to actually get the the relief you requested, we would either allow you to go make a new
date and go back and try again, >> right? >> Or build something that is, you know, not not need of variance. Not a D variance. >> Certainly not a D variance. I mean, you're building coverage here. You have a problem with it, right? So, you're not
getting around that. >> Understood. >> So, it's a matter of keep your F in line and and do the best you can on your coverage. >> Yeah. Pull on your sword on the bill. >> That's fair. >> Um, that's up to you. That's up to
between you and your client. >> Yeah. Thank you. and uh I and that was >> okay. So this application will be heard uh March was that March 15 16 no further notice. >> Thank you.
>> Um please have your directions submitted to town hall and uh we will review at that time. >> Thank you very much for your time and the information. I appreciate that. We're gonna take a two-minut break and
then we're clean up. 116 Cypress, come on down. I'm told by Mr. >> I was at I was at the property this afternoon >> and while I was there the homeowner came
out and he was surprised he didn't think they were on tonight. >> Oh >> okay. >> Anyone here on that application? >> He said to me that that they had failed to notice >> they were supposed to be here on December 8th. >> He did not notice the utilities. I told
them utilities for January 12, >> right? >> Well, >> I think we can you can provide another date. We can carry it. we can notify
him that he we've carried it to the state provided that >> notify >> the utilities of this state >> right >> if he didn't do that then he has to do >> so what would that date be
>> let's give >> enough time Sorry. >> I mean, he would have to get it. Yeah, he would have to get it on by Friday, which we did.
>> So, we'll get people get >> All right. So, anyone here on application 4059, it's going to be carried to February 2nd. No further notice will be given. We're moving forward to counter 4062. That's three ridge terrace.
>> Come on down. >> Yeah, sure. Yeah. You're going to sit there. I've been told I'm not loud enough. >> Yeah. Anyway, hey on that. Can we request a service to that guy too? >> Go on. If there are other things that
the person's going to need and submit, is that person going to have time to get it in get the stuff get it in 10 days prior? If he is, that's fine. We can always continue
that. >> There's no survey that I saw. >> Okay. Looks like there's like excerpts lifted from >> pegs. Yeah. >> Okay. No problem. >> That's the case that I have. >> Sorry folks. Uh we're going to swear you
in. Whoever's gonna if you're all gonna speak then we'll swear you on one shot. >> All right. Everybody raise your hands. You swear upon testimony about the given proceeding and whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> I do start your name. >> My name is
AFG Douglas Miller from AHM Architects located here at 281 Main Street, Miller. >> Mallerie Clark of Joer Robin located at 30 Montgomery Street 510, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> Go ahead.
>> All right. Uh, so my name is Quan. I'm work actually uh my uh my wife and I and my son is living here for 5 years at three rich terrace. Uh this is the our home. We really love this town and uh we
love this community and our friendly neighbors. Um uh we have my my side is al also very happy here and we are planning to have another but the problem is our home is too costly right now for us to leave. So we only have the three
bedrooms. Uh uh when we have the second child we uh especially when the ch child is like a large enough we need another room because we have uh sometime parents also come here to us. So three bedrooms are not enough. So we are trying to so
that's why we are proposing some uh more admissions to uh like to give enough space for us to leave and enough space for uh for our kids to play with. Uh so
so that's why we're uh we are designed as to be we to be respectful and minimal uh impact. So, uh, that's all out from Dr.
>> All right. Thank you very much. >> Hey, good evening. As Quinn said, him and his wife came to me with the goal of improve qualifications real quick. >> Oh, yeah, sure. Uh, Douglas Miller from AM Architects. I've been licensed since 2000, sorry. Yeah, 2001. My license is
in good standing. I made numerous presentations to this board as well as the boards and the surrounding communities. >> Thank you so much. Your qualifications are accepted. what you should. >> All right. Thank you. Yes. So, uh, as I said, uh, they hit me with the goal of improving the functionality of their house. Um, I'm going to kind of describe
the project, go over the variances, um, describe the plans, then I'll turn it over to our planner to the variance proofs. So, the property, as Quinn said, is located at three rich terrace. Our lot is approximately 57.8 8 by 100 or
5,759 square f feet and is located in the R six zone. That's narrower and undersized in the zone where 60 foot width and 6,000 square feet is required. Our lot width or lot area, our front yard
setback, both sideyard setback, sideyard combined, building coverage and garage size are all existing non-conforming. So really the only two items that are conforming according to the zoning law are lot coverage and building height on the house is an attractive one and a half story colonial built in
approximately 1931. We are requesting C variances for building coverage where 23% or 1320 square 25 ft allowed. We have an existing non-conformity of 23.44%
or 1350 ft. We are proposing 24.8% which is 1430 ft. This is a deviation of only 1.8% or 105 square ft. We're asking for three sideyard setbacks uh variances for the right side. These three
variances are all kind of linked together because by asking for one, we're need all three. Uh in our notice, we had only asked for one of them and there was a little confusion between us and Eileen. Um but in addition to the sideyard setback up to 18 feet, we're
also requesting sideyard setback above 18 as well as sideyard combined. So uh for the sideyard setback up to 18 where 8 ft is required, we have an existing non-conformity of 6.2 and we plan to continue that for a sideyard set back up
to sorry above 18 ft or 12 feet is required. We're continuing again the same 6.2 2 ft in sideyard combined 35% is required which is 20.23 ft. We have an existing non-conforming 25% to our 14.5
ft and we are continuing this nonconformity. Uh we're also asking for garage size. The existing garage is non-conforming at 9.5 by 15 where 13 feet by 21 is required.
We are proposing a garage of 9.3 by 23.5. Continuing the existing non-conformity for width, but bringing the depth into require into conformance. We're also asking for fence and walls in the front yard where 2 feet is permitted. We're proposing just the
right side retaining wall along the driveway that will have a height that slopes from 1 ft up to about six. uh plus a devariance to floor area ratio where 36% or 273 square feet is required with an existing non-conformity of 37.8
or 2,177. The proposed increases this to 40.9 or 2,356 for a deviation of 4.9. But because we have a small light lot area, this is only 283
square ft. Um these variances are due to the narrow undersized lot hardship of having an existing non-conforming placement of the home. Um and these hardships complicated our ability to expand the home without variance relief. Uh let me walk you through the plans.
>> Do you think this house was ever add on to at some point? >> I think so. Yeah, I think that's >> you're already nonconformity and like your your building coverage and NFA are already nonformity. >> Correct. which leads me to believe that, you know, this is like another, like I said, a second look at it or third or
whatever it's been over the years. >> I think somebody did a small addition out the back that kind of lean to the >> right. So, I think I think there was a sun room and there was a small addition on the right side that was added behind the garage. >> Uh, but I think there was minimal changes. If you go through the house, it doesn't seem like it's been improved or
renovated in quite a long long time. >> Were there any variances uh drug that were applied for before? That's my help. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? Um, on the F, you just mentioned how it's like
343 foot deviation, you said, but because it's a small lot, only 28. I just didn't follow that. >> Oh, sure. It's 4.9%. Okay. >> But 4.9% deviation equates to 28. >> I see. if you were to apply it.
>> So sometimes when you hear like I'm asking for a 4% variance, it's like thousands of feet or thousand square feet or so. Here it's a it's it's a small small number. >> Thank you. >> Um so yeah, I could walk through the plan to give you a better understanding of what's uh existing and what we're proposing. So this these are the same
drawings you have before you. Uh so the changes to the site, this area here on the second floor is where we're adding a fourth bedroom on the second floor. Uh this area here is an infill. The existing house has this kind of tooththed notch uh between the back of
the garage and uh the family room to the rear. So we're proposing to just square this off. And because it's filling in this notch, it I don't really think it contributes to the visual bulk of the home. Uh we're also proposing uh to move the garage from the first floor down to
the basement. And that requires this retaining wall variance that I described along the right side. We also have uh these three-step retaining walls up to the front door. those uh the retaining walls are conforming
uh by we're also proposing to reconstruct um this side of the house um but we couldn't make it any narrower and improve the sideyard setback because of the garage width. Next page is the basement floor plan. Uh this is the existing this is the area
that we're reconstructing. It's going to be the same size as existing. Uh we're just joining it uh to the existing crawl space and creating a a little bit larger garage than was there previously. Um but there's no changing to this level.
first floor. This thing first floor consists of a of a kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, powder room, and a garage. Uh we're proposing uh here is to reconfigure it. We have all the same spaces that we had before, except we're
taking the living room and we're uh eliminating that instead creating a guest suite uh for his parents that come to to visit for extended period of time. Um the existing first floor plan is what you would typically find in the early 20th century. A number of small
compartmentalized rooms. They don't really work for a modern family. And by having such small rooms, it makes the house feel smaller. So by opening up the rear of the house, eliminating some walls, we're creating a much more open concept. So it makes each space feel
bigger, creates a more modern flow, uh creates spaces that people want in a modern house these days. Uh the change to the footprint uh to fill this in is only about 93 square feet. So
a dimminimous change creates a dramatic improvement to the usability and functionality of the home. Next is the second floor. There's few fewer changes to the second floor area. Uh it consists of three bedrooms, a full
bathroom, and a super tiny primary bath. There's this study which occupies the attic space over the garage. It's a very very awkward space. You have to kind of shimmy down underneath a low doorway down a couple steps um to access the
study. And it's also accessible only through the primary bathroom. So which makes it a very very awkward space. It was an attic area that they felt that they could, you know, maximize and they've really used used up every possible square foot in this house. So
that's why we needed to do this renovation. So, what we're proposing to do is minimize the bulk along the right side, pull this back and create a walk-in closet, make a more normal size primary bathroom, renovate and reconfigure the hall bathroom. We're
relocating the wall between uh these two bedrooms to more equalize their size. And this is the addition that uh primarily drives the floor area ratio variance. This bedroom uh four here uh on the left rear. And the setbacks for
that are informative. Next are the elevations. Uh you can see it's an attractive low slung one and a half story colonial home. Has these three kind of cutes if you drive by the house. Although they're cute and a low slung house looks attractive, it
minimizes the usable space with inside those bedrooms. So, all those bedrooms, if you have a certain size, they're very hard to furnish because of the low wall heights. So, by adding more square footage, uh, you know, we're going to make the house a lot more functional. Um, and you can see this is the right
side where we're asking for the sideyard setback. There's a number of windows here on that side, um, that look on to the neighbor to the right's rear yard. So, what we're proposing to do here on a proposed elevation is eliminate all that glazing along that side to really
create a sense of privacy between the two homes. We're also uh reconfiguring this portion of the house. Before it looked like an afterthought. It didn't seem like it was connected to the overall architectural style of the home.
And what we're proposing to do here is add a fourth dormer that mimics the style of the other uh other portions of the home. Uh I would like to note although we are asking for a height to side variance, the overall height of the house is 6 and
1/2 ft lower than required for the zone and where our addition is for this section here where we're asking for the height to side variance is 11 and 1/2 ft lower than permitted in the zone. So, we're trying to keep this low slung. We're trying to keep that cottagey colonial feel of the house and we're
doing sensitive changes to really dramatically change the functionality of the home. I think this is one of those cases where the numbers kind of bely I'm sorry, the aesthetic lie the numbers. When you look at this house and you drive by, you would think it's a lot smaller than what the Face, not that
it's a large scale house, but you know, as our planner will say, it's not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Um, we also used a variety of techniques to break down the scale of the house and further um create a little bit of dish farm and curb appeal. We have a variety
of materials on the on the front. We have clboard siding mixed with some stucco and some nice trim. So, this bride further enhances the aesthetics while also breaking down the visual bulk of the house. Um, this is the rear edition that we talked about. You can
see it's really nested in to the home. Really creates a nice uh addition to to the rear. And then this area here is where that kind of infill was created. And I think it really creates a dis takes a disjointed facade and creates something that's much more attractive.
And I would like to note that the area of the deviation of this section if if I put my hand over that this is the section here that requires the the variance. So I'm just shielding the uh the the bedroom in the rear so that you can see you know on this drawing it
looks very flat two dimensional but this is much much further back and away from the the property to the right. And if you measure the area of this the section that's in deviation from existing to proposed they're virtually the same. So we're not really
intensifying the deviation of how far >> that that room that's the fourth bedroom. Yeah, it's uh two and a half feet can handle levers over the whatever it is that
>> right but it's uh conforming to set. >> Um so overall I think that you know before I turn it over to the planner I just like to feel that our property can really handle the deviation due to the unique makeup of our lot the surrounding neighborhood um with the site and the
zoning populations. So with so many non-conformities there's really nothing we could do here without Bar. I think what we're doing here goes towards maintaining and improving the immediate character of the house, enhancing the charm uh of the house and the undersized
lot area narrow width in combination with the placement prevention present these hardships that require variance. So I'll open it up to any questions before I turn up the plan. Thank you. >> Anyone have any questions?
Any audience have any questions forward? All right. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Mallerie Clark of Dresnar Robin. I'm just gonna pass out. I have three case. >> Sure. Um, I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I have a bachelor's
degree in landscape architecture from Clemson University as well as a master's degree in city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I've been a licensed planner in New Jersey since 2021. Uh, my license is current and in good standing. and presented to a couple dozen boards uh throughout the state.
Also previously served as a principal planner for the city of Jersey City for several years and um like as recently as last week I was in South Orange the neighboring communities. >> Thank you sir. >> I believe this will be A1.
The A1 is a seven slide presentation. Okay. Um so the first slide here you can see it's just a summary of the relief requested. I know the architect um just went through so I don't want to belabor too much but we have uh one B variance
for F where uh 0.36 is permitted and 0.41 is proposed and then we have several sebolt variances including maximum building coverage where 23 is permitted and 24.8 is proposed minimum sideyard which is kind
of a couple variances clustered into one. Um the requirement is 8 ft uh below 18 ft of building height and 8.75 ft for the portion of our massing above 18 ft of building height.
I'll explain that when we get to the relevant slide as well as 20.23 ft combined between the two. The existing is 6.2 uh on the eastern side, 8.3 on the western side, and 14.5 combined. Those
numbers aren't changing. We're just intensifying those variances through the vertical addition. So it'll be additional bulk that is nonpforming. Um but we're not shrinking those horizontal dimensions at all. Maximum retaining wall height uh is another deviation that we need in the
front yard. Uh the maximum within the ordinance is 2 feet and we are proposing about 6 and 1/2 ft on the right side of the driveway. On the left side, you'll see in the elevations um that I'll go over, we have a terrace retaining wall approach which conforms with a twoft
maximum height. And finally, we have a variance for minimum garage dimensions where 13x 21 is required. 9.5 by 18 exists. We are improving the nonconformity to 9.3x 23.5.
Um, and we uh do still require relief, but uh just for your benefit, we're kind of taking that deficiency on the width and putting it at the length, if that makes sense. We are located in the R six zoning district. The purpose of which is to
provide a range of lot sizes for single family dwellings. Uh the permitted principal uses are single family dwellings, existing use on site, single family dwelling, proposed use single family dwelling. In terms of our um relief, I want to
start with the F variants. Um on slide two, you'll see um a couple of colors there for your benefit. Purple is the areas that we are adding. So that's where increase in F is occurring and orange is um anything that's being taken away, which is really just existing
chimney on that side of the property, which does encroach into the sideyard is being removed. Um, I did do an F analysis of the block. If you can see on slide three. I apologize for the small numbers on this.
Uh, running out of ink in my printer. Wanted to make sure I had hard copies for you all. Um, so essentially what you'll see here is our property. Uh, the information for our property is in orange. The identified parcel on the tax
map is our parcel in orange. Uh, and then this is the Ridge AB corridor. So, or sorry, Rich Terrace Corridor. So, if we look at the overall um block front on on our side of the street, which is the northern side, um there are several other existing non-conforming
lots that are essentially identical to ours in in character and sighting, and those are the lots that are identified in purple. So, if it's within the purple box, it's an existing undersized lot similar to ours. And then similarly on the tax map, they're identified.
And really what we found is that all the undersized lots on the U block have insisting non-conforming FS and they're pretty consistent with what we are proposing. So um immediately adjacent to us is the corner property on addressed at One Ridge AB that actually has a rear
to sideyard relationship with our property. So it fronts um onto Chattam Road or sorry it fronts onto the the other right of way um with a with a sideyard facing the ridge. Yes.
>> Um and so that's a little bit of um relief needed in a unique condition which I'll talk about with the sideyard as well. Um so that has a a42 F. You see41.36 and 40. Um so very consistent FS what
we're proposing through our addition. Um as we go further um towards Woodland on our side of the block we have extraordinarily oversized property. So, I think it's not really comparing apples to apples and that kind of analysis. Um, but for the board's
benefit, I did review the tax cards for all these properties as well as all the properties on the other side of the street which have larger lots than what the minimum is required. And we're really proposing a very consistent overall um building size with what
exists on the block. So the average built square feet per parcel on the opposite side of the street is 2745 ft. Average built square feet per parcel on our side of the block is 20 uh 398 square feet.
>> Sorry, is that part of this A1 or is this just your verbal? >> This is just my verbal. >> So let's just let's just go back for two seconds. Say that one more time in terms of what we on the other side of the street on Ridge. >> Yes. So on the we'll call it southern
side of bridge um opposite side of the street the average square feet per parcel is 2,744 square feet. >> And how many parcels is that? >> That would be that between Brawl and Woodland or >> No, it's the other side of Rich Terrace.
So it's the side fac between Brawl and Woodland. >> Correct. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine parcels. >> So, it's the entire block. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So, essentially, I analyzed the whole block on Terrace. >> Just wanted to know what we're doing. >> Mhm. Um, and then on our side of the
street, the northern side of Ridge Terrace, the average built square feet per parcel is 2,398 ft. >> So, again, the entire side of the street. >> Correct. >> Including those oversight walls. >> Correct. And what's the size of the
subject uh property as proposed? >> The size of the size of the bulk >> the bulk what you >> the bulk as proposed it was 2562 ft. So we're very much in line with that average that you see on the block >> which is roughly 24 >> correct especially on our side of the
block. Um the new floor area that we are proposing is um within primarily within permitted area in terms of the setback other than that sliver of um sideyard
which actually the upper story the new story second floor of that is not actually counted in the floor area ratio because it's a pitched roof um closet. So essentially it doesn't have the the clearance to be considered habitable area.
Um and then additionally I would really just offer that um while we do need a building covered variance which is somewhat consumed with an F variance in the talking points um the it's really not related to this um it's
really related to this F only in a very small portion which I'll address in a minute which is our architect described um we're kind of filling in the smile if you will. We have a gap at 15 and we're filling in that fortune at the rear to really bring the build in line at this
plat at the rear. Um, in terms of the building coverage variance, I I'll go through that next because I believe it's closely tied to the F. If you look on slide four, it's that small 80 square foot blue square at the rear. Um, that's
the only increase in building coverage. Again, that's kind of filling in the gap of the smile. Um and then we will maintain a compliant lot coverage which I think is a very relevant consideration when you're looking at a building coverage variance um where we have we are proposing 37.8%
where 45 is permitted. So we still have substantial leg room there. Um and and I don't think our our building coverage variance is egregious uh by any means. It's really a logical addition. Okay. Um, additionally, um, if we look at slide five, I just
want to go over some of the talking points on this sideyard variance. So, there's couple components to that variance. The first is that under 18 ft of building height, you're required to have an 8 foot set. Once you hit 18 ft, the ordinance says you have an
additional.3 feet of setback horizontally for every one vertical foot of building height. If you look at the um proposed diagram at the bottom of side elevation, it's really actually only a very small triangle at the north part of the peak
that's actually subject to the additional setback and that's it's 9 in additional that's required. Um obviously we are proposing to just carry the facade up straight. So you maintain the existing nonformity at 6.2 feet where eight andor 8.75 ft is
required. Um, additionally, I took a look at the overall facade area. Please do not confuse this with floor area. This is just the facade area um as relevant to that rear neighbor that will be looking at this portion of the building.
Um, the existing is 371 ft and the proposed is 373 ft. So, really um almost identical and not going to be discernible in difference of Hulk from an area perspective. But I actually do think the proposed massing is improved
for that neighbor. I think it feels a little less intrusive with the pitch roof design. Um, and really that that reduction of five windows on that side of the property I think substantially increases the privacy for the adjoining.
I think that actually makes it a much more traditional um lot relationship for their experience on the dayto-day. Um, moving down on the retaining wall on slide six. Um, so I did conduct a site
visit. These photos are taken by me that are in this slide and they were taken uh this afternoon. So today, January 12th. Um, so if if you recall the tax map that was shown on the earlier slide, there's kind of that cluster of like properties to ours. Um, which are all the
undersized properties. Every single one of them actually has the condition we're proposing, which is the garage below grade with a a substantial retaining wall. Um, at least on one side of the property. So, all of those properties actually have a retaining wall condition that's
over the two feet. We're not creating any kind of atypical character. And I really actually argue for this variance, but just for some of the um negative criteria as a whole, that we're actually bringing the site like it more in character with what exists on the
corridor than it is today. >> Um and then just for your benefit, like I said, on the left side of our front facade, that um terrace retangle approach, that's comp. It's really the right side that we need that relief uh for the law at six.
Uh lastly, you'll see on slide seven, uh we have our garage. Really, we're just efficient in the width. I would just offer for the board. We are increasing the depth to kind of improve navigability overall. Um but 9 by8 is a standard parking spot. So the nine
little drive 9 12 by 23 and 1/2 is more than feasible to accommodate a car. Also, the existing is undersized at the 9 and a half. So the the homeowner has been using an undersized garage from a width perspective. they know how to navigate it safely. They know whether or not it works for their colors and
whether they use it as an actual garage storage for cars or just storage generally for the house. Um you know obviously it's a conditioner for so I don't see any detriment to the welfare safety with the granting of that variance. Similarly with the picture shown on the the last slide um all of
the existing below grade garages are onecar garage that are quite narrow. So very similar in scale uh to what we're proposing here. Okay. Um so I think I took you through kind of the the metrics and a lot of the
kind of design rationale for for what we're put going in in terms of um positive and negative criteria. I do think we're advancing several purposes of land use flaw with the application specifically purpose E to establish appropriate appropriate population densities. This is a single family zone.
Most of the talking points in the mass appointments that have to do with this district and residential districts in general is about maintaining character and density. Um we are maintaining a single family home. Um and therefore I do think we advance that purpose. We also advanced purpose I which is to
promote a desirable visual environment. I think the architect spoke to how we're kind of improving the charm that already does exist in the house. It's not like this is an eyesore on the street, but we're actually bringing it more into conformance from an aesthetic standpoint with the existing uh corridor and the other similarly sized homes and
properties. Terms of the negative criteria, I don't see any substantial detriment to the granting of the variances. As I stated, we're a single family zone. We're upholding that intent of the ordinance. Um, and I don't see any detriment to welfare safety with the granting of the
bene the granting of the variances. I think this is a very clear-cut case where the benefits outwrite the detriments. These are marginal improvements on this home that will make a very big impact on their day-to-day life from a bulk standpoint. May not even be discernible. Probably won't be discernible if you're not an
immediate neighbor that looks at the house every day. And that that additional is actually spread through several parts of the house. It's not like one large um masking getting added onto the structure. So it can be almost indecipherable from the existing fold.
Um, additionally in terms of the master plan, I did review it. Uh, we have goal one objective 1.01, which is about really protecting the character of the neighborhood as I spoke to of residential neighborhoods. Um, and page 48, recommendations for
this zone in particular are to ensure that additions to existing homes are compatible with prevailing context and not excessively bulky. I think that's almost a perfect description of the project that's before you tonight. Um, I don't think we're really looking at trying to accomplish anything egregious.
I think we're aligning with the intent of the ordinance as closely as can be done on an undersized parcel. Um, and like I said, aesthetically, we're really bringing ourselves more in line with our needs than what exists today. Um, so I think I've spoken to the proofs
and the purposes of land saw and the master plan. So I I'll leave it there. If you guys have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer. First of all, nice testimony. >> Thank you. >> Um refresher. Um any questions?
Can you just go over um in terms of the F variance why um the house can be accommodated on the lot stand just those are the F. >> Sorry, can you repeat question? Why why the house you believe is built can be
accommodated on the center side lot. >> Yeah. So I think um there's two kind of major components that first one being that there are several existing non-conformities that exist as our architect spoke to um and I addressed uh and we're not um intensifying any of
those from a horizontal standpoint. from the way we regulate our setbacks. We're not encroaching on any of the setbacks um in a more intense way than what is happening on the site right now. Also, the new bulk as stated is within those setback lines minus the very small pitch
portion of the second edition on the walk-in closet, but that the primary um generator of the square footage from an F standpoint is that fourth bedroom on the second floor that is within all the permitted setback areas. So, I think one thing for the board to consider is in in
a a scenario where this house was demolished and the site was built from the ground up, um that area could be built, meaning like you could have massing located in that exact position. It would be as of rightly confined. So, I don't think we're really um disrupting the intent of the zone plan in that way
with where we're located the the floor area. >> And the piece you talked about is that bedroom that goes up, >> correct? Yes. That's the the biggest generator from a square foot perspective. >> The other one is filling. >> Yeah, it's that 80 square feet which is really >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Any questions from the audience regarding this testimony? Um then in that case, do you have anything else to present? >> I don't um you have anything else? No, I'm good.
Thank you so much. That's >> um any uh other questions from the audience regarding this application? Any comments regarding this application? Going to close the public portion.
Board members, what say you? So, it's always interesting with these because you do see especially with regards to floor area ratio, you see that number and you know it just looks scary and it looks like something we'd never you know through. Um but when you
know when you have a presentation like this um and you see that first of all u because it's already non-conforming they're only asking for the 343 additional square feet and all the groups have clearly been met in my opinion at least. Um I I think that this
actually becomes a very easy um you know application to to approve. I think everything was really thoughtfully and tastefully done. Um, and I could absolutely support it. Also, >> well, I I agree with a lot of what
Jessica said, but I'll also say that that piece that goes out in the back bedroom, the property behind it, there's the retaining wall, which is six feet high or so, and there's a lot of of of
shrubbery on top of that. I'm not even sure anyone behind it even sees the troubling part of this and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not saying negate anything. The the next door neighbor is three feet from the property
line or I mean the the two houses are so close but you're not exacerbating it. There's nothing >> talking about the home on the right. The home on the right. Yeah. That's come in front of us several times too. a couple times over the years. >> So, I'm supporting
>> uh you know, it's amazing when you take a lot and that's a 6,000 square foot zone and then you chop, you know, 250 300 square feet off it, it makes a big difference just like adding 300 makes a big difference and that that you would be able to take advantage of that. Um,
and when you're playing around with 100 square feet here and 300 square feet there, and when you say, okay, we have a hardship of 250 square feet, it's like, you know, we're talking about um, you know, tiny spaces. Um, and I think you've done a great job, Mr. Miller,
with your mass, um, but not just building a big block. And you know, you're keeping your elevations as as low as possible, and you're also uh keeping your uh roof lines a little more intricate, which I think really adds the
aesthetic appeal. Uh I would be supportive of this application. >> Do I have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve the application. >> Yeah, let's break it up. >> Sorry. Sorry.
>> Okay. You're you're you know just keep off sadly truly impressed. >> You hit the ground running. So >> So since we have a D1 variance requiring five uh votes, we're going to break it up into two votes. >> D4, sorry, this one. >> Yeah, it's okay.
>> So we're going to break it up into two votes. We're going to first carry uh do that. So in Dvarian, do I have a motion in that? >> I make a motion to report the variance. Thank you. Have a second. >> I'll second. >> David Bradford.
>> Yes. >> Joseph Cfield. >> Yes. >> Lightner. >> Yes. >> Harry Rosen. >> Yes. >> Tru. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Jessica. >> Yes. >> Okay. So in the remaining four variances
inclusive of side air setback, building coverage, retaining wall, and the garage deviation, do I have a motion regarding the remaining uh relief request? >> I'll second.
>> David, >> Joseph Cfield, >> yes. >> Gary Rosen, >> yes, >> yes, >> yes. with. >> Yes, >> yes, good luck with brother question.
>> There's uh six other variances as a matter of >> Oh, sorry. The way I the way I said all the remaining variances. >> All right. Sorry. >> Yeah, because the other ones are incorporated. >> Yeah. Sorry. Thank you so much. As >> I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Sure. >> We need to see more of that. Congratulations. Oh, thank you. >> 4065 50 Barber. Last but not >> least
about 93 >> Jason I'm the uh property owner >> Steve Ruben >> who would like to go first Uh, I'll go first. So, um, we moved to the town about four years ago. Uh, we're, uh,
family with two kids. Uh, we've got a standard colonial. What we're seeking approval for is, uh, an add-on to house, which I think was somewhere between 34 350 ft. Uh, today I think that building coverage is about 13.8%. They're looking
to go to 15 and a half% to one and a half% over what's currently approved. Um, and really the intent is just to improve the functionality of the house. Uh, bring it up to date. Uh, the house was built in 1964. Uh, not part of the
approval here what we're seeking, but uh, we're going to be redoing all of the windows in the house, which I think most are from 64. Uh we're going to be redoing the siding uh and insulation. Uh and then the add-on is really intended
to, like I said, improve the functionality of the house. So today, uh my wife and I both work home. Uh my wife is home three days a week. I'm home one day a week now, but I work in the morning usually before leaving and in the evening when I get home and then on
weekends. So um we uh we really need more. from an office standpoint. Uh we've got four bedrooms upstairs. My wife currently is using uh our master bedroom as uh her office. Uh and then uh I use
the basement uh as my office and our dining room is effectively kid playroom today. Um, now that there are four and three, uh, we're looking to, uh, have a real dining room and more importantly, I think use, uh, what is currently a
office uh, slash bedroom as the office. Um, so we'll add some soundproofing to that, but then putting a bedroom on that floor. So today we've got a space which be used as guest bedroom and it is used as guest bedroom that'll become the
office that I guess my wife and I will share. Uh and then we're putting uh the extension would be effectively for a new bedroom on the main floor. Uh which is for a variety of purposes but I would say uh my parents live on Long Island.
So, when they visit, uh we've got family with Boston when they visit. Uh and then, uh my father-in-law is actually in the room. Uh but more long-term, near-term, long-term planning, whatever you want to call it, I would suspect that um uh we probably will have uh you
know, dumps, either my in-laws or your parents in the house at some point. So, we really need space on the main level. Um, today my um my steps in the garage were actually set up quite dangerously. So, we're going to be uh moving them and
making our pantry uh a mud room. Um and uh and then adding a door where the house will be accessible uh and sort of private space so that it's uh now an on suite bathroom um with this new space uh
and uh it will be accessible from the main bathroom will be accessible from the main hallway uh but it's intended to section off the house a little bit for when we have uh those foreseen events that I just mentioned. So um >> so what you bring with you today? Um,
yeah, they're monitoring contractor. So, what capacity are you going to speak? The contractor >> if needed. So, who's going to speak to the variances? Uh, there's only one variance that we're seeking, >> right?
But still need we still need to have proper proof met and so forth. So, that's why I mean you give it a shot, >> but I mean you know, you can't speak as a capacity of any, you know, professional. So,
>> okay. Um, I've been, uh, in business 44 years. >> Let me, uh, can I open this over here? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Presentation, >> I said, I mean, it's, you know, as evidenced by what you sat through this evening. >> Yeah.
>> You know, it's not it's not about, you know, how lovely you're going to make the the broccoli. It's about how you're going to, you know, tell us how you're going to how this property can accommodate without, you know, having any negative impact.
So, I just I want to get you into it. I just want to make >> I think I can take a crack at that fairness as well, but I'll let >> No, no, no, no. I mean, I I the homes on the street have all been knocked down. I mean, our house is actually small relative size of a lot.
If you look at the surrounding area, the only person or house impacted is the one that just went up and it's a massive home on a small property. I would argue that it's more obtrusive to us than the other direction that literally I mean, if we're talking about the negative
impact of this, those are the only people that can even see this addition and it does not affect them. >> Is that the people to the right of you? >> If you're looking at my house, it's people to the right of us. Um, so this is a >> And how far away would you say they are from you?
uh 40 30 ft >> 24.7. >> So that's to their house to your new development. >> No, I'm sorry. That is from the existing house to the property line, >> right? And then you would say how far from there to
>> it's a question from where the new structure will be, >> right? Where the new structure will be. >> Yeah. >> To technically there how far would you say that is? >> So how far is this from to to our So your end of your property is 20 25.
>> Okay. And theirs is probably another 10 12 ft off of that. So I think they're about 10 to 12 feet within our property line. This will be I don't know. I mean the new structure will be still 20 ft. >> Say again.
>> They're pitched down a little. >> Yeah. Yeah. They're pitched down a little bit. We're pitched down a little bit. We I mean there's really nothing. There's a waste area that's >> you say uh this what you're doing is gonna affect their light space open air.
>> No. >> Yeah. >> Uh unfortunately I can't testify not sworn in but I'm trying to build a >> resolution here. >> Yeah. >> Um and um >> how many stories is your development?
Maybe put on access. Say that again. How many stories this >> our house three including? How how many stories is what you want to put on the house? >> One story, right? >> Yeah, it's one story, >> right? >> And there's going to be nothing built on top of it. Correct. >> Be nothing built on top of it. >> It's it's really just a reconfiguration
of the space that we already have in addition to this 345 square ft. Ironically, I think two square feet more than people before us. U and I will add I'm very happy about the cell tower because we have very terrible
service in our neighborhood and I think that cell tower will improve it massively. customer. >> Um, yeah. >> Uh, okay. So, um, >> is there any uh mature landscaping
existing between your property and the property to the right? >> Yes. I mean, when you say that with trees, I don't I don't know >> what you mean by mature landscape. Your landscaping sounds like trees to me, >> right?
>> Yeah. Pine trees, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Evergreen trees that effectively screen potentially screen your neighbor from seeing your addition. >> Yes. Yes, there are trees that are in Correct. That's right.
>> Thanks. >> It's pretty well um covered with trees. Um, aesthetically, uh, we're using like similar cedar shake that'll be used on the side of the house right now. >> Uh, >> the new addition will blend in. >> It'll be hardy blank shake.
>> Yeah, it'll be just updated. It's >> part of the project is to remove the brick on the front, put stone up to the bottom of the window, >> right? And then you're going to just match it all the uh, any questions from the board?
>> Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm looking exactly the right thing. It's this 16 feet 11 inch by 20 six inch piece correct in the back on the first wall. That's it. >> Yes. On >> there's lots of other work going on in the house. >> Yes. That's the only
>> but that's the that's really what >> you have the patio in between, right? That's getting covered or how's that? >> Yeah, the patio is going to patio today. So, what we're >> It's just using some of that patio space. The other thing I just want to make sure like we I I know um Eileen
reached out to you um your I call it attachment e I was gone for a year and somehow that disappeared. So now it's just it's cheap. Um you guys put um that you were requesting 3231 square ft.
um your total building on your plans. So 3229 and I have another calculation of 3141. So I just want to see exactly what you actually need in terms of building up because I have different numbers on
different sheets. I'm I'm assuming what's on the sign and seal effect is got 3141 here and got 329 that so my guess is this
I don't think this new cover >> I think the difference is the 88. >> So you're actually looking for 3229. >> Yeah, I guess. Yes, >> because this shows 3231. >> Yeah, >> this shows 3229. The table shows 3141.
>> So we got three different numbers. >> Understand? Yeah, but the difference is really just uh my wife who's out here debated this uh I we don't want to touch the kitchen. We don't have to redo the kitchen. So this is going to sell to uh
a very sensible and practical. >> So 15.88% is what the proposed is with 3229 square feet. >> Correct. Including that. Yeah, that covers the whole thing with house >> addition and the covered porch being
included. >> Yes. >> Okay. As long as we got our numbers right. >> Yeah. >> Um, any other questions from board? Any questions or comment from the audience? >> Can I talk now? >> You want to talk? >> Yeah. Just the >> Come on up. Just come on up. We're have
to swear you in. Are you a question or comment? >> I just had a comment. >> Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear from test about to give the truth to know the truth? >> Yes. That's the name for the record and address. >> Yeah. >> Scott Harvey Scott Ruer, 92 Milurn Avenue, Springfield. >> Springfield.
>> Go ahead. >> Okay. What's your name? How do >> you spell your last name? >> R U T E R. >> Just so everybody understands, this house, the the addition is facing their backyard. It doesn't even face the house. You can't even see anything. They
can't even see anything into this. They would have to be on their back deck the way their house is positioned because it's facing this way and it was built on the front part of the lot facing where the back this addition is doesn't even look out on anybody. So I'm just I just
that's all I wanted to say. >> Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. Uh that I will close the public portions. Uh Jason uh any comment from actually. So you you had a choice here. you could have built on top of that garage probably as of right and actually
I think what you're doing is a far better application because by even by getting what you need you're keeping this massing way down on the house rather than bulking it up up top. So I think it was you know unfortunately I was hoping your architect would speak
tonight because actually I was going to compliment him on doing this because this was an easy way to go this is the better way to go. He was an advocate of it too. So he can take as much as it's tough to get to come here tonight and sit through you know enjoy us
I think what you're doing here >> I think what you're doing here is actually far more beneficial to the neighbors and the and the uh and yourselves. So I appreciate it. is over. >> I mean, I'm calling so the neighbors aren't here complaining if this looks very thoughtful to me and I appreciate
them. I >> have a motion. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. Good luck with the project.
>> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> And lastly, is there anything that needs to be discussed that's not your wife? Give it to your wife and do the kitchen. >> Is that No, no, no. She's winning. I'm do more. >> I don't want
>> Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any oppos? Slow down.