This one. >> So you got your refrigerators, >> you know, and next to it looks like presumably >> Hey folks, can you take a seat, please? Uh in accordance with section five of the open public meeting acts chapter 231 public law 1975 be advised to notice the meeting was made by a post board at town
hall serving the officially designated newspapers list the meeting dates annually indicating this meeting would take place at the mil board of education center at 7 p.m. on June 22nd, 2026. >> David Redford, >> yes. Here. >> Regina Truit >> here. >> Roy
>> here. >> Soul here. >> Vice Chair Gary Rosen >> here. Okay. Uh, real quick, we have approval minutes. Uh, 42726. Who's eligible? >> David, Regina, Roy, Beth, Gary, Craig.
Nice. Uh, any corrections or changes to those minutes? >> If not, I have a motion. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> And a second. >> Yeah, I can second that. All >> in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Um, quick um just some
quick housekeeping on the applications. Uh, calendar 402324, which is 31 Tala Court. That application is being carried to October 5th if you're here on that one. and also calendar 405125 that is the 521 Milurn Avenue MA
properties that one is also being carried to October 5th. So if you're on here on either one of those they will not be exceeding October. >> Okay. So let's just be clear though in terms of if they're going to be carried without further notice. What is the
location for those? Those will be at the library. Milbert uh Township Public Library >> 200 Glenn uh is where those will be. Well, if they are here >> 200 Glenn Avenue >> at 7 o'clock.
>> Do you want me to have >> When was there? >> Is that clear? So uh first up this evening we have calendar 40 7126. This application continue 41326 32 road
down. >> Um well you previously sworn cracks >> and you were also cracks. Okay. store our >> uh civil engineer uh the original civil engineer is away uh and so another >> you know we're going to do we're going
to have both for you to respawn just >> and we'll call we'll qualify you when you come up and talk okay >> okay you raise right hand each raise your right hand you solemnly swear from the testimony you're going to get tonight to shoot the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> I do >> okay one by one state your name and
address >> Daniel enson 27 East Main Street, Majest >> John Fanti, 87 Iberia Avenue, Rockway Jane, 32.0, Short Health. >> Thank you.
>> Who would like to go first? >> Uh I can uh I can go please. >> Uh so uh we were here previously uh and carried over to this meeting. Uh the board after seeing the presentation and looking at the uh project had three
specific concerns and elements that they uh requested uh that be addressed or take a look at. Um the three items were uh that in looking at the the proposed driveway and retaining walls and other pieces that what were shown in the
technical engineering plans, it didn't really give a clear indication of what those elements would look like in real life. looking from the street or from a neighboring house um and with the amount of paved area and other things uh wanted to get a very clear visual as to what
this would actually look like. uh requested that uh that we provide a uh multiple renderings of what this would look like from the street various interest and also a bird's eye view of that. Uh the second was that uh in the
engineering plans um there was a difficulty in getting an understanding of looking at the plan as clear indication between what was existing drive and what was proposed drivewood. Uh so the engineers prepared uh an additional drawing exhibit uh that that
color codes and clearly shows what is existing drive and what is of uh the third portion or the third element of that uh was to do whatever possible uh because of we have an existing partnership of it's a a
pre-existing historic home that was built in 1901 and so where it's positioned on the property pushed all the way towards the front of the property Even though it's a very large property and we're nowhere near the amount of impervious coverage that we're allowed on the property, the front yard
maximum impervious coverage we have an issue with because it's such a small sliver when the house is pushed closer to the street. Uh so there was discussion about ways to uh and attempting to lessen the amount of requested impervious coverage in the front yard uh that we were asking. Uh so
I will uh go ahead and or present the uh renderings that were done uh to show visually what this looked like from the stream and the surrounding areas. Uh and then uh and then potentially have the uh the engineer uh give uhation in terms of
uh what the new and existing drive are and how they're shown on the on the civil engineering plan. And then also uh how that the uh to what extent and how the impervious coverage in the front yard was reduced from the resolution. >> Uh all of these images rendering images
and >> so hold on. So has this been um submitted to the board? >> The board has that's what I'm >> referring to. All each one of these >> one of these identical it's just those are on individual sheets. This is on.
>> You know what? Why don't we, if you don't mind, let's mark that just for it's a separate document. >> So, let's mark that as A2. These are all the same exact images that that you have. Um and then uh in
addition the photos that I have here the existing condition are also identical to what what so we have um in these these images which each correspond these three images correspond to the original photographs taken at various points along the street
of the house. Uh so uh we have >> uh so we have in the first photograph looking in the left side property looking in this is the >> Dan these are all photographs that were submitted. >> That is correct. Uh
>> this is the existing driveway condition existing home uh coming up that hill into the driveway and the chain wall that's there currently. Uh and then this corresponds to uh the rendered image uh in here on the bottom left. Uh but what you have in that
package uh showing that existing condition uh of that drive and then uh proposed added uh apron at the bottom uh and not >> sorry. So did you So we have these and you know are they number of the pages?
They're not they're not um this this you have this is the uh this is the existing come from the left side. >> Uh and so uh this image corresponds to this rendered image. uh and nothing is being proposed to be changed uh with
this area or grading or anything else uh with the exception of uh adding a double block apron to the front of that uh development. So this is kind of the pre-existing condition and pre-existing property. The uh
there the next image is in there is the front looking kind of head on at the property. So not to either side of the driveway but kind of head on and directly across the street and that view is top right here.
And so with the uh plantings and other elements and and all aspects of the drive and retaining holes uh this is the uh corresponding piece of that front street because of the slope and because of the plantings uh and where that central piece is. Uh the whole central
portion of the driveway um and the right side portion of the driveway are not visible for that because it's relatively long. that first image which we're referring to which I thought you can see the fire hydrant point reference in the uh the bottom corner of that that is the is the
location of the proposed portion of drive that that enters then on the other side of the right side of the property. So that here is bottom right hand corner and again it's the same images that you have uh you have in the packet. Uh this is the proposed area drive that would
have the same uh matching B and white apron. Uh and it gives you the view coming up uh into the driveway showing the uh the addition to the house as well as the uh proposed retaining walls and other pieces uh coming up into property access to the side facing garage door
sign. >> Is there is there a corresponding photo that one? Yes, that's the one >> very low lower right >> uh and then there's no corresponding image to this but this is a uh a bird's
eye 3D rendering view uh of coming from kind of the center of the street coming up at a high elevation. Um giving a sense of house edition. Uh the existing drive and then the connected piece of of new drive and then the central area uh
which currently has a fair amount of of trees and plantings and shrubs throughout there uh and uh and landscape wall uh and that is being proposed to remain with some additional and different plantings uh throughout that area. So none of that would be cleared out with the intent of seeing from the
street, you know, really nothing on this area as elevated behind space kind of. What what makes you a variance for max paved the front yard? If you didn't have that second driveway, and I'm not not
that saying should do that, but you didn't have that second driveway and you just came out of the garage and went out your original drive, would you need that variance? So you're saying if piece that piece that piece on the right that goes to the street
didn't have that and you left it the way it was. >> Would you need a variance? >> We may need a small variance for impervious in the front yard. I don't have that exact calculation. >> Right. That would that would definitely
be um be better. um or potentially if a portion to the existing drive um runs through and comes up into this area right now and then this area is the post drive, >> right? >> Um >> you need obviously need some driveway to get to the new garage, right?
>> Well, question is need that piece that >> Wait, are you saying you come up here and then you go here and go to the garage? >> You can do that. The only issue is right now we have that garage there. It is hard to do that. And one of our intentions for doing this is so it's
safer. You don't have to back out to the street. You actually can go around because now we have neighbors with little pimp running around. And I just we're trying to make it safer to go in and out of the garage. >> So why would you have to back out if you
came out of that garage on the right, >> right? You wouldn't >> you would the garage. Yeah. Um and potentially there are um another way to approach it um is
coming here potentially there's the ability to uh to K turn and come out. Obviously the goal is to not back out. >> Why would you do that? So if you back out of your garage, would you do the K turn and turn around in the back? Like why would you back out of a garage and
somehow do this weird thing to pull out? So, you mean you back out here? >> Correct. Go full >> and here. >> Yeah. I don't see a world where you back out of the garage and do this like crazy maneuver, then come back out.
>> Do you have enough room to be able to back out >> before you? Yeah, we have we have the allotted or the required amount of space for that driveway. >> And to Craig's point, what's your issue? So, and just so the record's clear,
because we're just talking here and there, you guys are all talking about facing the home, the right side of the home. >> That's correct. Where the proposed garage is going to be? >> That's correct. You are you planning to
use the right side garage more than the left side after this project? >> Um, most likely because I mean, we have extra cars now. extra drivers. We're going to use all of that. >> Um, and the new garage, the current
garage is both in terms of height and in terms of clearance is is quite small. Um, so so there's really no ability to get more than one car in the existing garage. >> It's a twocar garage. Actually, >> it's a twocar, but with the the pieces that protrude outwards for there's some
concrete peers in the garage. Ceiling height is quite low. Um, it's for for a current size car. um or it's not uh it's not you're not going to get two cars in there. >> I've already got my car. >> Uh so the they would definitely be using
and utilizing your garage space more than the existing uh because of the the size of the clearances that we would have in this uh that you don't have. And I guess the question is whether you know how much impervious coverage do you
need really? Um and uh and the way the way the I realize you may re landscape the front but you wouldn't even see that garage really right on the road. >> No, you don't see the garage at all.
>> I'm never a fan of multiple gar separated. I think this could work. Um, but I, you know, as the way it's being done now, it's both sides and you're going to need a variance for or a larger
variance for coverage. So, I just wonder if there's another way to even if you need to make a pavement, you can still have some room to do that. You don't have you don't need that whole driveway to do it like further. So, this is like almost this is like a little bit overkill of the patio with a with a
paving like if you have have two driveways don't have the connector. If you're going to have one driveway, then you need the connector. I just don't see why you're gonna have two driveways going into two garages. Why that strip even needs to exist in the middle. But if you're going to have one entrance,
and I get it. But now it's almost like it's just too much going on, you know, you could eliminate that whole entire center piece if you're going to have two driveways, go two garage, done. You don't even need to have a crossover piece. >> Yeah. So, right, there's the two ways
that that that could be done >> or eliminate that entrance. you take away the previous entrance again um when retaining all everything else that's there and you just come in um my preference would be to um
to to get rid of this right to do some landscaping there I'd rather have the two driveways just you know when there's snow there's something you don't have to like clear out the whole thing there you can just have the ability to have two separate you know That's a smart.
>> Yeah. Not potentially eliminating, like you're saying, a section of that >> eliminate the crossover completely, >> right? That would allow you to have enough space to maneuver and get around. Um, but then kind of getting rid of the central section and limiting the amount of service.
>> Are you andor Mr. grantee able to scale out how much of a reduction we would get in imperous coverage in the front yard if we were to turn as Miss James said that impervious coverage area to
landscaping. I suggested that as in preparation and looking at the different pieces they were revising the engineering plans. So I believe that there is a uh a calculation uh showing uh or an exhibit potentially showing removal of this section uh and what that
would reduce. >> Yeah, I'm not talking just about the you know one short section but the the entire right the whole thing. >> Oh yeah. And we would still need a portion if somebody came and pulled up into the space to be able to clear the drive. But but yes, not not just the
central section. >> You Mr. Francy's going to present that >> uh again. >> Any other questions regarding this? >> Yeah, nothing. uh you know in terms of of designing the structure and what was proposed uh none of that uh has been uh changed or altered from what was in the
original presentation. Um so at this point uh you know based on on these visuals and what we just discussed uh I'll have um have to come up and uh and go through and present. That's good. Good evening.
>> Good evening. Qualifications. >> Yes. >> Just qualifications for the board, please. >> Uh again, John Paranti. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering and a master of science civil engineering from New York College of Engineering. I've been a professional
engineer for a long time, but uh my license is current. Uh I have licenses in five states and I've appeared in over 100 boards throughout the state of New Jersey and um recently born uh for the plan.
>> Thank you. Case accepted. Please proceed. >> Thank you. If I may, I the drawings that I'll present tonight are revision B that are dated June 8th that the board should have. Now mine are colorized. I'm not sure if the board received color copies
of the drawing, but they're the same drawing. I see that you do have color. So it's the same drawing and uh I'm filling in for Harrison Baron colleague was he was at schedu are you affiliated with G2PM? Yes, I'm a
part owner of the company and uh in uh Mr. Baron had told me that one of the uh the board was slightly confused because of the way the drawing was presented. So what we did I'm now
turning to figure two provision B we colorize the the proposed new pent you see there for the new drive to the new driveway in the right hand side the new garage is shown and then the
existing payment payment it's it's in gray so when uh we we've calculated the existing just to refresh the for the existing is 24.8% roughly there was 1,273
square ft and uh in revision A we had we had proposed 44.5 uh square ft of front yard impervious >> can you just just remind us so on the zoning table yeah >> that was originally submitted it was
37.4% >> that I'm looking at we now said 44 the uh the 37 is what we reduce it to that's in the current zoning table. >> Okay. >> So, and just to repeat again just to everybody what we had the in revision A
we had proposed 44.5% which equated to uh uh,288 square ft. We division B that in front of you tonight we reduce it to 37.4
four, we reduce it 366 ft to 1,922 ft. Just wanted to to clarify the numbers. The other thing that we did also, as I think our project indicated, we also revised the uh the apron of the two
driveways. We went with Belgium block to to to for the appeal. Currently, the the the curve along road is a granite swale Belgian block swale. So we are using the
same material so that it uh it it matches nicely with the existing swale that's along road we are providing mountable curves. So so that's one of the changes that we uh we implemented in
addition obviously to reduce the firmard impervious as I indicated to 37.4%. 24% still higher than the required 30%. The important thing is in designing these driveways currently the the current driveway utilizes the this area of the
site to to to help with performing K turns so that no cars would back out onto PU road. Pinux Road is a relatively narrow road and uh I was there today just to reconfirm that and so we
obviously you want to avoid cars parking on pre-up road and avoid backing. So the way we designed the driveway with all the turning radiuses for typical uh uh personnel vehicles this is the best uh configuration to allow for that. I
understand from hearing some of the board questions, I think uh one of the questions indicated how do we reduce the front yard so that it meets the uh the order and we looked at that in essence
um by providing an ability for a car to come in to this uh connection uh roughly 10 to 15 ft. of the department back in on both sides, we can reduce the impervious area down to about 30 32%
33%. Uh to to get to less than 30%, we would have to remove the entire uh access. In fact, I I prepared an exhibit for that. If the board wants to see it, we would have to mark it. Let me mark it.
>> So in in essence, Right. We're going to So, we're going to mark this exhibit 8 >> and I've uh I have copies if the board is interested and we do it. Yes. >> So, what you'll see is a red crosshatch
areas, which is what we would delete >> to get down to the 30%. As you can see, we still even with the deletion at 30%, we still have the ability to back the car into that connection east for safe uh performance
of the driver. Thank you. So we believe that uh the our our client has expressed an an interest to maintain the ability to back the cars so that to facilitate the uh the movement but if
the board uh so chooses that 30% is the goal we're able to do that in this fashion. There is a door to the house. So, we're we're leaving, as you can see in the gray, is is an exist the existing
uh uh walkway that connects the doorway. And we uh even at 30% with that walkway, we're still we're still in good shape. So, that someone using that doorway can uh can travel to the driveway on the on
the right and the drive on the left. So, so based on A3, um what the applicant's proposing is to install, you know, some sort of landscaping or or grass um in the area
that is cross-hatched in red. And you're saying that will result in a reduction of imperous coverage of approximately 390 square feet to bring you down to under 1541 square ft of imperous surface
of the front yard. Yes, I did not discuss the landscaping plan, but as you can see here, we were we're cutting six trees and based on the formula for Milburn, we have to replace those six trees with the six new trees
and we have uh plenty of shrubbery to uh to uh now to hide that connection. as indicated by the our architect that presenting the the rendering shows it very well what the landscaping uh does
to the uh to the aesthetics of this application. >> Okay. So, Mr. Granty, if you if the applicant is willing to comply with the cross-hatching in red in A3 and the only other variance that is
required is for the proposed addition. However, you're not getting you're not further exacerbating the existing condition of 33.1 ft as a front yard setback. Correct. Correct.
I think that summarizes what I wanted to present tonight. And uh >> any questions for the board now? How wide is the the the gray >> the connection piece that's shown is 10 ft wide. We want to maintain that.
>> No, that's the 10 ft. >> Yeah. Maybe I didn't understand question. You repeat it. >> Okay. Uh after you do this, you know, cover the >> How far into the the connection piece? >> Yeah.
>> Um I've scaled it to about 15 ft on both sides. Allows sufficient for the car to make the turn to back into that spaces and proceed driving out of the driveway.
I think someone's asked this question already, but I'm going to ask it again because I'm still not sure why you couldn't back out. Don't straight. Just back out of the driveway and then just >> I understand the question you're saying. >> So, we're just see Let's look at the blue one that's colored blue, for example. That's
not back the car out and then just turn left and go down the driveway. >> Well, our whole premise was not to have cars backing onto to an open road. But you would go forward. You go back out and go down forward. >> I don't understand to make this turn.
>> Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> You back out and then turn left, >> right? The >> left and go down. >> We checked and it's h it can be done. The the only problem was if there are visitors that are uh parked into the driveway, then it becomes difficult
without having this additional space to turn around. So what we what we try to do is to give our client enough flexibility. So, not only for his for their vehicles, but if they get visitors, the visitors will have the
ability to they they park straight ahead to back and and exit on both sides. >> But it would be possible to back out if there were no visitors. It could probably be most of the time. >> Yeah. >> You could back out and go and then go down frontways into
Twin. You wouldn't have to back down. >> And then on the other side, the same. That's exactly right. So that's so and my other question is in terms of impervious is there anything else you can take out that could help your clause a little bit? >> Well the more
>> well again uh what we're proposing we would meet the the front yard and purchase area 30%. >> To get additional savings we would have to look to >> Well, if you meet it then you don't >> Well, exactly. So we we wouldn't want to narrow make the driveway more narrow. We
didn't have to >> Yeah. They're eliminating that there. >> Yeah. Yeah. So then Yeah. So you can do more. >> Thank you. >> Uh any questions from the audience for either uh either of the uh
professionals who spoke? Any comments from the audience regarding this application? >> Anything further? >> No, I didn't see anybody. Okay. Uh then I'll close the public portion. Um so we're down to one variance. Um,
what are your thoughts? is >> they're down >> if we >> I believe that variance is for the height of the walls. tables. >> That's the wall you're talking about in the front yard.
>> Correct. It's part of to >> Yeah, you have uh you have listed variance for steep slope disturbance, >> right? See the maximum is 1,00 square ft. The proposed is 1380 square ft.
The variance for maximum height of fences and walls where maximum permitted height is six feet and you're proposing 9.6 feet. You have a ordinance violation for fences and walls in terms of walls
in the front yard, maximum heights 2 feet, proposed heights three and a half ft. And you eliminated the impervious coverage in the front yard. Well, did anyone want to give a testimony about all that? >> You haven't met the standard.
>> I just ask for it. >> That's why I asked if they did in the original presentation um in regards to those um but I have the engineer speak further on. >> I don't remember hearing the testimony about the walls front yard.
>> Yeah. I ask you on this picture showing is is a three um.5 ft or proof that looks >> more like >> that that's that is existing height that's not being that portion is not being
>> oh because it's natural stone existing correct and this is Belgium block >> the wall >> it's not Belgian block it's shown it's rendered the limitation so that wall is existing >> yeah that wall is existing >> okay feels Why you want the increase to
three? >> We're not. >> You're not. >> That's not a small portion on the side. >> All right, let's do that then because I don't remember any testimony regarding any of that because I don't think we got there. So, let's hear a little bit about that.
>> So, Mr. Brand briefly identify plan for the benefit of the board of the public where the variance conditions are located. Just going to reiterate if I may just little summarize the variance at the end
the uh the ordinance 6.2 >> right there on the bottom on on the bottom left hand side of figure one revision B >> correct >> with the revision date of June 8, 2026.
>> Correct. >> Those were the ones I just stated. >> Okay. I just read from >> so the uh the bearings for the walls uh that we pointed out is the let's start with the retaining walls first that are
shown on the on the on this side and then into the rear. So those those retaining walls uh are required because we have to meet the finish the garage finished grade of the garage is 110 and
then we have to uh uh uh travel up to meet the existing sway slate uh patio that's here it's at 119. So we have roughly 9 ft of height that we have to accommodate with with the with the
existing grade that you see there. So what we propose is to start the retaining wall roughly uh away from as far away from the front yard property line as you see there. So that wall starts off as being up from uh only 1 ft
high then to the to this point where it turns uh perpendicular to the property line. You can see it's it's 4 ft in height. Then in the rear it it becomes uh 3.5 ft. So, in essence, the average uh height of the wall in the rear of the
garage to get the the garage level uh constructed at at that elevation, the 100 foot 10, requires an average wall height about 4 and 1/2 ft, which is higher than the than the township requires. the the uh
want to point out one thing that the the P table indicated that as far as the the wall height item number three of of of the uh Barington maximum permitted height is is
6 ft maximum post height is 9.6 ft I want to describe that 9.6 safety that that occurred only at this corner where the the wall intersects the new garage and as our architect indicated the new
garage is going to have a wreck room above. So so to get to 119.8 That's what the the wall is shown higher. But in essence, it's not the retaining wall. It's really the the building wall that we are dimensioning.
But uh the retaining wall that we're discussing is roughly only maximum of 4 and 1/2 ft tall. The the wall that the gentleman uh from the board indicated is an existing stone
wall that's in the front. We're we're we're not touching that wall. And that wall is roughly it's it's a low wall less than two feet two feet in height. It's a it's a stone wall. It's not a it's not a Belgian block wall as
represented in the in the uh >> in real life. >> Yeah. >> In the rendering. The other the others are the defense the fence height that uh requires a variance that we're proposing
and again uh fences and walls maximum height permitted is 2 feet and proposed maximum height is three and a half ft. There's that >> and again in all region for football.
>> Yeah, we don't we don't hole anywhere. No indication. >> Right. So >> Mr. Py, you you pointed to where the the blue meets the gray in the rear to
describe the 9.6 foot wall. Right. Right. Finally, you see that? Sorry. It's literally only at that corner with >> So if I look at >> No, because I'm looking at all where you have top of the wall or bottom of the
wall and I don't see anything that >> right the the actual retaining wall as shown here is 114.2 to 110.2. So it's only 4 feet. Uh my colleague Mr. Baron uh had
indicated a higher wall primarily because of this condition but all the other walls that you can see are much are much lower. For example, at at this intersection it's 120 to 119 is only
8 in 8 and 12 in at that point. >> Any questions? Um so it's hard to visualize what this will look like beyond you've given us a nice rendering here and what's existing and what's not existing. Well, again uh for uh that
rendering roughly everything beginning with the new at the edge of the new garage uh south southwest is existing >> and this side is this also existing. >> That's all existing. >> All existing and this is existing.
>> The only thing that we're proposing is to make both apron both driveway the same >> at at the street side. Uh so all of that from the beginning of the new garage uh guess that's uh south southwest south
southwest is all existing >> and where where and so in the backyard is where you need >> all the backyard is really all in the house you can see the the outline of the existing house >> and primarily the backyard is primarily
the the the uh the stone patio on the on the east side uh on this part of the house on the I guess from the drawing right side of the drawing and uh the main entrance for the house is really is
located on the on the uh west side is really the entrance is located in this in this location >> which I think is >> point on there where you'll need the variance for these walls. >> Can you point on that where the variances that you're going to need?
Well, the variances are for the for the walls. >> So on the right on the right side >> all primarily on the right side. >> Okay. And they don't exist. >> They don't that doesn't exist. No. >> That's all uh new construction. You can
see that the red on the drawing figure one shows what's being demolished on the right side of the And it'll match the existing walls. >> The existing we're proposing a segmental
block wall as detailed on figure three which is sort of standard nowadays for a segmental block wall which are uh concrete block walls if you will ornamental wall. the the existing the
existing retaining walls are more stone. >> Yeah. >> And where would the fence go? Is there a fence you said as well? Yeah, it's uh we listed them, but um in looking at the uh our drawing,
we don't see I don't see a fence on uh I'm not sure why we noted the fence because the the wall it's we don't show it a fence detail in our detail sheet. So we can uh
>> we could clean that up, but put a nice in the middle. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Any other questions from the audience regarding this new testimony? Any comments? Anything else from board? Then I'll close the public portion.
>> Thank you. Thanks for explaining that. Um, okay. So, let's get back to our thoughts on this. So, we are now down to four answers. Um,
one being an existing non-conforming that's not being exacerbated. So, is everyone's thought? >> I'll go first. It's a bit It's a complicated um application. It's an older house. Beautiful by the way. Um and um got a lot of little things that
you want to do to make it more livable. Um and terms of being livable I could live with. If you eliminate the connector piece between the two driveways that eliminates your most breous variance in my opinion. Um and I could live with the walls. Um I
can understand the practicality that you express. So I would be okay with it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I I'll be okay with the bars of the work. It's not that visible from the front most on the bike on the sides.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah, I think we're, you know, we're we're living in times when we need to be aware of the steep slopes. I think, you know, the steep slope disturbance variance gives me some pause, but I think the pairing down of the application to kind of meet our comments
and and questions and concerns. Um, I appreciate it and I think it, you know, it will make the house much more usable for the tenants. Um, and I think it's, you know, it is certainly a variance, the the 380 ft uh beyond allowable
disturbance, but um, I think I can live with it. >> Can I ask a question on that and sorry to talk again question will engineering take a look at this to make sure that drainage and >> of course they have >> they have to. So just for the record they have to
>> to your point it's a mass not >> so we have an R3 lot 53,000 square feet well over the size it's proposed so in regards to steep slope disturbance one of the things I've been trying to get the town to do now for only about 10 years is uh adjust our steep slope disturbance based on this lot size which
they don't do so when we have 53,000 square feet 1300 or 3000 foot dev deviation is is I think I could live with it um because the fact the lot is so large. Um otherwise I would support the application uh with the elimination
of that crossover. >> Great. I have a motion in the case. >> I'd move to approve it. Uh if we're looking at the updated revision presented tonight
>> with the connected piece eliminated. >> Is there a second? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Good luck with the project.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Next up, we have calendar 407726 10 Farm Road. Hold on a sec. Raise your right hand. Swear affirming testimony. Give tonight's truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I did. >> Yeah, I do. >> Okay. Uh, one by one, state your name and address, please. >> Sam Bow and Farmstead Road, Short Hills, New Jersey. >> Thomas Beo, architect of the applicant,
343 Milbourne Avenue, Milbour. >> We'd both be speaking, Stephen. >> Great. So, who like to start? >> I'm happy to start. So, uh, like I said, I'm Sam. Um, we have a pool in my backyard and I want to build a roof structure for some shade. uh and any
variance. So Mr. Bale will further >> qualifications real quick. >> Um 1987 graduate of B of architecture from NYIT, continuing certificates in architecture from Harvard Graduate School of Design, University of Venice.
Been in town 35 years, testified before your board in excess of 100 times. Um and I remain uh in good standing with the New Jersey board of >> Thank you broadcaster accept. >> All right. Thank you. This is a very um easy one. Um from a standpoint of what
we're doing, we're proposing a 146x 127 covered pavilion, the kind you see at Costco on display. They're considered permanent structures because they're bolted to the ground. It's a better version of an umbrella. You've seen these water umbrellas. They go in the
backyard. We probably can get one that big on a stand. No variance. We wouldn't be here. This is going over an existing patio. over existing impervious um photos were included but a structure like this falls under the determination
that it's a building despite not having walls and never to have walls considered building because it's column and it's roofed. Um it has very little public uh detriment. It's certainly better than umbrellas. Um there's it it you know the addition of this covered building would
greatly benefit the rear yard uses. The enjoyment for him and his family is the fact that they can go out there and have some shaded area. It's open air on all sides and it is bolted to the ground so it really improves upon an umbrella which wouldn't be a variant. So we felt
it was worth coming before the board for uh a very small amount. So for the record and the proofs, we are asking for a variance of um 212 square ft. The permissible building
coverage at 15% 14% is 28.91. We're proposing 15.03% at 3104. So it is 212 square ft over what's allowed in the building coverage numbers. the the lot coverage is not um
further because it's over an existing patio and he had the smarts to put the footings in last year when he got the patio approve and found that this needed a variance. So we're here and thank you for getting us in before the summer. You might get use out of this structure. Um that's really my testimony.
>> Visible from the street. >> Uh probably not. Um you there's if you see my photos the the yard is extremely well landscaped. It's not even visible from the neighbor's house. any other work. Do >> you have any plans to like enclose it in
ever or will it always in forever? >> No. Um, we're going to put some pouches underneath it so walls would >> So, there's no plan to ever close it up. >> So, these are designed so that they uh you know, if there's a serious storm,
it's going to withstand it. >> This will this will survive 110 mph upwind. Yeah. The bolting of it's a better version of backyard umbrellas. I I know that not going to speak to the ordinances. This is how they calculate it, but it's a building. So, it's a
building without walls and it won't will not have walls. >> This is a rendering of a picture of me. >> That's a picture I took from the manufacturers's website, even though it looks like >> it's not there today. >> It's not there today. Pretty cool, right? It looks like it's in their yard,
but no, just purely purely sample. And then just to reiterate, it's already it's already paved underneath. >> Yes. Yeah. This is entirely uh the patio there. >> And I think you said >> and there's no impervious coverage. The
the property conforms. >> It's closer to the your max neighborhood than the >> Yes. >> Just to speak to that point, I highlighted it on mine, so not looking to enter an exhibit here, but it's on your plan. It's right here along the
right side property line in uh compliant because it's more than 12 feet in. So it actually doesn't have a variance per side. >> It's not visible by that neighbor on the >> No, there are trees there. >> No, if you if you look at the plans, um there's a lot of trees. Um I have
another picture. I hate to enter another exhibit, but must >> Well, we haven't entered an exhibit. Okay, I'm not entering it. But we have photographs that depict some very good growth of trees if you if you happen to have one. I I don't have I I didn't
think it had. So, it's too bad. What's What's the um height at the highest point of the structure? At the highest point, it's 11' 8 in. Whereas a detached accessory structure can be
15 15 Accessory structure height. >> Yeah. >> 18. >> 18. So we're well under the maximum allowed of 18. It's 11t 8 in. >> All right. Question. >> Quick question. The fence that is shown, is that the neighbor's fence or your fence? >> I have to check the survey on that side.
I believe the fence is it's behind the trees. >> I think that fence is on on their side. >> Do you know how tall it is? >> Uh it's compliant with the pool. I >> Yeah, Mu. I I'll direct you to the
survey on my coverage C1. It shows that a prepoundonderance of that fence is on the neighbor's property. Okay. >> And a small amount as it crosses in front of the pavilion is on our property. It's probably the neighbor's fence. >> And you got a nice line of trees there that are mature evergreen things. >> Yes.
>> And you'll keep them. >> You're not going to cut these down, right? >> No. No. We will not cut it. >> Okay. Um thoughts sorry any questions from the public regarding the uh testimony he any
comments public what's your thought >> I'm fine with it tremendous uh amount of coverage not walls can't see
Uh, do I have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second, David. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. Project.
>> And uh, sorry we didn't get you in the other time when you're here. >> No worries. Enjoy. >> Under 10 minutes. >> How long do you need to stand that up? >> How long? How much time I need to set that one day job?
>> I don't know. I don't know. >> One day. >> One day. >> One day. It comes preassembled. If you go to Costco, >> you're gonna need it the next week. >> I said, >> "All right, calendar 40 86 26 to
Brantlet. Come on down. Uh, and I guess we speak Okay, good. Okay, both of you raise your right hand test and get to my truth. Hope truth is nothing but the truth. >> Yes, indeed. >> Okay, one by one name and address, please. I'm start from one of the programs.
>> Catherine Muller of Muller Engineering and Warren Town. >> Great. Who would like to start? Sure. Uh good evening members of the team of adjustment. Um I'm Salis. I'm here to seek variance uh three
variances actually. One for steep slope disturbance of around 2,000 ft in excess of the threshold requirement of around 30. uh second for the height of the maximum height of the retaining wall of around 4 ft in excess of the requirement
of 3 ft and third a technical uh variance uh for uh for resolving the technicality from a prior construction. Uh I would like to start off sharing some background. Some of you may be aware or may recollect that I was here a
couple of years ago in July of 2023 uh seeking a variance multiple variance approvals for the construction of my dwelling at Paris. uh as a con uh fortunately the varian source has approved and I'm pleased to report the
adjustment committee that uh we have since constructed our dwelling in compliance with our commit commitments as well as the code requirements of the township. Uh you may recolct that at the time of submission of drawings during
the variance comm uh variance meeting uh we had proposed a retaining wall for uh as part of our original plans. Uh however due to an oversight uh we had failed to seek the variance uh for the steep slope disturbance at that point of
time. So as a consequence of uh that oversight when we had approached the uh engineering department for grading permit uh the steep slope disturbance was uh due to the steep slope disturbance being exceeded the grading
permit was the plan. So to resolve that uh issue we had removed the retaining walls from our as part of our plan and managed to make sure that the uh steep slope disturbance was in compliance with the uh code requirements per se. uh fast
forwards uh uh to 2025 uh July of 20 2025 uh after the construction of our house and after being moved in. You may recolct that uh there was a storm uh uh once in a generation storm which triggered a many months light at our
home and as a consequence the top soil that was laid in the front yard was pretty much wiped away. So to resolve that condition we are here uh planning a set of retainers which Kathy will walk through and uh I just uh I would like to
just uh request two things. Thank you. >> Thank you Kathy the qualifications. >> Sure. I'm a bachelor of science in civil and environmental engineering from university. I'm professional licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is I've had my license since
2003. I'm the sole owner and president of Muller Engineering. >> Thank you so much. Please continue. >> And I've been here before. >> So Barack gave you a nice overview. I'll go through my plans quickly not to take up too much of your time. As you've
heard, it's a corner lot um with the driveway off of Brentwood Terrace and Brentwood Terrace and a long frontage along Oakidge Road. The property is in the R3 zone. It's surrounded by R3. Uh,
count Caddy Corner is R5. That's the existing conditions. As you heard, it's a recently constructed home. So, I got a call from the homeowner. I visited the site. I saw what had happened. The front kind of in the
middle along White Oak Ridge. And if you ever draw drive by, you'll see it's slick. Uh we've had some conversations whether it was they had discharge of a roof leader that wasn't stabilized yet, maybe a water line that was put through there
and not stabilized. So our task was to work with BRT and put in a a series of walls to stabilize that area. We delineated all the steep slopes 20% and more as you can see on the shading on
sheet two. Uh by the way, these are dated 32 246 is submitted with our application. Um the entire perimeter and frontage along White Elk Road is classified as steep slopes. So in order to fix the steep slopes, we need to
disturb the steep slopes. So rather than put them in at the grade that they were knowing that it had failed, we looked at different options for retaining walls. We know Milbour uh in the front yard, all of this is in the front yard is 2 ft
max. The elevation out the road is 90 and up by the house is 108. So we're dealing with 18 ft of elevation and about 30 ft. So I could put nine twoft
walls. It would look like a sound barrier. I would have no separation. I would have no areas to put plantings. So what we've done here is we have a series of four walls. Maximum height is 4T. So the the lower
two walls are 4T and they get smaller as you go up. We have a 4T, 4T, 3T, 2 and 1/2T. Uh you we always put the larger walls at the bottom just for structural stability. So that's how we got to the tears of the
wall. We have eight feet in between the face of each wall which will have room for planting. It'll have some flexibility to get in there and maintain it if needed. Then we looked, we had actually initially carried the walls a
little bit further in front of the house and upon our um multiple renditions, we tried to tighten this up. We know we can only disturb 1,000 square ft of the steep slopes. We're proposing 2,000. I would say our initial one was probably
closer to 3,000 carry this across. Uh it went beyond the limit of disturbance. So, we really kind of took that in consideration when we did the design. We've brought in a structural engineer. Uh, if the board looks favorable, they'll be brought into design the
modular block walls. We're not proposing any tree removal. If you look at the property now to the left, there's a number of trees that still remain. There's some along the edge of pavement. We're not proposing to
remove any trees as part of the project. So, two of the variances that you've heard today are that we're requesting 2,000 square feet for disturbance of the steep slopes and retaining walls in the front yard in excess 2 ft.
The third is to clean up an existing condition. When we got came on to the project, it was another engineer and there was an architect. We kind of came in in the as built situation. And we identified that the foundation
location has a front yard setback relative to White Oak of 41.1 where the variance granted of the prior resolution was 41.3. >> Kind of you to bring that out. >> Well, moving forward, if it's ever an
issue, at least now we have it. >> So, >> yeah, >> we have it memorialized in the resolution. I think you guys the house down shove it back a little bit. >> Um, so we wanted to clean up the title and and the and the variances associated
with the existing house. We're not proposing any additions. I know the um agenda may have said a a pergola and some retaining walls. The project is just solely the four. >> I think the agenda mentioned >> Oh, a portico. Right. It's it's it's
just a was an errant word in there. We're just proposing the walls >> and given that the retaining walls close to the front yard, the applicant be willing to put some plantings in between those retaining walls >> to mitigate any adverse visuals.
>> And we're not doing anything near the corner, the intersection. We're not impacting any circumstances. Katherine, did some did do did you or someone else look at is the rest of the area to the right and left of that those both walls is that stable enough that
it's not going to >> subject to sand? >> Yes. Yes. It was all um undisturbed. It's wooded. Um and the the slope comes from the neighbor to the >> west across. So the area in front of the
house isn't actually receiving much water because the house intercepts that. >> Okay. You mentioned the potential that is possible that one of the causes of this was or cause being the storm but contributo was
some drainage issues. Are those drainage issues going to be cleaned up? >> No. What we're going to do is stabilize the area to receive the water that it was receiving before. Um, so now we're going to have instead of greater than 20% we're going to have plateaus and
that'll slow down the water. So that won't be a concern anymore. >> Do you have a room to plant trees in front of the first uh wall? >> No, we have that. We have existing trees in a buffer to the edge of pavement.
>> Exactly. So we we do uh have a fence out here just outside of the uh wall and in line with the request of the Milbon Township, we had planted trees around the edge of the property. >> Question. So the fence is compliant
that's down there although it's broken now, right? >> Correct. Portion of the fence is >> the fence is compliant. So you'll be replacing that fence? >> Yes. >> And the the trees they're they're little now but they'll grow up their drive by their actually very familiar with with that habit. So my question is um this
slope is not new. That's been there I guess for hundreds of years maybe. Um do you think it was the construction of the house that caused that landslide? I'm just trying to figure out what happened that what conditions changed because it had been stable for a long time but then it had this >> right. So I had seen some ads built
again. I I'm new to the the property not during the construction. >> I'm not sure if there was a utility line that was brought down the front and then they backfilled it. >> No. Um Barat has a little bit more information, but they they had
resurfaced this with the with top soil and and tried to restabilize it. Um where to the left and to the right if you're standing in white oak is still natural woods. >> So >> So it had been disturbed. >> It had been disturbed and stabilized. And on a slope like that, you need
underpinning and matting and and if your vegetation hasn't taken hold, it's just going to go. I'm just always wondering like for our engineer look mentioning us look at all of our projects and I'm just surprised this happened. I don't know what happened the condition happened
that >> yeah so again this is going to slow down the water. >> You have plantings there now but you're going to put different plantings >> right now it's a wash out. Yeah, >> at the bottom for sure, but at the top there's >> Yeah, at the top earlier there was it
was covered with lawn and some junipers and junipers, but obviously uh taken root uh since it was just a few months since uh since we moved in and uh there was a heavy downpour unforeseen. >> I remember that.
>> Any other questions for the board? Any questions from the audience? testifying for any comments from the audience then I will close the public >> board members your thoughts
>> got to do something then >> got a relative >> I think this is relatively inclusive and effective a nicer way to say Um
yeah, I would agree. I think that something has to be done. I stand at that landslide now for a long time and uh remember when we approved the house and um when I saw that go on there, I was very nervous when it was done
because a lot of trees and ski slope and that's what happened. So, >> uh I would be in favor of this solution. >> Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Yes.
>> Regina. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck project. >> Thank you very much. >> Next up, we got calendar 48726. Skolnick, come on down.
>> Thank you. Skull on behalf of Waiting for again. Good. Okay. >> Are you one of the last houses that Mr. >> Richard Skolick on behalf of Rockes and
Mona Roger single family home 51 Sagamore third application on this street in the last couple of years block 101 lot two. We have some modest variances to upgrade the home. Really one variance for
sideyard. There were some revised plans that were submitted. I hope everybody has those. Uh, if I could qualify your next Okay. Um, raise your right hand.
Right. Tell me how many swear from the testimony you give tonight. Truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. State your name and address for the record. >> Robert Emmer Jr. 184 South Livingston Avenue, Livingston, New Jersey. Spell last name, please. E N
E R T. Thank you. >> Your qualifications, sir? >> Um, I have a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Kansas. Um, I'm licensed in three states, including New Jersey. My license is currently valid.
Um I've presented before this board before numerous times along with Livingston North Orange Summit Englewood recognized by those boards and architecture. >> Yes. >> Qualifications are accepted by the
board. Please continue. >> Want to tell us what we have on the two variants? >> We have two variances um that we're requesting tonight. The first being front yard variance and the
second being the um looking at it the right side yard variance. All right, starting with the front yard. Um I've drawn on mine a red line designating the front yard setback
in this area. The front yard setback is established by um taking the surrounding areas and the surveyor has got that on the first page. He's got the setback. It is um
he's calculated it is 62.1 ft. uh where and what we are doing is as part of the work is taking down a small um entry porch. It has a roof over it
has columns but it is open. It's only about 4t deep and so we're making it a little bit deeper 5'4. So we're now making it a lot deeper but just a little bit more deeper and a little bit wider just to make it more comfortable and
actually a little more safe. So when you go up the steps because this is um on Sagamore, it is a very steeply sloped area of town, steeply sloped property. So there's a lot of steps coming up to this landing before you go into the
house. So um so we were making the the front porch a little bit larger. And I don't know if you can see from here, but it's this red line going through there's the setback. And it's just this small corner of the porch that actually
protrudes beyond the setback line. It's that that area right the very small corner. So it's 1.35 ft on small triangular. Does the board have that exact version of the plans or they do except for the red line that I drew.
Okay. So let's mark this as 81 just so a record of it. >> So any can you maybe just because it's so small just first of all bring it over show the board just initially what you're talking
about. So this is it's seam one coloriz that red >> the rest of the green is bias. So we have safety issue there a modernization of steps. So okay so the second
variance request is for the sidey guard setback. Um it is we are doing all right so I'm just so the existing house is essentially a a modern cape the
design of it is not a cape the upstairs is it's a onebedroom one bath one closet upstairs so and then there's a couple bedrooms on the main level kitchen living room dining so the
What we're proposing to do is remove the roof and the second floor and put all the bedrooms up there on the second floor. I want to say all the bedrooms. Um it is again we're keeping things
modest and along the kitchen but there is only going to be report. >> Uh 311 2026 >> that the last move. Yeah, that's
>> submitted. >> Okay. >> And we Mr. Emmer delivered directly and Miss Dav revised set of plans. Just want to make sure apparently they have the same date. There was no revision. Okay.
>> We moved some things around. >> Well, and what we did is we actually reduced we reduced the variances. We eliminated an addition on the left of 2.8 ft and we eliminate the chimney on the right was a two foot bearing. The
variances were requesting and that are up to date on the front of your sheet um are reduced what was originally intended. So, >> so is the is the 7.75 sideyard for
um is that depicted on the first sheet Z1? No longer. It's 11.9. >> What's that? >> That's >> right. 10.1 >> 10.1's existing.
>> 11.9 is the variance request. 11.9. >> Yes, because it's 22. It's a 202 R4. It's 22 feet in in a >> in an R4. And the situation with the house is again the light blue represents
the existing footprint of the house. So that's not changing. >> Correct. So we're not changing. And as you can see, number one, the lot is narrow. It's 85 or 87 87 feet wide when 100 is required
and the house you know with this being sagamore down here you can see the house is push over to the right I mean we have 34 30 31 almost 32 feet on this side and the
existing setback is 10.1 >> and that's staying you're not adding any additional you're already not but you're not adding anything All right. You're taking that wall and just going straight up. >> I'm confused because it's 10.1 existing and you're proposing 7.7. >> Thank you for clarifying. So, this is
incorrect. Okay. Thanks. >> Keeping the plane. >> So, it's still Thank you for >> keeping the plane. There's an ex we're we're working around the existing structure. So we have that C1 of hardship sort of situation with an existing uh lawful structure that we're
trying to take make. >> So yeah, so this sideyards are not changing. We are combining the sideyard combined. Um so essentially we're doing a second story.
This is the area looking for work. Three bedrooms um in this area. And what it allows to do then then by getting taking the existing bedrooms out of the first floor, we can make the kitchen a little
bit larger, a little bit more modern, a little bit more functional. Uh the front entry originally, the front door is right there. You enter in the steps are 4 feet in front of you and there is no entry hall. were able to create an entry hall. They have more room to give them a
coat closet to to give a powder room on the first floor. So, it just by by taking the bedrooms and putting them upstairs, it just makes the house much more functional, much more, you know, the way uh much more comfortable today's
living. So, um but again, it's just for those who and you know, we're keeping it fairly simple. Um, those are the only two variances we're asking for. By not going
to the side, we're not encroaching any more on our neighbor and further upon the neighbors. We're keeping the air and light open. Um, and you know, the properties again by what we're doing, the property
is easily able to handle this uh fairly modest edition. >> Mr. Uh, we handed out uh what I'm going to call exhibit A2, aerial photo. Our client grabbed that off the internet, I think, and and you reviewed that to make
sure it confirms what's what's out there, >> right? >> Because what it is, you know, this is the size that's we're requesting the variance for. And that aerial photo shows this row of trees and
bushes along the side here that are on their property. And it, you know, intend to show, you know, that there is some good screening between the house, the existing house and the neighborhood. Um, and the other thing I'll point out, so why why don't we
two seconds we marked the A2 this aerial photo from me. Okay. All right. So, just show the board where is Sagamore or Fairview, whatever you want to call it, in relation to what the board's looking
at. >> Thank you. >> All right. Sagenor is down here at the bottom. So, Sag and this is the drive this is this is the driveway driving up from Sagamore to the house.
And the existing garage is down below. And then this this is the house. And then this is the row, you know, bushes. But back in here between the the existing neighbor and here you can see there's thick growth that is on the client's property. >> And looking at A2 is the audition is
going to take place um above essentially where the white roof is. >> Correct. Okay. >> It is. All right. It's a It's a shed roof. It starts at the front. It starts
there's zero in and then it slopes up. Right now, the current roof. So, that's what I'm saying. It's a cave. I mean, there's nothing there's nothing in the front. As it slopes up, there's an attic space and the current bedroom and bathroom are on the the back half of the property because as you slope out, then
you get the headroom and everything you need. So, um, the house to the I don't know if that's northeast, right? The one that's to the side that's most impact. How far away is that house from your
house? Uh, scaling off the survey, I came up with 14.8 ft. And the other thing I want to point out that we are 14.8 ft. Um, that's their setback from the property line. That's their setback.
>> So, adding 10 feet from the property line to your property between the two dwellings. >> How many feet? How many feet? >> 14.8 ft 24.9 almost 25T. And the other thing we're doing, if you
look at looking at Z2, which is the second floor on the main side on the second floor, there's only one window that we're putting in there on the second floor. It's a it's a bedroom by by the side of the bed, but you know, we
were, you know, recognizing the neighbor and want to be respectful of the neighbor. And so we're um we're doing the windows in the front and the back, but we're only doing one smaller window on the second floor. >> From an architectural standpoint at least, any detriment to the neighbor and
the >> No, it's just uh No, because the house, you know, we're keeping with the existing character of the house. Um and again, they're leaving side guard the same as it is. It's plenty of light air.
Uh >> so we have uh elements of what we talked about the C1 criteria where you're using the existing lawful structure and you got to put the addition around where the >> foundation and the first floor currently is. Right. Then in terms of the C2 where
there could be a benefit to the community or creating a more appropriate structure uh for today's modern living um just a little larger more comfortable but again it's just very detrimental to
the neighbors that is the way the way it is now. >> You have a glass house behind your uh shine. It's part of the house, right? It's >> part of the house. >> It's part of the house. >> You're not touching that part. >> You're not touching that part.
>> And that's why the that's what I was saying before. We're being, you know, complimentary to the existing house. You can see, you know, and it shows on the the elevations. It's got a very simple slope roof. The existing front does. And we're just mimicking that, but we're just
giving it an 8ft ceiling on the second floor as we put some D rooms up there. and no other variances in terms of lot coverage Fight all the other all the other bulk requirements are complied with. So it's
just the corner of the entry porch at the front and just the basically the existing sideyard setback. >> That's a pool in your the neighbor's yard. It looks like in their backyard that's a pool.
>> Yes. And you know >> Yeah. Looks like >> I don't I don't >> Oh, sorry. I think behind it there. >> Okay. I was going to ask you if you talked to them. >> They I think they did have a convers Okay.
>> Any questions uh from the board? Any other questions from the board? Any questions? the audience >> the comments from the audience. >> Um clarify wait are you coming up for a question or for
>> for a question? Okay, come on up. >> Hold on. >> Nice meeting you all. >> Okay, so hold on. >> What is your name? >> My name is Shi Wii. >> And your address? >> 25.
And where are your relation to the property in question? >> Uh just basically regarding the window talking about the side. This is your house here. You want to use this if I may? But maybe that helps. >> Yeah, that doesn't help. >> So you're the you're the property that's
closest to this home, correct? >> Right. >> You're northeast of this property, >> correct? >> That's right. >> Okay. So your question or your comment? >> Yeah, I'm just curious about mention you mentioned the window on the second floor. Make sure I heard that right. I
was talking to my kitchen over there. Is they going to make a small window or I saw a small one on this window? I'm looking at sheep Z3 now in the right
elevation and it's this gray rectangle right there. >> So that's that's the only window that's the only window on that side. >> Okay. The current first floor remember they have one window. I'll be making two
at the first floor also. >> Uh there are two windows on the first floor that's in the kitchen area. >> Okay. Got it. >> Those two windows exist currently. Correct. >> Uh they do not exist currently. >> The ones on the first floor, you're saying? >> Correct. >> Those will be added.
>> Those will be added. >> Oh, because you had said one small >> one small window on the second floor. >> I got this again on this on the first floor, you know, we're moving the spaces around a little bit so the windows will
change, but there's only two on that and they are in the kitchen area and that is an existing wall. They are the first floor in the wall. Are those windows would they be visible from gentleman's property? >> I'm going to say they will not based on
this. You know, the the height of these shrubs and stuff back here. That's why I went I was I was focused more on the second floor. Uh but these shrubs along here are going to block that area. >> Question because the way I'm looking it looks like the shrubs are mostly in the
the backyard. >> Can you see that tall one? But maybe it's just an optical illusion because many strokes there. >> The tall one that's almost like at the ridge. >> The tall one here. >> But there is a gap though in the shrubbery. >> There is.
>> So the shrubbery doesn't extend all the way along and it's really close to the house. >> Have to go over there and stand in front of there and take a look. >> Yeah. The owners. >> This is pretty good rendition. >> This gentleman or the homeowners know it better than I do. And do you plan on putting any shrubbery so that
there is more of a barrier? >> Yes, you can. No problem. >> It would probably block your window, but your lower windows because you're right on. >> Well, again, I think there's a lot of shrubs there. So, I don't >> Well, I'm talking about the gap because it looks like where those two windows would go in a lot.
>> So, the applicant is going shrubs is needed to fill in gaps. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Did is that a yes? >> So, yes, that was a yes. or yes >> any um any comments regarding this application
comments then I will close public uh board members what are your thoughts >> I'll go first I'm a I'm a little bit uncomfortable because this is so close to the property line I know it's an existing non-conforming and I appreciate
that you're going to go straight up but it it will because you're impinging on the air light because you're going up, it will affect this neighbor. Um, so I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that off the bat, but um and and if you put bushes that are the same size as these
or if you put a shrubbery that will actually block the window that will actually block their view, it's going to block your view out of the window. So, it's a tough situation. So, I'm going to be on the fence. >> Polar porch is closed at this point. Okay. Uh, anyone else?
In this zone, do we do upper foot setbacks? >> No, it's 15. >> Just was trying to think if the upper floor setback could help with the light situation. But >> you mean if you've got a floor, they are 25 feet apart. I mean, it's not
they're not that close together. You should come to my house and see how close I am to my neighbor, right? So I I I'd be surprised if there's material impact like this house and you know I think the variances that are being requested I mean I would I would have
had trouble if they had if they had exacerbated the sideyard setback but given that they're going straight up um you know I I I I think that's okay and the front yard setback is immaterial for a safety
reason. So I don't you know I I don't really see a from my perspective instead of say house. But >> yeah, I would agree. I don't I don't see an issue. You know, the windows don't bother me either. Houses have windows how it is. I don't think they're going to be intrusive or invading privacy of
the neighbors. Um so, uh I would uh I'd be in favor of this application. Do >> you have a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve the application. >> Thank you. A second. I second that. Thank
>> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Tru. >> No. >> Roy. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gary. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck in front. Thank you very much. >> With that, I will be next. Hand it over
to Gary Rosen. Exactly. >> Okay. Oh, >> can you actually listen? How much do itself. raise your right hand. Some swear from
testimony. You give my truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. >> Okay. One by one, state your name and address, please. >> Scott Dorfman, 19 Randle Drive, Short Hills. Samuel Bellamy, business address, 30 Montgomery Street, Jersey City, New
Jersey. >> Timothy Classy, 38 Chamber, short speakers. >> Who's going for us, Mr. Ba? >> Yeah. Um, first of all, thank you for uh, you know, your time this evening.
Uh, we've been, uh, in the house for about five years now and, uh, enjoy the community, the street. Everything's really nice. Um, our in-laws have started spending their winters with us. Uh, they go
between Florida and New Jersey. So with that, we feel like we have a need for a extra garage space to accommodate their vehicle. And um, so for that I sought out Jim to see what he could come up
with. and and yes and Tim or Sam you've explained to Mr. Dorfman that um this is an F bar variance that requires five per minute votes for an approval. Um tonight
we have only five eligible members which means that you have to go five for five. So if it was four in favor and one against what's called a statutory denial. So just putting it out there right up front as to whether
You want to proceed, you want to adjourn until such time as we have seven, six or seven eligible board members to increase your chances mathematically. It's up to you. >> We would we would give you the benefit
of knowing what we think. >> Yeah. So, if we could do that, that would be fine if we feel like there's a reason to stop. Would that be okay? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yes, I'm a licensed
state of New Jersey and been licensed for approximately 30 years. My license is in extend qualifications are accepted as you see. >> Thank you. The site is 19 Randall. You know, it's an R4. Um
they bought the house. It was kind of just about completed under construction and the under reconstruction and um they added a pool after um they moved in and also removed
a sun room as part of that work. So they removed actually a sun room that was almost 400 square feet when they added the pool. So they actually did lower the building coverage and lower the F on the site.
>> The F is lower now than when we purchased the >> when they actually purchased the house. >> It was out of variance when we did purchase it, but we have since brought it down by eliminating that sunroof. >> I just want you to know that they actually lowered it because the F is
high on the site. And um anyway, with all that in mind, what I did is I just go to my BOA1 sheet, which is exactly the same as yours. And on the left is the existing site plan, and on the right
is the proposed. I'm going to just stay on the proposed for a second. This is Randall going up and down. And our proposal is to build this one-story garage in front forward of the existing
garage on a paved area where um the father-in-law, I guess I would say, parks his car. And I I think there is some benefit to the neighborhood for this because we'll get the car
non-visible from the street, put it into a garage. It's a one-story garage, small. It's actually pretty well buffed from or there's a pretty good buffer from the streetscape. And I'll show you all that as we go along. But that's really what's going on is we're proposing to add a one-story garage in
the foreground in over this existing paved area. So there's no increase in lot coverage, which actually conforms and um we have 288 square feet of increase in
building coverage right or transferring loss coverage into building because it's already big and adding F because now it's becoming a building on my first floor I've now rotated 90
degrees so Randall is on the bottom and you can see the existing twocar garage. And this is where we're proposing our third car garage. On the right side, I guess the Yeah, the right side should you can see the existing
primary bedroom on the second floor and a one-story roof over the garage. Right. This addition is really a one-story building. I come on to my elevations. We had the elevation of the house and right here in the front elevations where we
added the garage. We just styled it the same as the existing building. And then we came to the garage door side, which is really the sideyard, the existing twocar garage, and we just took that sort of mansard roof that came
across and continued it and added our garage in the foreground. All of this is behind the building because you can see here even that the primary building is out about six additional feet from the
um garage itself. And it's also true if I go back to my BOA1 sheet that we've created a little negative space between the one-story garage and the house. And that that's you know we didn't make the
garage go the entire length of the existing garage which is almost like a car and a half but we stopped it. So we we made our garage really as small as we could to be able to could fit a car.
And I come to the exhibit which I guess I find A1 um photo board. >> Photo board and uh hey Tim before you even get to the photo board.
>> Yeah. Um, so the the minimum front yard set is 40 ft and this garage edition is going to be how far back.
It's not I don't know or not. I can't tell. I think it's going to be 42 feet. It's 42 feet on the garage door side and 44T on the
>> So the so front yard is 42 feet and 40 ft is the minimum. >> Yes. And and yeah, the existing house is at 41.35. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. The uh
So the existing building is my photo A and it's you can see in the front here I'll pass it around. It's pretty well shruged in the front. I think there's a couple of photos in your packet also to show but this area is pretty well shrubbed.
And then I thought we were lacking some shrubbery to the left a little bit before the primary building. But when I looked at it closer, I can see that they are deciduous trees. And that's why when I looked at it today, it didn't look quite
that way. But we would propose to add additional conifer shrubbery there to kind of minimize the impact. But our building is actually where the existing conifers are. We're not we didn't come into that
little niche area. Then I came down and I did a a streetscape and you know it starts on the corner. There's a lot of room between the between the corner house and the first midblock house. And then we have a really large area between
us or between that house and our house and then an extremely large area between this house and the corner house which really faces on arch front. And some of that occurs because our property has a front yard with it
about 206 feet long at the building lot. I think it's about 220 ft at the circle. Right. And this is a zone where front yard width is only required to be 100 ft. So that sort of allows us to put
this I think additional mass into this site and add this additional F without having a impact on the neighborhood. The um and remember it's really a one-story building that is
well you want me to do the math or you want to do the math. >> Okay. I think he's got the math better than I do since you paid for a planer. I think you should do so. and he's from Maller's office as I really wanted Mallerie. She uh
say was thrilled to hear before. You're such a habit that you're bucking up your I think I think I thought we said. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> All right. >> Ask any questions.
>> Any questions for Mr. Oh, sorry. >> Um, just an observation. It looks like your the proposed garage is not even going to break the same plane as whatever I don't know. >> No, we stay on the plane, >> right? It looks like it's actually back some plane. I don't know if this is like a living room or whatever,
>> but it looks like >> I would have aligned it because it, you know, I think >> that's No, I just it's more of a but yeah, just from I think you can tell from that photo that >> No, we we align the garage because we we want But I mean the front it looks like
this does not break plane of the front. >> No, it's actually >> and the juniper will stay or wants to stay. Everything stays. I just was thinking we should maybe add a little more low shrubbery in the front forward.
That's all. >> Any other questions? You mention you mentioned um the current owner burned down the sign room. Do you have the number uh the F and building coverage before?
>> Well, the sun room was 400 ft >> and the proposed tonight is 288 ft. >> 288 28. Is that okay? >> Okay. I keep trying to sit down and I
keep getting that. >> Okay. >> Give us your qualifications. >> Yep. Um, so my name is Sam Belly. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is current and in good standing. I'm with the firm Tresnner Robin. I am filling in
for my colleague Mallerie Clark tonight. Um, I did have a chance to fully review this application. Um, I have a masters in city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I testify frequently before boards in New Jerseys and I have been before this qualifications are accepted.
>> Great. Thank you. >> So, as I mentioned, I I did review all the materials presented tonight along with your zoning ordinance master plan and I had a chance to do a site visit prior to uh attending tonight. Um we are seeking two variances. One is a D4
variance for maximum F. Um that's where uh 306 is proposed. Um where 26 is permitted. Um the existing is 295. So increase of 288 square ft. We're also seeking a bulk C variance for maximum
building coverage. The uh permitted maximum is 14%. We're seeking 16.5%. That's an increase from the existing non-conforming 15.3%. Um and the D the F was also an existing non-conforming condition at 295. Uh so
as you heard from our architect, we're proposing a a third um car garage attached to the principal building. Um as noted, the setback itself is set back from the front property line and really the front plane of the building where the main entry is. Um this property also
is has a sloped frontage. Um so even though um it's actually set back a little bit further than what the uh proposed front yard setback condition indicates. So uh the 42 the 44 feet reflects the uh the curve curvature nature of the property. Uh and that is
increased from the existing 41.34 all permitted under the 40 foot minimum requirement. Uh as far as sideyard setback we're also aligning with the current garage and sideyard setback condition. Again, the the side side is also angled slightly. Um, but we are
proposing 41.51 ft to the edge of the garage and the existing condition is 39.02 ft. So that's well in excess of the minimum requirement here uh for one-story buildings uh which is at least 12 ft. Um so we are we are staying
consistent with all setback conditions. Um the the main ask here is by adding this garage that's considered part of the floor area ratio even though it's not necessarily habitable area. Um but I think by bringing in um current impervious coverage um so we're really
transferring impervious coverage to building coverage. Um and by doing so we're increasing our S but we're enclosing a parking space and really removing that existing condition where you have parking in the front yard in front of the building. So, while this
area is well landscaped and really that the parking space itself isn't visible from the right of way, I think further um enclosing the space will add an improvement in the visual environment um as you're coming down uh Randall Drive.
Um as I mentioned, the the addition is a one-story addition, so it's not proposing two stories to match the existing twotory nature of the building. And we're also not going all the way to the to the existing building. You'll see a little bit of a gap between the
proposed garage and the the main entry uh way of the home. So, we're we're requesting the really the minimum necessary to fit a car um within a garage space. I think the overall consistency with the the setback conditions um and proposing a garage
that's the same material materials as the existing buildings, same roofing, siding. um will it provide a desirable visual environment? Um with respect to overall uh coverage, as I mentioned, we are um compliant with
the uh current coverage requirement. We're at 33.4%. So I don't think there's an increase of storm water runoff proposed. Uh there will be gutters on the proposed addition that will connect to the existing leader system that I believe leads to a drywall
detention. So um the increase in coverage will be collected um within the existing storm water system currently on the site. Um so with respect to the positive criteria um the F varants can be uh can
be uh um can be uh granted wherein the site can accommodate the increased uh F being proposed here. And with respect to the building coverage, I do think the benefits here would outweigh the detriments. Again, transferring impervious coverage to building coverage, but collecting the storm water
uh within the system. Um, with respect to the negative criteria, I don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare here. I likewise don't see any substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. The master plan does identify this as a residential neighborhood. Um, and a goal is to
identify protection of neighborhood character as a key community priority. I think the proposed addition is consistent with that goal. Um, and will and and won't really increase the the overall massing. Um, from a visual perspective, it's is kind of in line with what's currently on the site and
and consistent with that. I think with the landscaping, the addition itself will be um minimally visible from the right of way. Um the project does promote the purposes of the municipal land use law. It promotes purpose A which is to encourage
municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state. Um purpose C to provide adequate light air and open space. As I mentioned we are um either consistent or exceeding all the setback requirements. But I do think we maintain adequate light bearing open space and
and in um and purpose I which is to promote a desirable visual environment. Um with that I I think this project overall does meet both the positive and negative criteria. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions that one might have. >> Thank you. I think you did a great job.
First of all not here but good. We're glad we're glad you're here. Is there a hardship? Um is there any hardship? >> I I wouldn't say there's a hardship on the site. um we are in excess of the both the lot area and the lot width and depth. So um F does account for lot
size. So I think we do have an increase already there and we are proposing to add to that. Um so I wouldn't say it's a hardship but I think it it does meet the site accommodation test and the and as far as the building coverage I think it could be granted pursuant to the flexible standard more so where the benefits would outweigh the detriments
here. >> What's the height of this garage? for that. They're not seeking hardship bearings here. >> Oh, what? >> They're not seeking the hardship. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, we're under 12 ft. >> Okay. And lastly, there's a door, right?
The get out of the I mean, other than I was trying to find it. It's probably just not marked, but >> car car garage door. >> Yeah, like there's a part of the house. It goes directly >> Oh, I just took the wall out. I took the wall out between the garage and the house >> or the between the existing garage.
It's like what? >> I screwed up. >> No, we just took one. We removed the wall >> in that area. So, >> there's a door to the house. >> It's nearly a 3/4 is what? That's the wall. >> We literally pull the wall away.
>> That wall. Okay. >> You know, I'd say it's about 8 feet at the front and then the roof slopes up and ends up at 12 feet when it hits the building. That's why I was saying 12. >> Okay. It's really it's a shed roof, right?
>> Shallower in front of the building, you know, as the pitch. >> So, do you have any analysis of of um how the F has proposed compares to other houses on the street? It's you're really not going up very much in F. And I think
there's a lot of reasons to be comfortable with this in my view, but you are at 30.6, six which is not nothing over 26. So how does are there other houses on the street do you know that have that are over F?
>> We did analyze the kind of the surrounding block and across the street. Um there's v variety of lot sizes. Um some are bigger than others. >> Um I think there were a couple properties that were over but relatively this you know this is an excess and and
one of the larger homes on the block, right? Um, looking at neighbors, do others have threecar garages? You know, can you speak to sort of the prevalence of that? >> Yeah, driving through the neighborhood, I think there were um multiple homes
with threecar garages. Uh, and I'll also mention the R4 district, which this property is in, actually has a limit on the number of garages, which is three. So the zoning does contemplate number of overall garages and we are consistent with that and
>> I think uh there's one two three I think four of the other five houses on the street have on that street >> and one of the other requirements in the zone is that garages face side or rear
yard. So we're also consistent with that. Um, some homes have a turnaway uh, turnaround view driveways in the front. We don't have that here and we're actually removing that front yard parking which I think is a a benefit visually. >> Yes. >> So, you you made the comment that the
site can handle this and I'm just a little puzzled about your confidence in that because you're already over on lots. you're already over on building coverage, already over on F, and you want to increase both of
those. So, you're telling me that the the the building coverage restriction of 14% and the F 26 shouldn't apply here. >> No, I I I think when we look at F
variances, which is kind of the top tier of of a bulk standard in a zoning district, we also look for other waterfall effects of that. So you know building coverage as you mentioned lot coverage and then setbacks. Um so as I testified to we are in excess of all the
setback requirements. We are exceeding now even further the building coverage requirement with the addition of 288 square feet. But I think by transitioning current impervious uh asphalt paving into that building coverage I think it's a little bit of a a trade-off.
>> The reason that we have an impervious coverage and a building and isn't just one of them. Yeah, it's >> they're not interchangeable. >> Yeah, I would I would agree with that. So, building coverage and tied to F is more of a massing perspective. Um, so I
think really where we're proposing this addition is the most appropriate location for it where we're not proposing to widen the house at all and we're not proposing to go into the rear yard area where there's kind of a an existing building line between the neighboring property. So, by filling in
almost this gap of the front yard area that's well land land landscaped and minimally visual uh visually seen from the right of way, I think that's part of that site accommodation test. And I think that's that's why we're meeting it with this proposed addition even though we are in excess of what's permitted.
>> If you flipped it and put the third garage bay in the rear, you would need a rear yard variance setback. >> I believe that's the case. And I think that would also interfere with just the overall setback line that's been established on this block.
>> And you would need more you would need more impervious coverage to >> That's correct. Unless we took from somewhere else, right? >> And that that sun room that was there uh prior that was torn down that was in the back of the home. That was one of the
improvements that were was previously made. >> Any other questions? I don't think there's anybody in the audience, but um any questions from the audience? Anything else from you?
>> Yeah, I just wanted to add something that we were talking about before that the other thing about this site being able to accommodate any because it's so wide. This site presents as a big lot. It's where it's missing is depth, but
it's 220 feet wider street. >> So I I think >> and it's 4,500 square feet bigger. So you get more >> right more. >> But I'm saying >> more f more building coverage more square footage of of F and more square
footage of of building coverage. I but I'm just saying that if it was that wide if I were doing this, this is where I would put it. There's no no argument. >> Just >> no. My point is about you're over at F and
you want more. >> You're over building coverage, you want more. >> No, I see. >> I think that the site can accommodate it because it looks so wide. The site itself looks That's you don't really see
the shallowess of the depth of the site itself. That's all. >> Well, you would would you you won't even see the garage if you put the conifers in. >> No, you wouldn't. >> And the positioning of the house is such I think if you're coming down Randall from the opposite side
probably wouldn't see the garage >> coming downhill >> coming from the other side the other side of the >> come down. So the house on the left. >> Yeah. Oh yeah, you can see it from the right. I don't you'll really see it >> coming off a heart. It's pretty trivial,
>> right? >> Okay. >> Okay. I don't know if I had any comments from the audience. Um, >> so do you want to um given what we talked about at the beginning and your good recommendation
um you want to maybe take a straw poll of the eligible board members in terms of the variance. >> Yeah. So I think I don't know um comments or you want >> you when you do the strong call you can give comments an idea.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, what are folks saying? >> I'll start. And so, to David's point, I hear what you're saying about the you have a big big lot and you're going over, but I have to say I took a long hard look at the house today and I stared at all of it. It's a big property. It's long. I actually don't feel like it's going to impact the neighbors, which would be very important
if it did. I feel like this can accept this small ask to put this third garage. So, um I think it's a thoughtful way that you've incorporated it into the existing pavement that's already there. It's not really going to it's not going to affect the impervious drainage at
all. Um so I I would be in favor of this. >> Yeah, I would support this project to us. Yeah, I draw through um the the brown yard um
to cover the the where the current project is. So I would support this. Okay. Well, I too spent a lot of time out in front of the house today, so I know exactly what what he's talking about. And this was easy to deal with and I
still have issues with people who are over F wanting more overage and people over a lot coverage having more lot coverage, particularly in a site that already has almost 25% more square footage on the
site than the than the zoning. I'm not uh I'm not happy with this. >> I think if the proposed use was because they want a another bedroom or a family room or something that would a habitable space, I think I would have a lot more
problem. I think the given that the proposed F tended to basically enclose what they're using as a parking spot. That makes me more. >> Yeah, I think that's I think that's an important point because I actually think the neighborhood benefits by having the the car not sitting out in that little
area there. So, I think I I mean I think the point's very fair, but I I think >> there's a lot of property that have cars sitting out in the front and this one you can barely see the street, >> right? But I just think I just don't
think that from a massing perspective I don't think it's perfectly vis visible and I think it's better to have the car in the garage. Um and they had taken out well they are over on a fair. They had taken out some they're putting bust back
but that doesn't create a right just because you tore something down >> it that was way over doesn't create not even say right or entitlement. I'm just saying an option to replace. >> Well I'm not suggesting they have an option. >> That statement suggests
>> well that's not what I'm so >> okay. Well, um, so it appears that, um, you probably >> have a hold here. I think >> What's that? >> I think we'll probably have to hold to get a full board. >> Yeah. So, you what you want to do is I
think you're going to make a request to carry um the board as a courtesy did a little bit of straw polldeliberation. You heard what they said. It sounds like the applicant probably would like to
have a fuller complement of of board members. Yeah. >> For a vote, a formal vote on the application. So, you're going to ask that the matter be carried, correct? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Craig has to be anyway. So, to July
20th, >> he's not he's not going to be here on >> Got it. But anyway, >> and so the two other board members listen for the >> long >> like there's really not a lot of discussion,
>> right? I don't imagine it would take >> it's going to take any more than 10 minutes. >> Yeah. So I think we could do it on this one. >> They just have to we have to make sure they >> Yeah. >> Okay. So July here, too. >> So
yeah, so we're going to carry the matter until July 20th. We're going to be >> in the library at 200 Glen A. The hearing will start at 7 p.m. No notice required. >> No further notice required of the
applicant. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate >> I never noticed it. Like I never go down. >> Yeah. It's a good point. players and neighbors. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. That's it. So have a motion. >> Hold on. First you have to say anyone here who >> there is heard nothing. Am I good now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to endure? >> Motion second. All in favor?
>> I for the record now that we're closed. I mean, >> wait.