Uh yes. So the front of the house really remains unchanged. You'd be hardressed to see anything that has happened to this house. Uh I think it'll look the same and I think that the way that we've designed the additions and integrated them into the overall mass people will be hardressed to know that anything has
ever happened to the house. Uh here on the second floor, this is the area to the light elevation on the prop. You see you pull this back in reducing the impact to the neighbor on the right on the second floor.
the uh addition on the left side showing the the new portion. You can see we replicated the blue lines and the penetration patterns kind of incorporating an illconceived edition from 2000 making it look like it was originally part of the house. And this
is something that the HBC I really like when we presented it. You know, try to make the house look nice, not only did we move the the street, but also to make neighbors as well. Think the house looks attractive to the year. Uh
then I have a uh this is a garage uh it's a modest in size as I stated earlier as required by the town ordinance. And we again we tried to match the nice tutor revival style of the existing house with all the materials not only on the house but on
the garage. Uh and it's so far to the rear of the property. I think you'd be hardressed to kind of see it from the road. And if you do, I think it would be effective because it looked like it it should really be there. Like this is a photo board we submitted
last time, but altered it new rendering. So you can make it a new exhibit. If you altered it, we absolutely do. So um the last exhibit was I believe A7,
which was an enlarged aerial photo property. This would be A8. Uh A8. And what is A8? A8 is a uh rendering
from the opposition. Data 926.5. the date is correct because it's prior to >> right so you were clairvoyant >> yes >> I was going to have ensuing year
>> right >> uh yeah so I would have done this rendering in March of uh last of this year right before our March 26 26 give or take. >> Okay, that's March 88.
>> Yes. >> All right. So, um just just for reference, these are the photos. This was exhibit A1 of the prior presentation. These are just photos of the house from the different sides.
here that the windows on the front was largely the same. We've better integrated the window on the front of the house made it more like it was part of the original design and this was a 19. Uh this is the detached garage. It's the
same as before and this is the the change that we made. So this is the proposed you can see it comes all the way to the rear plus we had a balcony but we push this area back the seats. uh we still have the existing plus4 that that remains unchanged but it creates a
much smaller appearing it doesn't look as tall same angle same rendering so it makes a dramatic change in scale so I think this really know is well integrated into the house and I think this really addresses the board's comments from last time in a
positive way you know as you can see as I stated earlier all the details match the existing and you know what we're merely doing is creating a little bit more space making the four bedroomedroom house which is more typical for the neighborhood and what people expect nowadays. Uh I think these changes are
really subordinate to the original home now from the street they kind of disappear and fade away. We also have the landscape plan that I mentioned earlier was produced by Brian our landscape architect. Has there been any um changes to that
plan consideration is revised? >> No, it's mostly just the site as you know what this is and the site hasn't changed. >> So it just shows the detach that we're adding uh strips of of uh pavers from
the driveway to the back instead of extending a sea of asphalt and added a lot more impervious coverage. We try to keep it sparse. I think it's more historically in keeping with the period of this house, not to have so much paving. Plus, it allows a lot more green
space uh for the yard and for the neighborhood. On the right side of the existing site, there's this large gravel area for removing all that gravel and making it green again, which is nice. uh the neighbor to the rear um engine
place, they have a large detached garage that was added and they did a large addition couple years ago. And so their garage basically completely blocks our garage from their views. Plus, we're adding a row of evergreen screening along the rear and some planting beds,
not only creating privacy for ourselves, but for the neighbor. And there's a number of large evergreen mature evergreen screening between our house and the neighbor to the right. Thus kind of minimizing any impact of white hair and open space. In general, I think these changes really improve the
functionality and make the house uh more suitable for a modern family while fitting into the context of Wyoming historic districts. Um uh you know, as I said before, we have issues with know working with the scale of the house while preserving the
historic charm. Not that we would tear this house down, but we're really limited on how much we could change the existing house and still satisfy the HBC. So, it's kind of a, you know, how do we make them happy and you happy? So, I think we we've struck that happy medium here. Uh, you know, a house built
almost 100 years ago really doesn't meet the needs of a modern family. So, making these changes, making the house more updated, it's going to really create an for generations to come. So before I turn it over to the board, I can open up to any questions.
>> Anyone have any questions for any questions? >> Uh any is there anyone in the audience who has any questions? >> We need a statement or >> no statement. Do you have a question for the architect? Okay. So there there at the appropriate time one to three after
completes it case with all his witnesses each one of those witnesses subject to cross examination. We will then open it up to the public and the public will have an opportunity to make statement, present evidence, whatever it is to voice the >> Mr. you've uh already been sworn
um and your your testimony provided testimony at the February second meeting. >> Okay. So, we're going to ask you to take that prior testimony and evidence you submitted
into consideration in terms of your supplemental testimony and evidence in terms of the changes that we go into. >> Yes, thank you. Not quite as the um so
Doug actually touched on a lot of my testimony. Clearly, this is an undersized lot living in the zone located mid block between Wyoming and uh and Glenn. Um just to stress the undersized nature, it's a 55 ft wide lot. It's 20 foot narrower than required
by ordinance. So that's about 75% of what's required. And the 8250 foot lot is 6,250 square feet less than that's required what's required. So it's about 59% of request. So this is a significantly undersized lot itself. And that becomes the basis for much of the
variance relief say therm. Um the uh one thing that was a question that was asked um if this law were conforming to um either the lock either the lot width or the lot area we would be fully conforming application respect F building coverage and lot coverage. Only
thing we would need be the sideyard setbacks because we're adding to an existing non-conforming building which is already too close on one side and doesn't sideyard. So um to answer that question, yes, we would be clearly conforming. Another thing that it's good
to notice is that in the R5 zone, um besides being a variety of lot widths, even on our block where they go from 50, 55, 65, 75, even larger 400 foot lot, um what varies what what is um unique about
this block is that it's one of the few that is not 400 feet deep. It's only 300. So if you go from blind to chestnut and I guess I did have this exhibit last time aial photo. [clears throat] Um what was what was it?
I can look it up. It's an annotated aerial photo. Um [clears throat] >> um enlarge a photo properties. >> Okay. Well, no. What I'm saying is that
you have A4 aerial exhibit of neighborhood. >> That would be it. >> Okay. So, what you're referring to is A4, which was previously marked. You look at A4, what you'll see is we have 150 foot deep block, 55 ft wide. Um that
this block between Chestnut and Myrtle is 300. However, if you continue, I'm still in the neighborhood [clears throat] walk sometimes on these streets. If you go from Lyndon to Cedar to Cypress, Pine, Elm, Maple, Mountain, and into Clinton, all those blocks with
the exception of between Cedar and Cypress and Pine are 400t of blocks. So each of those lots is 200 ft deep, which is not something you perceive from the street. When you're walking up each of these streets, you see the roughly the distance between the homes and the size of the homes. I would point out that um
if this lot was the same 55 foot width, but it was like almost every other lot going up through the neighborhood, the nine blocks up to you get to uh into Maplewood, um we'd be fully conforming as to F building coverage and lot
coverage. So, not only if we've done the zone, but if we were as deep as most of the neighborhoods, remember zoning looks to put an overview on a neighborhood. They don't look at the outliers. They don't look at on either end, but they look at what is basically a a a lot a
neighborhood that consists of 200 foot lots. This is unique in that it's 150 and you don't perceive that from the street. So again, if we were the full depth, again, fully conforming F building coverage, lot coverage, only thing we'd be variance sideyard setbacks. Uh Doug went through the uh
all the existing nonconformities um that are existing and how difficult it is to make any modernization make the old the addition that was done in the 70s more functional as well as given that fourth bedroom um uh without the need for variance relief. I would
point out that it is also not unusual in this neighborhood to have fourbedroom homes. We looked at 33 lots on lot 306 307 and 308. They're a little bit three blocks um coming from us to the north.
And of those homes that we looked at, 70% were four bedrooms or larger. There were 30% that were three bedrooms or less. There only 20 of them were four bedrooms, two were five bedrooms, one was a sixbedroom, and there were seven
threebs, two three two bedrooms. So the overwhelming fabric of the neighborhood is four bedrooms. So what we're asking for to create that fourth bed, fourth bedroom again is not dissimilar to the character of the neighborhood. We're asking to basically provide it's consistent with the neighborhood and a
house that's more functional, meets the needs of families in Milbour in 2026. When we look at the uh variance relief, and I'm going to try to not repeat since Doug uh gave the uh extent um we do need a D4 variance. the um we did cut the
additional down from 610 to 452. Um so it was a significant reduction of 158 square feet. Um again remembering these on a small lot these numbers small change 30 40 feet has a big number in that percentage. So if we get hung up on the percentages it can be somewhat
confusing. Um and again of that 452 square foot that we are now adding only 32 is in the house and that's really to give a little expansion to the office but really also to reorganize that vertical circulation so you get a better circulation up at the second floor.
Again a hardship can be created not just by the location of the home but the function of the home. So anytime you're adding to an existing home you're not tearing it down starting fresh. you have to deal with existing structure, existing stairs, existing HVAC columns, and that always means you're not going to sometimes have to go larger than you
would like to if you were starting over sheet. Um, as was also uh one in response to the question, if we made no change to the shed, we'd be down to 37.5% and um if we got rid of the garage and shed, we'd be down to 36.2. So, very
close. Um and again if this was a 200 foot deep lot we'd be at 29.9% where 30% is permitted. So the positive criteria for the uh D4 variance unlike commercial zones where it's a measure of intensity
abuse the residential abuse it's a measure of the massing of the home. Um the criterion for an F variance really follows the Randolph Township Town Center case which really refers to the Coventry Square case. That criteria is the applicant must show for the site to
accommodate problems usually associated with that barrier greater than that permitted um without substantial deterren um the usual problems are overcrowding on the site loss of air like open space of the neighbors an overwhelming character or scale of the neighborhood
so there's no hard criteria as I said last time you give three architects the same square footage it would look very different same ways you give three 180 pound people um depending upon their height, their the broadness of their shoulders, length of the torso, they could all look very different but still
be the same metric of of a certain of a certain size. So the when we're adding to a house, the question becomes how well has the architect integrated the mask into the structure so as to maintain the character of an individ. Um and this one we think that site can certainly accommodate it. The additional
mass cannot be seen from the street. It's all behind the house. Um there's no impact on the adjoining dwellings on either side of the rear. I'll talk a little bit about negative criteria in a second. Um the architect has varied the massing um of the existing uh over the
infill over the existing one-story portions. Varied the roof line, made it more cohesive so it doesn't look like um a poor 1970 edition, but looks like it was always meant to be part of the home. Um and the uh we're fully conforming as to height and the floor area is not inconsistent with those in the
neighborhood. I think I showed last time. Um, this would have been a picture. Oh, hold on. The enlarged aerial photo was A7. A7.
I think we showed on the A7. Uh, the house immediately to our left, which is on a wider 65t lot, the 3,476 ft. We're coming in with the expanded garage um and the 32 square foot bump on the on the floor plate plus the
additions over uh over the existing first floor. We're coming at 3286. House to our right is 3156. So we're really in the neighborhood of the surrounding homes. And if you've driven you went to the site and looked at it, I think when you drive down the street, you don't say, "Oh my god, the
house looks so big for the neighborhood." It's going to look no different when we're done. So we think that the site can certainly accommodate any problems associated with the increase in FIR. >> Yep. You look at [clears throat] those the houses for the lots numbers six and
seven sort of to the right of that lot five. And the only reason why I'm asking is that it looks just eyeballing it that the dimensions of those two lot six and seven look very similar if not smaller than lot four.
>> Yeah, they are. Um the ones to our right I don't know if I have did >> if you don't you know I just thought it might be helpful for the applicant to demonstrate that. >> Yeah I think we were all I don't know if I have that spreadsheet but we were um we were a little larger than them. Um
the next lot 850 we're still a little larger than them but we were all in the same ballpark. We weren't more than a couple hundred square feet off most of the other homes except for um there's a house across the street on the other side which is really small. Um sure that'll become larger someday.
With regard to the um the rest of the C variances, they're either under C1 which is generated by the uh the undersized lot width and lot area along with the location configuration of the lot with existing dwelling creating a hardship and upgrading existing properties
without variance relief. And the others really are under the C2 which is the better planning alternative uh where we need to demonstrate that we are um where we can demonstrate the purpose of the land use act are advanced uh and the net
benefits net benefits resulting from the from the deviation outlining detriment. Um we think that the I'll go through them real quickly. Uh we think we advance uh general welfare that we're allowing the owners to contemporize the existing home without with regard to amenities that most people require in
2025 as being made more functional to improve improve circulation better space and it brings the site closer into ordinance compliance by adding the required garage. Um we also I think it's an improvement as as Doug indicated in the visual environment. It is a it makes
the house more attractive from all sides, not not just the front, which was uh seconded by the unanimous approval by HBC late last year. And then finally, um promotes the preservation of an historic structure um by not tearing down the
house, which HBC wouldn't allow, but um we think we're actually moving into making more consistent a more uh attractive historic homes without taking away any of the historic buildings. So with regard to the uh I won't go through
the uh the extent of the variances other than that the maximum building coverage again only 32 square feet increase 190 square ft of that is that's the house footprint and 190 ft 194 is in the garage. Um we think that it's better
planning um to have a uh a usable garage and in our last report um recommended that we keep um building coverage again we've uh we're sorry lot coverage we're actually reducing it to existing non-conforming but we're reducing bring
closer to the ordinance you're unoccupied we're very close to what's what uh um what's required um and it's only an eight square foot change from what exists today regard to the sideyard setbacks again we're aligning with what exists today. Um so it's really no
adverse impact on the neighbors to either side. Um the uh with regard to the negative criteria for all um we think that the architect has done a great job in making the building that's cohesive architecturally and feels perfect at the site. We think the
benefits out of the detriment. As we'll go back to this is an updated um the camera last time. This is voter board number two, but this is new. We had a vote board two. I've updated uh
two of the vot. Okay. So, this is going to be A9. You put [clears throat] this together yourself. >> I'm sorry. What was the date? The date. Um, these were uh the date be today.
Most of these photos, unless um unless I'll otherwise say were taken on April 27th. So, um I won't uh the first couple of photos across the top are unchanged. It does show the buffering between us and the tennis club, between us and the
neighbor behind and shows the both the generous buff landscape buffering between our property and the closest residence which is blocked partially by their garage and the house sits much further back with landscape in between. If we look at photograph number four,
this is um from the previous exhibit. Um you'll see the house to our looking at the picture to the left. Um you can see that that house sits is L-shaped with a large gap. That's where the patio is and I'll talk about that in a second. So the area that would be affected to the house
immediately to the left from the rear or the right from the street. Um it's really not an area that that is affected by the effect. With the permission of the neighbor, you go to photograph number five. This is a new photograph we've added in. This where my client
went on to the neighbor's property at 49 Chestnut um and looked back towards the property show this is from their patio. This is the existing house. This is and they'll just be a minor 5 foot n extension on to the back of that really
has no impact. That is to the northwest of them. So there's no adverse impact on air or space. The neighbors not here because they were quite comfortable with it. uh my client to go on the property takes a picture uh to demonstrate that there really is no impact to the
neighborhood reproduction. >> So in summary um we think the the improvements are consistent with the established character of the house and the neighborhood. Um it is uh a non-conforming lot um significantly
undized. We think that the um zoning is about preserving the character of neighborhoods. The HBC is the body that we look to preserve the character of the neighborhoods in the historic zone. They unanimously approved actually with one abstension but unanimously otherwise approved it. Um our proposal
would advance the purpose of the zoning plan. The benefits we think significantly at any detriment. Happy to answer any question. >> Thank you Rich. Any questions from the board? Just quickly, how far are you from the structure that you're going to build to 53 Chestnut, which is I guess
[clears throat] that's the house that's closest to you because it looks like 49 is pretty >> 87. So, let me grab a scale. So the if you look at the the little tan area is where we're expanding. It's a twotory addition. So that's where we're
expand expanding the footprint. So that to the um patio is about 21 ft into the actual dwelling um it's about 23 cub. Again, this out looking out under the patio towards the tennis
club in the rear. And we're setting it in slightly. Um, and just in filling that one portion, these are these two portions that are in blue to the right, the bottom of that tan area where we're adding second story into the structure.
And again, back that's where we're getting that 5 foot um addition and leaving 4T4 cover the balcony in the back. and pull that in. And that's one where the patio sits around this tree. We're 30 feet uh 32
feet from the patio to the closest part of our house and then 16 ft back on the angle to the closest part of the condition about 36 feet from the neighbor at 49. So we're really away from the neighbor at 53 and there's really no negative impact.
Thank you. >> Any other questions for Mr. Okay. Any questions? Questions only from the audience. >> Yeah. >> Anything? Any anything Doug? Anything? >> Okay. Any comments from the audience? If
you like comments, please come up this morning. >> Just please write testimony about proceeding the truth. The whole tree clip tree. >> I do. >> Your name spelling your name and your address? >> Sydney. S I D N E Y E F R O M O I C
3600. >> So >> 36 milk. >> Where is that in relation to the property? >> So I live in South Mountain. Um and >> first of all before we get spell your last name.
>> It's tough. I I didn't have a choice. It's >> [laughter] >> Well, I mean, you can't >> change. R is as in Romeo. O is in Oscar. M is in Mike. O is in Oscar. B is in Victor. I is in India. C is in
Charlie. H is in hotel. I promise. Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So, you're not you're not in this neighborhood. You're in another neighborhood. >> I'm I'm I'm not in this neighborhood. They're in another neighborhood, but we just had the second family that was really close to us that moved out of
Melbourne >> because they couldn't accommodate the modern family. >> And they have they're they're just they're one of our favorite families in this in this town. They have three kids. They're a couple. We do the math and and it just feels so obvious that they need
that extra room. And and the thing the I I was asking Jud why his airline was starting to look more like mine. And you told me that that about the struggle of doing this here. And I just wanted to say like when we visit so many of these
homes, this is a home that feels like it it just gives you that that that feeling that it makes you proud to be in this town that has such a rich history. They've worked so hard to maintain the character, the feel, the way they interact with their neighbors. And and I
understand that there's there's reasons why maybe some people would feel uncomfortable with this, but I as I think of this is where I want to grow old and these are the families that I think we want more of in this town and I really hope it's it's a project that gets [clears throat] just because this
like I think it makes our town better. >> Thank you for your comments. Any other comments? >> Do you score from testimony about the proceeding 32? >> Your name and >> David Jacobs. Yes. Uh 52.
Uh >> where is that? >> Perspective. I'm directly behind Jud's house. So everything he's doing faces out today. >> Okay. Uh, I'll start by saying he's one of the best neighbors I've ever had and an amazing family and uh, there's no way
we'd like like to lose them at all. And I think their plan overall makes terrific sense. Um, just as background, I went through the process of of taking a 1903 tutor that was effectively had
fallen apart and we added a garage that you proved it. uh that now faces his back outs and we also uh added in our back much in the way they're proposing slight differences but similar concept
um I think his plan having looked at the details having the judge is great it's it it doesn't impede in any way in on our property and we look at right out into their their space it's it's very modest in terms of how it's been
adjusted for the house the garage itself and it's our garage. It basically lines up to it. So, you know, he got me back on that one. So, but it makes sense. It really does make sense. And I think one of the things that came through as we went through our process was the town
encouraged us to have garage. In fact, they told us to make it larger at the time than we thought we needed to be uh to to make it suit the space. So, I think overall the plan makes a lot of sense. I also think the landscaping is excellent. Um, uh, we've really
struggled with landscaping the area because of obviously the rains, floods, and everything. They've just done a nice job. I think it makes total sense and I would be total support and I'm the guy that looks right into it. Thanks. >> Thank you. Very helpful.
>> Okay. Anything else? >> Okay. So, >> oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Um street h last name is h 57 chestnut street. So the same
neighborhood. Um he is a wonderful neighbor. He's a wonderful person. His kids are wonderful. I wake up on the weekends walk my dogs. I see his three kids out playing, riding their bicycles, doing whatever. absolutely wonderful
that they incredible loss decided. So just putting that out there historical it's never there. So we've got a rough feel on this one the lot size again but he's making a beautiful
house which fit in with the neighborhood really you should really stick around. >> Thank you. All right. Um so we have uh we got the D variance here which means it require five votes.
>> So who's eligible to vote on this application? >> Well this was they started from the beginning correct. >> Well what we have been doing is we have been assuming that is a continuation
because we're wanting exhibits. have been separately sworn in because they were sworn in last meeting where they testified [snorts] etc etc. So with that we do we have five affirmative we have
five votes >> that are eligible. >> It's a continuation. >> It's a continuation. David Regina was >> sorry I just wanted to say I think we'll all right let's just let's just finish
this lot of >> discussion I We're ask >> is this is this from um >> February >> February [clears throat] February >> February >> you don't even have five members.
So, how many members did that? David Gina. So >> we requested permission to start our application from the beginning knowing that we wouldn't have enough board members to vote and if we need to do more to produce the rest of the exhibits
now we're happy to do that. >> Here's the thing. So if we're going to not make clear clear because we were continuing exhibits from the last hearing guys it was right and
so if we're going to do that and you're going to base the board's decision on just what happened tonight it would only be those exhibits that were referenced this evening. Right. We would I would
ask preserve the record that [clears throat] the witnesses be qualified in terms of their expertise. And if you're qualifi not on the last hearing on February 2nd, but exclusively on tonight's testimony
and evidence. That's up to the app. >> Yeah, we're we're totally comfortable with that. Um, our objective in doing the application we did was to respect everyone's time and knowing there's a lot of people here who need to also present their applications. >> Okay. So, with that, why don't you both
come on up? >> Mr. Miller, please provide your qualification with more licenses, expertise, and experience in the field of [clears throat] architecture. >> Yes. Douglas Miller from AHM Architects located at 281, New Jersey. been a licensed architect
since 2001. My license is good standing. I've made numerous presentations to this board as well as boards. >> You look very very familiar. >> Thank you. Your license remains a good stand. >> Okay. Mr. K.
>> Yes. >> I'm a licensed professional engineer plan in the state of New Jersey since 1990. I have a bachelor of science and civil engineer at the university with a concentration in water resources and environmental engineering and have master
sounds very familiar. Have you been qualified [laughter] before this board in the past? >> Uh since 1990. >> Okay. Your license remains good. >> Just got brand new license in the mail two weeks ago. >> Congratulations. Okay. Any questions about the qualification? Either one of you.
Okay. And and you guys, both of you understand and agree pursuant to a statement made by the applicant himself that this application will be relying exclusively on the evidence, testimony,
and exhibits presented to the board this evening. >> Yes. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> How about that? >> Works. Okay. So, we're going to close about a portion and then um hear from
board members. What [clears throat] are your thoughts? >> I'll go first. Um thoughtful uh plans here. I think it's first of all, it's a very charming house. I think the suggested improvements um enhance the property that's already very charming.
Um I don't think I can talk about that you've reduced everything since we're starting from fresh, but just know that's what I'm thinking. But I can say [laughter] so. Um and I would be I would be in I would approve this after >> I would similar
uh separating in my mind all the stuff I know from the previous meeting. I'm relying solely on what [clears throat] presented here tonight >> uh separate and in I have to separate the garage I think um because I think
that's something that's very desirable. Um, and it's not they're not asking for more than what we require the garage and I think the rest of this been done in a very uh if if you're not going to do this is
about as small as you can do and do something. If you're not going to do this, you're not going to do anything. So, I'm I'm I'm very supportive. >> What else? >> Um, this is my first time hearing the application. Um, sorry I haven't met you sooner. We are neighbors. I also have
three children. Apparently, you're great neighbors. Um, >> that said, um, regarding the application, uh, you know, I appreciate not only that you went through the, you know, the process to get historic approval. Um, I think the application is
pretty considerate of neighbors, you know, the 360. So, thank you. >> I'll be supported too. um appreciate that can sacrifice other things to to keep some major thing I I have to start.
>> Yeah, I you know just based on what I saw today um testfully done and uh 296 you know out of 452 is 6.5% conceived by the garage. I think >> okay and I have a motion
doing this f separate from the rest while you would typically do the vote separate didn't seem like there was anybody who was opposing >> make a motion we Second.
>> All in favor? [laughter] >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Luck on the project. neighborhood. >> Yes, he must be having a good.
>> Okay, moving right along. Next matter. Calendar number 407626. Damian 12 drive. investigating.
>> I do B A I hold on a second. So this is a new application. >> Um before before we get started in the substance of the application, you want
to make a statement regarding the circumstances that bring us here tonight? >> Yes. The circumstances are to get a second car garage. >> Wait, wait. Before we talk about the application,
let's talk about procedure. >> So, I noticed that you're not here with your clients. >> Yes. Correct. That's right. Why don't you explain to the board and the public why it is not with your clients? >> All right. Damian and Agnes Pastnac recently suffered the loss of Aggie's
mother and they are now gonna go on a limb here in Poland attending to the services for the burial of her mother. They asked if I can go forward and I inquired as to whether or not I attorney would be acceptable. I've since obtained
it from my client. I'd like to present that to you to see if that is acceptable. So as the board and public are likely aware um if you bring an application for development for this board uh it is
incumbent upon you as the applicant uh to be to be present and the reason for that is so that the board or the public may have questions of the applicant and also there may be an opportunity at some point proceeding whereby the board or
even a member of the made to ask whether a modification could be made to the plan and if the applicant is not there then the professional cannot consult with the applicant to find out if that's acceptable not accept
why etc. Um however given [clears throat] these extenduating circumstances as Mr. I just described. Um, you know, I was contacted the staff was contacted. Um, and I I believe that
providing a limited power of attorney would be appropriate here. And I did ask him to bail and ask him to confirm for the record right now that, you know, should the board or the public have questions if you feel comfortable um responding to those questions.
I do. So, what we're going to do is we're going to mark A1 as the limited power attorney. Okay. So, we have that on the record. Um, and then why don't we get uh Mr. Deo, are you sworn in? Qualified.
>> Okay. Qualified. Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm Thomas Beo. I've been an architect here in town since 1991. Um, I've been licensed to practice all 35 of those years. I remain in good standing with board of architects as a
licensed architect. >> Great. Thank you. We have one variance tonight. Um, we did hand out photographs. I want to confirm that your packets included those photographs. They do. They did. Okay. So, I'm going to refer to an existing photograph
unchanged. This is the residence of Damian. Okay. So what you're referring to um there's two um photos. >> Yeah. Okay. Right. So this is you know we're not going to mark it. It's already
part of the application package. >> Right. >> So effectively they have an existing garage here. That existing garage is only 13 ft wide. I don't know why but it's a two-car garage but it's only 13 ft wide. They park in the driveway. They
now also have a 16-year-old and he's about to begin driving. The idea is to put another garage directly next to the existing garage. And I'm referring to my cover sheet. The existing garage is marked in red, but new garage is marked
in green. >> The not exactly, is it? >> Yes, it is. It's a skew. >> Yes. And the existing garage is 41.6 6 feet from Sinclair Terrace. The opposed new one is 44T.
So it's a little further back in the street. The variance is for the garage door to face the street. That if this garage is parallel with the other garage, they both face the street. And that the
existence of a garage facing the street does not itself allow for this intensification of yet another garage facing the street. So, we are before the board to get approved for the construction of a second twocar garage
based by facing the street facing the street. The lot is 39,378 ft whereas 20,000 square ft is the zone. Significantly oversized. We have no other variances. It's the R4 zone. A lot
of the houses up here have threecar garages. Um, so the two-car garage in addition to the 13 foot wide onecar garage is uh not not the subject of a variance just the front-facing nature of constructing
another garage. >> What why don't you talk about the imperous coverage that is required by having two? >> Sure. The existing lot coverage is 8650
square f feet or 21% of the lot. 35 is the max. We are going to go from 21.9 to 26%. So we're going to go up 4.1%. 5.1%. 4.1% I'm sorry. um or going from 8650 to
10,258 that is entirely the structure and the additional impervious for the turnaround mitigating the front facing nature of the house of the garage. We are planting a series of trees so that the visibility
of the doors themselves while currently you can see a garage the new garage is designed with landscaping to buffer that experience. So there's some improvement there and that goes to the positive element of this whole thing that adding
additional car garages meets elements of our master plan which require that we have off street park in a garage. One car garage is not satisfactory for a family of five and right now they have three cars. Um, and I I I would say that
approval of this new twocar garage is a betterment. Keeps the cars out of the driveway, off the street. That the addition of landscaping to buffer it certainly helps in that regard in terms of shielding it. And that this board has
the ability to grant us this C variance for construction of an additional garage front bas. >> Yeah. Can you speak to the topography of the proposed garages to the street and how much?
>> So the topography is generally flat. There's almost no major topographic transition from the street to the current garage and the same will be true for his new garage. The landscaping we're proposing six foot arborite heavy
laid which in about three to five years produces a fairly significant wall. >> Okay. We're trying to figure out it's where we don't have the red and green. So >> I can enter that as an example. >> The red one is underneath the house. Correct. Yes. >> The existing one.
>> The red is existing >> and the green one >> the the green one is >> green is the proposed new one. Yes. And is it going to be single story or >> single story? >> Single story. Is that That's not a rendering. That's what it fits the existence. >> That's what it looks like today. >> Do you have a rendering of what it'll
look like from the outside? >> Yes, there should be an elevation. Let me Why don't we mark you this color? >> Yeah, we don't have that one. >> A1. A2. Oh, right. A2. Thank you.
>> A2 is um >> is the power of attorney. Oh, so H2 is going to be the colored, >> right? Yes. >> Okay. And that's uh the date of >> the date of this plan is April.
>> April 13, 2026. >> Okay. So, Miss Truit, I'm going to um ask you to turn to page A4. >> Some of our my colleagues did not get that the >> Oh, okay. I'll turn this. I have the elevations and on sheet A4 you will see
the bottom left the construction of a twocar singlestory garage that's further depicted in the rear yard elevation which also ensures that it stays as one a one-story structure with
a roof height not exceeding I have I have the plate height of 10 ft probably another four I'm going to go on the limb saying 14 ft. This is a corner site, right? This >> Well, that's a great question. Um,
is Fairfield Drive on the St. Clair on this property. The difficulty is the only place I can place it is to eliminate the pool and drive in so that it comes in from this side, from the rear side.
Is this an oversized lot? Oversized lot >> oversized by significant amounts. It is 40. It is 39,378 in a zone that requires 20. >> Okay. Any other questions? Any questions from the audience? >> No, that's it. Thank you.
>> All right. Have any thoughts? >> Yeah, Gary. You drive around Sinclair and um Fairfield and you within 10 or 15 houses in any direction.
There's fair number of street facing garages. Um there's also any number of the ones that enter the side of the house. They're clearly visible from the street. So I don't find this to be odd
in the state of all certainly um they should have at least another garage. It' be silly to run it all the way around. We don't run the paper all the way around so that way I think this is very sensible.
>> Any other comments? >> I I agree with that. I was just going to say uh that you described the what an existing garage is inadequate to meet modern cars and as you pointed out no matter where you put that garage unless you take out the pool it's going to be which I would be an excessive act. So I
do >> yeah I have less problem with the fact that it's based and I think you know big particip issues any other comments all right >> I'll make a motion that we approve the
parents >> yes Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, board. >> And we're sorry to hear about this. >> Yes.
>> I'll pass along. >> Okay. >> All right. Next up, >> you get an electronic version of that color. Yeah. Oh, wait. Electronic version means I got to take a picture of it because if I hand it to her, I don't have the
ability make it electronic. >> She takes a picture in the office. >> All right. Uh next up we have calendar number 4093-26 17 road Sharma and Mari come on
Three of you are going to be divine. before testimony and be the truth of the whole reason for Robert S for S for E
H I A U N Retect. >> Uh yesifications register. uh architect registered in 1988 architect 12. >> The license is in good standing.
>> It is testified to four boards and qualify both and you're testifying tonight architecture and plan. >> Yes. We're here for two
night. One is yard set back and the other is front yard. views as the new houseards that are all
I think small square that's the rest of the house be somewhat not going to cover that here. There's a there's some
We require the actual. So required is 60 46.9. At this point here starts 16.
You show the board based on the renderings on clean. Don't don't draw it. So reason for the variance the location of the house was
contributing to the historic register. The house is minor alterations. The upstairs got taller. So this all that total [clears throat] of all that is [sighs] >> [clears throat] >> I'm sorry. What were the dimensions?
>> Yes. >> So, is I'm sorry. I'm just confused. So the potty check making the reard set back worse or better even though it's still not >> it is it is within the rear. >> So it's not
just >> Hello. So question where is this? There's a staircase that goes from the ground to the second story. In one place it says it's in the rear, but then on the second page it says it's in front. So I know it must be difficult because the house is on a interesting angle.
>> Yeah. >> Is it Is it in the front? >> No, no, the staircase. >> The staircase. >> I know that's not part of it. I'm curious where that's >> okay. >> Just to get my bearings. >> This is the front. This is the street >> that's missing.
back. >> Okay. >> So, second question, >> the main entrance to that. >> Okay. Second question. How tall is the fence proposed fence? >> Oh, fence is >> six feet all the way. >> And why
six feet? Talk. So I could say like David went right. So the fence will be not visible from the street at all. Okay. The fence will not visible because
there are already 12 six ft plants are there already. It will be behind them not in front of that. And neighbors have a six fence. So it will match the neighbor. So
currently on the 12ations Can you show us where the fence is going to go? I'm a little confused about this. >> Hold on. Hold on. So, what you're just
showing us that I see in A3 and I and I think I stuck peeking in A4. In my packet, I got an A1 and an A and a A2 that does not look like that A2.
So, sorry. >> All right. Well, hold on a second. You're going to rely on documents that are not for the board. You need to mark them. you're going to reverse it. So,
why don't you go back? Which >> hold on. Okay. >> So far, you know, you you submitted to the board was submitted to the board A1 and A2. Um David your revision date last
revision date of February 17 2026 right you have additional exhibits you want to show >> okay so why don't we mark this as A1 and it looks like some form of landscaping >> okayist
And what's the date on that existing landscape plan? >> 9:30 that is 81. So why don't you try that? >> It's gives you the best view. Does is the fence depicted on that A1?
>> Yeah, >> but I it's not installed here on board as well that'll be replaced by all the rest of The new fence has been replaced section
and all the way to the front of back street. Is that from from the cart way or from the right? [snorts] Uh the gate will be in the front yard as well. >> Yes.
>> And just a question. Why does the gate need to be the pretty much the perimeter of the property? >> I will answer this question. >> Yes. >> So if you will see our property, it is not like any normal property on the street. It's all the way house is all
the way in the back and our front yard is basically our backyard. So it's covered by all the neighbors and it has a high pitch flow. So it's a safety hazard for my kids. Currently whenever they are outside the park are inter so
that when they are cycling or playing they not rush out otherwise they can just if they are cycling and they go a little higher they would not stop cars are good and David has he can for that
Um, I have a Okay, that was a two. What is it? It's a louder and clearer. >> What is it? It's a precedent study of
fences. President study of fences. >> Okay. So, this is this is about this is a series of nine photos. And you took these photos.
>> Nine photos. And >> Tom, do you have a like a a 2 by3 photo board of this or no? >> No. >> Okay. >> And what's the purpose? The Frank defense president.
Okay. A photo board of nine photos is intended to show what? So there are three conditions that seem to be that seem to justify the fence in this
area between Steuart Min and her [clears throat] [snorts] all of them are on roads that are they don't have open grassy uses neighborhood or they're dense forested
sort of areas. There's a lot of vegetation both sides of the street that hide the fence and the other is some of them are going to homes where you've got a complicated path to the house
so stone dust that needs some protection. And then the last one is the house a large distance
over. So those three things apply to the top three question character of the road with all the vegetation each direction
going up to a house. Middle right middle and right. It's a view looking forest at the house >> which you can't see the house in. And the other two were other cases that
had civic problems. And they're the two lower in the middle column, the lowest in the middle. And those fences are Stewart.
Actually, both Stewart right in the neighborhood. And then right at the end of mening is the lower right one which is just a very long shot and the lower right is the just shows
the vegetation density. So what we're saying is there is a prohibition against your fences. There are a good number of reasonably built
fences. They don't affect the neighborhood but not intrusive. They don't feel like they're blocking things up because what you see is vegetation not the fence. But they keep so many they keep people
from driving up very long driveways entrance to the house and they take kids out keep questionally are you defining a gate as fence you're
using the same term because the lower right one I can't tell if there is the fence. It's just hard to see. It doesn't I don't see one, but >> I only see pillars. >> Yeah. >> And then in the very center one, I I definitely see a gate. I just can't tell if there's I'm just trying to understand.
>> So, I only took pictures of gates that However, that one gate had um the requisite attachment fence just so
it's It's almost there. >> And that's it. Right at the end, >> the two bottom left, the bottom left corner and the bottom center. >> You're telling us that there are fences behind those? >> Yes. >> Those bushes, but we can't see
>> the the left one. >> So, you're testifying that there there are fences behind. >> Not the bottom left, but bottom center. >> The bottom left has a bunch of fences. as a bunch of fences where
the short view [snorts] the bush is closest to the road on the right. >> This was supposed to be a large board. >> Sorry. Sorry to ask so many questions about the fence, but I am concerned about the fence. The children don't play
on that slope, correct? The forested slope. They play back here mostly in back of the house. >> Well, there's a playground in the upper portion, but they ride, >> right? But they're not playing down by Minnesota. >> They're riding bikes down. >> They're riding bikes down the road. But
it's >> on the road. >> On the road. So like it's a driveway which is long and it comes >> they sometimes they hit the soccer you play soccer and bicycle most of the time they come very fast they come so fast
that >> anything can happen like I was David has seen today he went there so he knows what kind of a structure but very very dangerous once my kid almost came under >> so my question is why couldn't you put
the fence further up the hill and contain the children actually sacred. >> That doesn't make sense at all. >> Why? >> Oh, because uh if you go my house, you see in the front there are like see first is in in the neighborhood there
are gates already there are property I can give you the address where already there are gates like >> but we're just talking about your property. >> Yes. And the second thing is on the back it doesn't make sense because you are saying that the half of the whole property will be totally out
away >> but it would be how would be substantially back from >> it will be totally 100 ft up and it doesn't make sense there >> but how far off is the proposed fence from >> oh it will be minimum I think 15t >> do you know how many feet back from
minos feet per minute. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And and why 6 ft and not 4 feet in front? It just uh see four 4T 6 ft it doesn't matter
because it will not be visible at all from the street. It doesn't you put a fence it is not visible even a single range of the and neighborhood has 6 ft. So it is just matching the same style, same color.
That is the reason >> one of the one of the reasons it's because this house ends up block. >> In the middle of what? >> In the middle of the block. The house
here, the house here. By the time you get up here, you're in everybody's there. Five. >> Yeah. And closing that off the street is that
and they are magic gives you protection from people. >> I think the fences are the pools are required. >> Okay. Any other questions?
One thing I want to just add that the fence will not be visible at all. >> It's very dense the and it's already there. It's not that we have to plant something. It's already there >> and the heat we are looking for mainly
for our safety of my son >> and it's there in the neighborhood. That's what I >> so The um rear set back typical variance
because of the existing structure fact that it's tributing house also makes it harder. So that's that's a option fence for safety reasons.
When you mention coexisting fence, that means neighbors fence. >> Yeah. So the neighbors have start right here. So magic. So gates far enough around the roads.
your testimony that the neighbors on both sides have joined this. >> Any other questions? >> So the neighbors fences did they come down to Minique Road? They come are they 12 feet from
>> No, they're savage. >> They're what? >> They're Why don't you show them a bigger survey? program this start. >> So the neighbors is how far back from >> it's up to you.
This is the whole >> what is the labor set back from this? How close does it come to the question? >> Right. >> That's what I sides >> 12.
>> It's 121 ft back in the right side. What about on the other side? on the other side. It's it goes this side. >> This is a high wall. >> You're talking about this going along the side of the property. You're talking
about what's on this >> side. I think we're asking about >> the question is how far back >> you got. You want to put a fence along the road on men about 12 ft back. Right. Your neighbors have similar faces of
fences near Minink that run along the road. >> They don't surprise. There's no fence along Minnesota. that you're aware that >> notes.
>> Okay. Any other questions on the board? Okay. Uh any questions? Questions only from the audience. >> Okay. Any comments? >> The questions could be for the architect or >> England
is this house still like after all this this will be the smallest house in the neighborhood to add can I go back to something why does the fence in the front six
If 4T is not a problem, it's just to match the if you will around our house. Yeah. So that just to match it if you say that in the side and in the front I don't see a problem but it's just that
just to match the structure looks good. If you are looking at that the entire house looks like if you look into the entire house looks like that you are running on materials and there is a mismatch because of historical people
are already having it just >> but you can't see that road any >> we are seeing it understand you're seeing it from the road you wouldn't see whe >> okay uh Done. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, let's close the public portion. What are people saying? [snorts] >> All right. I'll go first. >> You are. [laughter] >> You're looking at me. >> You don't have to. I know. You usually like to go first. >> So, thank you for your testimony. Um I I can see the hardship with the adding one
to the addition that you want. You are very far back on the property. So, I'd be okay without the fence. I am um unfortunately would not be approving. I I feel like it's uh it's definitely too big of an ask to go all the way out to men. it would be very visible even with even the slope. It would be in front of
the slope and only 12 feet back, especially in consideration there's no other houses on any road drove by today. Um and um I I would and it but it wouldn't have to be six feet tall. Four feet is actually really good when they're front facing. So for me that fence there's no pool. I can understand
you want to contain the children and there is there is um a concern for that but it hasn't you haven't proven to be the reason that you fence all the way around the six >> no we're done we're done >> anybody else
>> I I I have no issues with I mean this topography of the property [snorts] basically dictating the buildings you know where it is >> um and so And there's the there's there's plenty of scope for whatever
they're doing to the building. I don't really have an issue with the bottom ch. It's just it's not going to get in the way of anything. Uh if the fence is just a match size, I don't know why it has to be six.
Four, I'd be support. >> Yeah. Well, yes, but 12t back puts it behind a lot of vegetation. Yeah, >> you would be >> so I'm as it stands it be I would be against the fence as it stands. I would
be I would be okay for a bit or >> all the way around. >> Well, the other side most of this has already got a six foot fence from the other side. >> So the so the fourth would be in the front parallel. >> Yeah. Um, I mean the stuff on the left
side of the property as you face the house, it's neither here nor there to be because of the wall. >> Yeah. >> You know, you're putting a fence up against the wall or a couple feet away from the wall. It's correct. Doesn't
it's it's purely aesthetic to me. That's >> and and they're the only ones with that aesthetic because obviously people on top of the wall aren't looking at. >> All right. Any other comments? >> My concern is even the fence is only
four feet tall, the gate will still be >> the gate will still be as far as I know. The gate is >> the gate's not permitted. Still a fence. >> Yeah. Still a fence. Not permitted. If you see a gate, you assume there's a
fence along >> that's test, you know, falls coming down the driveway, children coming down. So gate potentially that >> foot gate having it all across the whole
front where it's not. It's not proper left and right problematic. Any other comments? >> So, um, sounds like no one's really
opposed to the request for the rear yard setback. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that people have varying views with regard to this front. So when we make your motion, if anyone
decides to make motion, just be clear as to what you are proposing be approved by the board with four. Yeah. So I'm saying if you're if you're
feeling that four feet is okay we are comfortable with four feet you know we don't because it's not visible we are okay >> right but I think some members have an issue with foot being a long >> right along >> right so that's what so we understand
and I think the testimony was clarified before the board deliberated that the applicant would be amenable to a 4ft fence in the front along Right. There still may be issues
as expressed by time for somebody else to motion. >> Do you want to split the two? >> Sure. You absolutely can do that. >> Um, so >> we vote on the fence. >> Well, no, no, no, no. What you'll do is
you're going to vote on the rear yard setback, >> right? >> Yeah. So let's first vote on the rear yard set. So I want to make a motion on the rear yard. Second >> that's
okay. So you've heard the feedback. Um, [snorts] if you can audience to think about I look somebody somebody can make a motion
to approve deny or or make a motion. I approve the feds provided blank whatever is is can do that. >> Yeah, at least I'm looking for >> No, hold on. Hold on a second. portion
is closed. Okay. >> Go ahead. >> I would be worried to do that because I wouldn't if they didn't have it in the front, I don't know where it would end up. >> So, I couldn't visualize where it would be. So, other than what's presented to us tonight, which is a fence 12 feet
off, which is like the neighbor that is all >> which is which is four feet. >> Right. Yeah. Right. So, but I can't even propose something. Okay. Someone should make a motion haircut.
>> Back here. Yeah, that was >> I think you want to talk to your clients for two minutes. No, guys. You talk No fence in the front.
>> No fence in the front. >> Okay. So, >> so, >> so the sign and we'll go to 4T already. So, there is no point asking us to put forth. in the side because there is
already a hole >> and that runs around. >> So >> will it be will there be a gate >> gate? Because I explained it's a safety and we are looking.
>> So let's go back. Um Eileen, >> this is an this the variance that was requested, >> okay, [snorts] was due to having a fence in the front yard, prohibited front yard fence.
>> Okay. And so the the applicant is still proposing a fence along a portion of the front yard, correct? >> No. Okay. So, the only thing you're asking
for then is a variance for the gate with pillars on either side. >> Correct. >> That's not side is not the >> right. That's correct.
>> This is Okay. So, the only So, the only variance request you're asking on the board is for a 4ft fence along the sides of of the lot. Okay.
within um within the front yard, right? The defined front yard. But what is the minimum distance that the fence will be on either side from the right? We have
that. Yes. Uh the average established setback >> 82 ft. No closer than 82 ft to the right of >> you point on there where the right of way would be.
>> Right away is this line is Okay. So, >> which is the average on the street >> houses way back. >> So, that dotted line that is labeled >> got a label.
>> So, that's the the modified ask of the applicants. >> Yes. >> And and the and that the height of the fence along the sides would be four feet. >> Six feet, >> right? >> Six feet. the side in the side. Yeah, because this is the side next to the
wall which is already kind of >> what about on on the other on the eastern side >> this side we don't need >> this we don't need anything this time >> there is a pool and there is a pool house they have to have the running all the way up to
>> so the only relief you're ask is to have a sixoot fence along the western side of your lot within in the front yard but will not be closer than 82 ft of the
way. Is that fair in terms of the description of what the request is currently? >> Does the board understand? >> No, I'm not completely clear. >> So the so the front yard will be six feet or four.
So there there there will be no fence at all parallel to this number. >> Number two, there will be no fence along the eastern plot line. Okay. >> I mean no fence.
>> I don't think that's what he said though. What do you just said? [clears throat] >> On the on the on the western lot line, they are requesting a six foot fence, but that sixoot fence will not be any closer than 82 feet to the right of way.
The only other relief they're asking that line all the way back. The only other relief they're asking for in connection with this application is to have a gate in the in the front yard surrounded by
>> how tall is the front? >> Six feet. >> Just like our neighborhood position. >> Yeah. And how close is the your gate to the
>> int? [snorts] No, this this is 12t. This is >> going to be 12. The right side. >> Yes. >> So you want 24. >> All right. Sorry. Sorry. So, there's nothing on
this line then. You're not putting any fence in the front yard at all. >> Just a gate over the driveway. Yes. >> Why wouldn't the gate also be back? >> Because in our neighborhood, we have gates just like that. That's why we want
>> because you can't really turn around. >> It's a narrow drive. >> If I would put my You can't turn around. >> You'd have to go. You have to if you went up to the house. >> If you went up to the house, you could turn a car. >> Yeah. Right. >> But if you got a gate can't get to
>> Oh, they want to prevent people from turning around in the driveway ever. >> Want to prevent people they don't expect from driving all the way. So just >> yeah this is so narrow that you have
just one car space to go up this if you are asking me to put a fence here or a gate here that is not possible because it will make it so narrow that I cannot take my car >> looks like their proposal is to have it 12 ft off this
that's a sixoot gate with sixoot gate with the pillars plus the fence on the side of the back from [clears throat] right away. So, can we have a motion on that proposal?
I'll make a motion that we approve variance for the six foot gate pillars at a position as drawn on the on the survey and a sideyard fence on the west side that comes all comes from the
backyard down to 82 feet from the right >> second. >> Yes. >> Truer. >> No. >> Who are you? No >> Roberts. >> Yes. >> Steve Cohen. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Next up, Maxel 39746. Never see you every morning. That's why my face is helpless. >> I was told it must
>> have my wife. That's too [clears throat] >> l Okay. So we are at 397 Milbour which is the heart and the apartment complex was built to have canopies only above the
two commercial spaces in the front. Canopy signage is not allowed at Milber. When [clears throat] the building was submitted for some reason there was never feedback given to them that they wouldn't be able to use that for original signage. We have no other options. So we're just asking to be able
to put our sign on the canopy. I know there was a similar case with Willis recently. It's a similar situation. We can't find a buildable building and there's nowhere else for signing. >> Yes. >> Yes. So I am the uh renter of the space
at 30 397 Milton Sweet A. There's another tenant moving to sweet B. Uh and the landlord could tell you just literally go to road management from another company. Um
so the newest one is row management. >> So what what is role management? Is that is that just a property manager? >> It is not. It is a my understanding is they are a real estate development company that owns a number of properties throughout
and other places including Florida. But they're not correct. >> That's correct. That's what I was trying to say because literally four days ago that changed. So I had no knowledge of it at the time we submitted this. Um the And I should make clear Mark Jagger who
was part of the triumphant that owned the building is out but one of the partners is still in. So it's not as if this is brand new. They've just reduced the number of people and now his company is taking over. It's a um but basically that's what happened and
that happened in the last I think it happened at the beginning of July. We had already submitted all of this paperwork it with the owner the way it was but this owner that's there now was also an owner prior. So he hasn't changed. We've just removed it.
>> Okay. So what's when you say you're the renter? >> Yeah. You say you're the renter of space. Yeah. You're the proposed tenant for Pilates Addiction. >> I am a tenant. We're in the space and we've been open for about since May
1stish. Uh and we've just not had a sign up because we had to go through the varian process. So, we applied for a permit. We were denied because can't have a sign on. >> What is the size? I have to tell you that is in here. The
size of the sign here I am playing drift is 12 7 the whole canopy is 196 and a quart >> I can be very specific. It's in this
drawing which is in your booklet 5.1 exterior sign. >> Right. So, so that's the um 20 and 38, right? >> Yes. I was showing I was another image, but just in case you want it shows the exact positioning of the sign on the
entire panel. >> M asked a question. >> I was asking a question on that drawing this image right here and that's the canopy and this is the height. So it's
>> it's >> that also >> well the problem is that what you just showed me >> doesn't have the sign >> oh sorry go ahead >> and then the image that shows the sign
that >> that is correct >> so what we're trying to ascertain is in the response to this datab you just try to describe the dimensions of the center. So the sign in terms of
width is 19 by 196. Sorry I lied. 127 long. Let's just say long and high it is 47. >> You say I'm giving you the footage. Yeah.
>> When you say 12. I'm looking right now. Okay. on um one of your >> Yeah. the other part picture, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And right >> I'm seeing in terms of the length
>> in terms of the wall in >> I'm seeing 56 and 3/4 in 758 in the bottom >> 14 right. So 159 20. >> Okay. >> And so that that corresponds to 12 in.
>> Correct. >> And then the height >> is is at max 20 and 38 in at the max. That's what a part of it. >> The rest.
>> Well, so that's 20 and 38 in. one point whatever correct >> correct >> before we even go this so of course I've been searching everything
>> okay so the ordinance which I explained says commercial space shall comply with requirement for district which doesn't permit this style.
So then I went back to the second the beehive came back to us. Um there were a number of amendments that make amendments approval that were being sought um the addition because they
moved the move the entrance over so it made square. So if you're asking for the addition of a third retail sign measuring 10 ft by one and a half ft 15 square foot all it says
is identical to the two signs previously approved. >> I don't know I don't know what they were >> that wasn't on the first resolution. >> There's nothing that it may have been and that's why I've been looking for that. So that's why I asked what the size was because
>> seems like the size dictated by that >> and potentially by the size of the copy itself >> because the budget that can are different sizes. So >> it's hard to figure out how you I would
similarly retail space design >> um Avenue or the signs are designed in the same fashion as the residential sign which is I guess the heart >> which is on the corn
>> correct. Do you know what the height of >> the hearth is different? They are individual letters. So they're not on a race. >> I understand. >> Yeah. And I don't know the height of each of those because I did I can of course ask the same
>> they are actually my my guess is taller to be honest. >> They are much taller looking to me. They are actually it says 10 by 18 10 people by 18 in high >> total area of approximately 15 >> and that's on the heart you're talking
>> those are the retail signs. >> So there are no retail signs on the >> that's what was approved. >> No but the planning board said there are going to be retail signs and these are not they can be >> not on the canopy. >> Yeah. No one has ever told
>> you. Sorry. Good. >> Okay, that's news to me. I have never been informed. When we went to the town, not to your went to the visit, the the landlord went to the business business administration committee and said, "Why
weren't we informed of this when we built the building said that because we're having enough time hard time selling the space? Why were we not told there would be a sign on the academy?" No one ever came back to him because it was either on that email thread and said, "It can be, but it has to look like this." I actually this is the first
time I've heard that. Yeah, I just read it this afternoon. >> Yeah. Yeah. He reduced it in size. >> So 15. >> So if he if he reduces it to a size that was previously approved by the plan,
>> it doesn't need a barrier. I guess >> you got a back preapproved barrier from prior. Yeah. So that's I just don't know >> because I >> and I don't have are those measurements
significantly different than mine. I'm just curious because I don't actually know >> when you did square footage you lost on terms of laying this out in my head with length and width and height actually just length and height literally width
>> ignoring your P. ignoring the >> SoT by you're 12 by >> 10 and a half. >> So we are 127 by 127 by >> So the issue is squeezing the feet.
>> Yeah, right. We're similar size actually similar in size. >> You're two and a half. group >> on the commercial spaces. >> Correct. That's what you said. 10 by
>> 18. So, we are 15. >> Okay. So, we're at 12T 7 by >> So, it's bigger. >> It's a little bit bigger. Yeah, it is a little bit bigger. >> I could probably shrink it that size.
Was the was the size >> for which variance relief was potentially required was that noticed? >> There wasn't a size notice because I don't have parameters for all I have
is guidelines for wall signs and um ground. >> Okay. >> So I didn't have anything to measure. >> Right. Right. >> So there was no that's why and then wasn't until this was So you know he wants to shrink it. >> I mean the sign is not significantly
different. It feels appropriate for the size of the >> same we want to get a variance from what >> material you >> first of all decide whether you want to go with size sign that was apparently approved
>> by the plan. Yeah, >> you are then you would get sign off by the new owner and you would apply for a permit based on that cited to cited to the planning board's resolution. >> Yeah. >> If you want to
seek a variance >> well essentially >> it's really a new variance, right? and and I'm concerned that because it's no one's fault, was it noticed for it and it doesn't provide the public an opportunity to assess whether they want to come in or not, right? Um, I think
you would have to you'd have to get new data and I am a little concerned about the fact that it's an oddball that because the owner changed one of the prerequisites of the ordinance is that you demonstrate that the owner has provided consent >> for this applicant to
>> so I do I do have that because I have he is one of the owners the owner that ended up with it is the same >> the entity is different the >> correct So >> I hear you. >> So you want to talk to uh
>> No, I my ask a couple of questions just to understand. >> So it is we are a business up and running. It's it's a little difficult. No way to find us, right? So it is a challenge. Um the signage in shrinking
it is 10 and a half inches high right now except for the PA and I believe that's in the scope of what you share on height. Am I right about that? It is right. So without the PA we don't we don't
>> you don't need anything. >> It's just about length. >> Yeah. You got to squeeze. So the question is, are you okay if we try if we ignore the height and go with the length that we laid out here? It looks I'm not >> Well, no, I'm saying it's not at this
point or >> it's a real bummer because legal is I know you didn't know I [clears throat] so I'm not upset with you. It's just a bummer. There was no one in any constant anywhere in town told me this had been decided that I could have solved this
months ago and I've known him now for three months and it's tough enough business you want to um >> I'm get this what I suggest. Why don't you get another date? >> Y
>> right on the books. >> And then you can decide how you want to play it. >> Y >> because you could always just say we don't need the date >> when you're done. >> Um and this way you'll have it as a placeholder. And then >> and I one more question too and just as
a business person I've never been a local business person. I've always been a corporate American so this is really new to me. It was a fortune from a small business just to come here and do this. Right. By the time I mailed registered receipts to 60 people that we're now talking about doing again if I think the
sign is right and paying for the permit fee which was $1,500 the whole thing cost me nearly $3,000 to find out if I could have a sign right on a commercial business in town feels ex exorbitant to ask me to now resubmit all of that
funding and go through that process to avoid shrinking it 8 in right I mean it just it feels like a lot to ask from a small business owner's perspective and I now have that perspective first time in my life. So >> can this board
have any say whatsoever? >> Well, yeah. Well, that's not entirely true. I assume you could say you could we can continue with part of the same process and you don't have to go through and re fill out a variance form and then pay for the fees. >> I won't. Okay.
>> Right. We are we are carrying it. >> Yeah. >> We're carrying your application. That's why we're going to get another date. >> Okay. Right. We're doing that. But in terms of >> Yeah, I understand. Now whether we can get this >> No,
>> we can't do that. >> No, because the the the application for the variance hasn't been my mind properly presented. >> Not because of you or us. >> No, just not technically not the right way. Yeah, >> because of the owner. I'm just confused where you're at.
>> Owner and if it was just the owner and maybe find a workaround admittedly to help you out even though it's a little bit of an oddball, right? Be comfortable figuring that out somehow. But the fact that you need variance relief that has not been
publicly requested. >> Um that's what >> I'm gonna ask you one more question. Sorry to be a nuisance, but the variance relief I asked of the 60 people I sent to register for C2 was more of an ask.
>> So I can't imagine why I send to everybody again to say we're making it smaller. >> I don't have to. You're >> both I understand. But but there the notice maybe just show me what let's just look
at it right now canopy sign up. >> Yeah. See that's all it said was the canopy sign up meaning that oh you're not allowed to have a canopy sign in that zone >> but it's it's beyond that talking about the size >> and that's why if you decide to go that
way >> yeah you need to >> re notice. >> Yes. >> And I think I have a question for you Mr. Simon. Does the P matter in the sizing? Does he have to make everything smaller >> to comply with the variance? The maximum
of the big P would have to be okay. >> Yeah, I mean it's part of the logo. So it's it's important to get that and what you I mean you can of course work with you know to the point of being you know user friendly. Yeah. >> Right.
contact Eileen certainly separately to sort out what they do and don't need to do get the exact measurements to ask what >> my guess is that there will be an architectural workound >> probably not for the PA but probably for the rest of it I have to sort that out
>> okay >> another question for you Mr. Simon is lighting part of this. >> So lighting to my understanding was within the way it's lit and then we lit was within approved. >> Okay. >> The zoning approved existing zoning in town. We lit it that way on purp.
But I did work on that part. >> Um >> this won't take >> I I first of all I think we can come back to the sign. >> All right. So if I do that I don't right. >> Okay, let me work I'll work that out first. I'll call the architect
in Ohio, right? Get a place in Ohio in case it doesn't work. You want to have a date? >> Yeah, I I mean I just don't think this is going to take very long. So I don't know how.
>> Yeah, more than 17 or so. It's enough time for me to get registered letters and to get >> I think you're ask Okay. So, what is the date after this
>> that I could put you on? September 14th. >> September 14th. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. So, thank you. I'll sort it out. I'll just reach out to you when I have a second. >> Okay. Thank you all. >> Sorry. That's okay.
>> All right. Next up, calendar number 40, 95-26, Oiler Wall, 194 Long Drive. Yeah, look, I I'm a little bit concerned about time. So, I'm wondering I mean, is there is
there a possibility of doing a special review that >> here? Uh, I'd have to check with the library. >> Okay. >> I just don't want people sitting here and then the janitor comes in and they got to close, >> you know.
>> Well, and there's a lot of people on the audience or whatever I want to have is that you don't want to rush the process. want to give everybody their opportunity say what they want to say the applicant present the case and not they wouldn't
get started well yeah testimony but I I think it's this obviously very important matter I don't want change so
the only thing I September I think Labor Day. So we have to be a long day. >> Okay. >> But I'll we'll have to carry it to the date >> until I find out when we can carry it to the second
>> just for scheduling purpos when we could make the special meeting. >> Right. And what's first is the applicants council here. So upon the hearing guest speaking the audience and all that
the two things I'm I'm concerned about in terms of what's being discussed is if you go to a day other than a Monday I think you may want to risk because you're asking for a D2 variance the alternative in terms of making sure that
we have seven voting members and then you change the dates sometimes because of scheduling that can be difficult. And also I'm bringing Palm up or getting that I sign to come up because I want to make sure that um when we find a date we
find a date that his professionals also available right you you have professionals on this >> so um yeah we we have our uh engineer who's also provided planning test the last supplemental planning test based on I guess procedurally how the board
follows through based on our request letter. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> So, just just the one professional anticipated. We have our architect here just in case. That's helpful. >> Right. So, oh, I think we're probably
not able to assign a date certain tonight. >> Right. because I have checked >> store won't be a problem on Monday because we meet on Thursday. >> No, we meet on a different >> Yeah, we Well, we only meet once a month though. So, but it's once a month on Thursday.
>> Um, so I just have to find out >> Yeah. If there's a paper, >> right? insurance figure out we're going to go back to church for scheduling purposes only and
then ascertain at that point >> correct. So um so the public is aware um the applicant as you may know um notice provided new notice which I reviewed for this meeting tonight. So what the board
is contemplating is carrying the meeting regarding tennis club to what is it August what >> August 3rd >> August 3rd for scheduling purposes only. So what would happen is that between now
and August 3rd, the board would ascertain um what date the matter would be carried to and make sure that we would have the number of eligible voters for that and then make an announcement at the August 3rd meeting what that new
date will be. So you wouldn't be required to be prepared to testify for lack of a meeting. No experts need to be uh shown more but just for purposely a very fair question asking It's a question to be asked. You know, we have
a whole set of other matters now. We moved a bunch of things into the third and I just think this we could do a special meeting and I realize that's not easy to do, but I think given the importance of this want to give everybody time to testify and have a
full robust discussion with the board the attention it deserves, I think we should not try to jam it into another meeting unless we have to. But could But either event providing a new date on A on August 3rd will also
prevent the public give the public ample opportunity to schedule. >> We're adjourning. So, so this ma it's August 3rd, I'm sorry. >> Yes. So this matter of the matter that
is the little tennis little club tennis center calendar 4074-26 60 Lynen Street will be carried to August 3rd 2026
um at 7 o'clock at this location 200 Glenn Avenue Melbourne Public Library. Um but that will be for scheduling purposes only and on that date um what will be announced is the hopefully the
actual hearing date time and location for that continuation. You swear testimony. P I Y U S H X T O Y. >> Okay. >> My name is
194. We moved into the house in 2015. We love our house and when we moved the house was pretty spacious for us but then hit so we started working from home with us first
and our family situations have changed recently. So we have also been moving along with us. So we have five bedroom. We're using right now as an office which will be needed more as bedroom.
So that's more space. So sorry you have five, >> one of which is being >> as good. >> Uh yes, I'm a licensed architect in the
state of New Jersey since 2007. Licensed license holders before this board. >> I have this multiple times. >> Uh so the property in question is 194
long drive. Uh it's located in the R polar zone. Uh the house stands currently uh was constructed in uh in 2007. Uh in uh the property uh it was uh
required by lot area 20,000 square ft. Uh it's minimally undersized uh about 6 or 7 square ft uh 19,994 square ft uh for this. But while undersized, not anything significant.
The uh proposed work uh is a office and sun room edition uh at the first floor uh in the form of our singlestory edition. Then a step back portion at the second story uh which is a [clears throat] uh small projection to
enlarge a current bedroom and bathroom that is on the second floor. Uh the uh the variance requested is for uh overall maximum building coverage. The existing building coverage is 13.63%.
The proposals is 15.54%. And the allowable for the zone 14%. Uh the uh current building coverage stands is 2725 square ft. Only allowable is 279.
Uh so the ability to add anything to the footprint of the house to move to uh 74 square feet before it triggers the [clears throat] uh the uh increase uh that we're thrown here
increase and the uh the proposed 15.54% uh is uh would result in 3,170 overall space. Uh, >> sorry. Once again, what's allowed? 77 is what you're looking for. What's
allowed? >> The allowable at 14% is 2,799 square ft. >> And that's building coverage. That is building coverage. Uh, so we specifically um looked at all the
various aspects of uh all the other constraints and requirements. uh we do conform uh with all your requirements including F uh and impervious coverage. Uh we're actually a fair amount under the impervious coverage. The proposed addition uh in the rear of the house was
designed uh in the place taking the place of existing patio. So the increase of impervious coverage proposed is only8%. So the patio assuming the project completed the patio will be kind of that L shape
>> uh the patio. >> Yeah, that is correct. The >> Oh, thank you. Uh >> upside down. >> Yes, this is the existing that is the existing patio. [clears throat] >> We're building out onto that patio. The
proposed new patio is that very small sliver to the left basically to bring it to the side of the addition. So the doors exiting out to that patio go to that space. Uh the so the you can see in the site plan uh
in the uh proposed the red shaped area being the proposed onetory addition that's being proposed which is uh the required amount of space uh for the first floor that is uh is what's noted for the building coverage. Uh and then up above you can see on the
site plan there's a dashed line um kind of in relief on there and that is the proposed outline of the second sto uh and so in terms of of thoughts and giving an eye towards massing and and visual mass of the house and what's
visible of this uh with the increased building coverage. Uh it is not a twotory addition fully rising up. That second story is just pulled a few feet forward to expand the bedrooms. Uh and it also serves to keep us within conformance with the uh the allowable
FA. Uh so looking at G2, the first floor plan, uh the existing one that was constructed in 2007. Um it's a bit of an awkward layout in terms of the the usable living space in
relation to where the rooms were located updated. Uh and so as as my client stated in the beginning um part of this is that the family member moving into that fifth bedroom to utilize that fifth bedroom on
a permanent basis uh they are need of an office space. And so originally we looked at a proposal for uh creating that office space which again 11 11 foot by 12 and a half foot office even at that size would require a building coverage variance based on you know
where the house or property is currently at. Um the issue that was encountered and what we initially tried to do is determine if we could add that office and then another small amount of space to then utilize the existing family room space and not ask for as much building
coverage. um beyond what's there. The issue is the placement of the existing family room and the configuration of the existing kitchen is that there is a 3 and 1/2 ft wide opening uh and that is the only connection from this main living area
and kitchen into that family room. And that opening based on how the the family room is extended beyond the house and [clears throat] where the rest of the counter and usable workable space of the kitchen are. there is no feasible way to expand that opening to open up the space
and make that existing family room in any way connected to the main living area of the house kitchen. Um and hence that's what drove us to take over some of the space um that's there and cut back a little bit of the cabinetry area
uh and then supposed to come 8' 8 in off of that existing kitchen wall and then utilize pre-existing space and that funny L-shape of the house uh to become floor area within the house. uh and that is the proposed sun room space uh which the total interior size of that space is
14 and a half feet by 17 and a half ft as a room size. Uh and so that is what drove the the shape and and the proposal for this specific size or ask of uh variance for building coverage. Um we attempted to
start with with creating something smaller with less building coverage. Um but based on the configuration uh there was no feasible way to do that and and limit that size. Uh and so to create a usable room that will bring natural light and be usable as part of the over overall open living space at the center
of the house. Uh this this was the the most feasible way to approach that. Can you articulate why why the sun is further depth than the like why why you didn't that >> why not come across
>> uh for for two reasons. Um one is the resulting size of space at that width um would free a space that's 17 1/2 ft wide by only 11 ft. >> Is it openvented or >> uh yes this wall is proposed to be
removed. So there's a current eating area here. This is the edge of the island and then this is the existing kitchen cabinetry. This is kind of the the working area of the kitchen. >> Great. So it wouldn't be like closed off or closer, >> right? But the usable space in terms of
placement of furniture or anything else within the space only be about 11 ft depth. Um which and from an exterior perspective um and we'll look at the the exterior elevation in a minute. the creating kind of a large shed roof for just a large flat face across the back
uh was not attractive um in terms of creating an addition that blended seamlessly with the house and and kind of followed the the roof lines and the other elements. And I'll I'll show the second floor and
then I'll go to that elevation so I can uh so you see the proposed uh the existing wall is along the back of the house and the proposed work that second story. Uh it's just an extension to that rather small bedroom which is currently being used. It's the office as well as a
a small Jack and Angel bath that is there currently and 3 ft to that. So make it more usable for two regular size rooms within the space. Uh and then you can see below here that this story additions that were very beloved.
Uh and so she A4 is the proposed elevation uh at the uh the rear and side of the house. uh all of this being the uh singlestory space and that we're projecting outward that small amount of projection for the bedroom. Uh and then
the uh and then the bathroom space. Uh this area to the right is the office area. Uh and then this area here is that proposed uh sun room and open living area that is adjacent to the existing kitchen and breakfast space.
uh from the side of the house uh you get a clearer picture uh looking at the left side elevation uh where the second story comes out just a few feet and the other first story projects a bit more u but the uh in the the layout of what's here
and going back to the site plan again keeping an eye towards the massing and what's visible from anywhere else um placing it in the center of the rear and conforming with all of the other uh requirements and setbacks uh from from the right side of the property based on
where the existing family room projection is. Uh project is is essentially existing. Uh from the left side, while there's a number of trees and it is set in far aways, it does not project out as far as the current family space. So
viewing from that side, you're still seeing building to the same dimension. Um there's really no change in terms of the perception. And from the rear uh the uh proposed roof lines and shapes and massing windows that uh that are on the addition uh improve the character and
look at the back of the house. >> So what is behind the house? Is there landscaping that between the houses behind you? >> There are the trees of landscaping. >> Yes. We have probably 2.3 acres of land
between us and the >> three acres 2. Oh, there's some >> acres that >> that's actually a lot of trees and woods there. So, >> okay. >> So, is the back of the house visible from the house behind you or
>> So, there are lots of trees in winter. Yes. And there are no leaves. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Are you finished your testimony? I don't want to interrupt your flow. So, just humor me. If um if we were to go
straight across where the sun room, the proposed sun room is, would that subtract your billing coverage variance at all to lose to lose that? >> Anything that would be removed from the footprint would remove from the >> So, would you So, just wondering, would you need a variance if you pulled that
back? Yes, the allowable based on the current square footage of the house, there is 74 square feet of allowable building coverage remaining before a variance is triggered. >> And so even that office at 11 by 12 far exceeds the number and automatically
triggers that back. >> So you still need a variance even if you didn't just correct less than >> that is correct >> because it's a modest variance. It is >> uh just that based on the you know the
the proposed uh the proposed work and appearance of the addition uh and and the the function and use of that space uh for enlarging uh the living space kind of bringing it up to you know more current living standards uh than than what you would see in terms of 20 years
ago in terms of segmented rooms kind of more open living areas for the family which tends to center around the kitchen space. um we're dealing with a a preset location and and area of the kitchen and trying to work best around that area
while still minimizing the overall impact to anything site. Uh so based on that, would you feel that the the benefits of what proposed for the project far outweigh any? >> Sorry, one more question. Is this going from a fivebedroom house to a sixbedroom house? It's not >> it's currently five and it is staying
five. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One is currently used as an office. >> Hence need to use that bedroom is the office. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board?
[clears throat] >> Uh I don't see anybody in the audience. [laughter] >> Any questions? None. They're all gone. >> No. Okay. Um, guess we will close public portion of
the meeting and like to offer their views. >> I'm familiar with the house and it's something that nobody will see except them >> and it's it's nicely done. Yeah, I agree with Stephen that I think
you undersold that the house behind you is a very deep block >> and there's a lot of veget they have a backyard and then a lot of trees. >> Yes, almost it's a fair ways. >> They have a much larger backyard than you do.
I was those two. It's very minor. >> Nicely done. Same. >> Yeah. Very. So, okay. I have a motion. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second.
>> David. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. to a third. >> No.