Are we good? >> You guys ready? >> Okay. In accordance with section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 public law 1975. Be advised, >> be advised uh that notice of this
meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Millburn Board of Education Education Center building at 700 p.m. on
today, August 25th, 2025. David Bradford >> here. Hani >> here. Gary Rosen >> here. Robert >> here. >> Joseph >> here >> will be the chairman. >> Okay.
>> Um we have our agenda. We're all set. Uh we'll jump right to the approval of minutes which we do not have approval. >> Okay. Any changes, revisions, comments?
Okay. Motion to accept. Anyone? >> We accept. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries. Uh, next, memorializations. Uh calendar
number 4037-25 Daniel Wel 303 Forest Drive South in short hills >> eligible are Dave Bradford Gary
have any motions move we approve second >> in Yes. >> Sand. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Turning to our applications for this evening. If
you're here for calendar number 4006-24 that is uh for property located at 3 core way uh in short hills. The applicant is Dr. Jesus Abraham. That matter is being carried to November 3rd, 2025.
Uh do we need you any further notice on that? >> Okay, good. Well, it's being carried to November 3rd, 2025 where >> this building. >> So, at the Melbourne Board of Education Education Center at 434 Milurn Avenue,
no further notice to be provided by the app. >> All right. The >> same for >> Yeah. We're going to go to that tail as long as we're on that. Uh if you're also here for calendar number 4040-25, that's for property located at one
Marine Place. The applicant is Mark Antar. um that is being also carried to the same date of November 3rd, 2025 >> at the same location uh over at the
Noburn Board of Education Education Center, 434 Nobel um which is where we are right now. No further notice to be provided by the Okay, so we will turn We have two matters tonight. will will turn to uh
calendar number 4023-24 that is property located at 31 Talbot Court uh applicant Gregory Tolchinsky. Are you ready to proceed? >> We are ready to proceed. Would you like me here or >> you're going to be over at the turn
>> and probably want to speak close to the mic. >> Should be okay since we're doing this. >> So you don't really even need to worry about that. >> Is that right? Usually loud enough problems with that. Uh Erica Edwards uh here this evening. I'm a land use and zoning lawyer here in New Jersey. I'm
here on behalf of the applicant Gregory Tilchinski. Uh the the uh address is 31 Talbot Court. That's block 4101 block 51 here in the township of Milbour. Uh we're here tonight seeking
bulk variance relief to maintain a raised patio um off of the back of our home. Uh we have um I have two witnesses with me this evening. Our primary witness is an expert witness of land use
uh forgive me uh planning consultant. Uh Samuel Belly uh from Dresnner Robin in Jersey City. Uh he is here uh he'll be doing the lion share of the testimony. uh he'll be providing an overview of the site and providing the um an overview of
the variant relry leave we're seeking and the proofs um the legal proofs for that variance relief. We also have the applicant Mr. Tilchinsky here as well and he'll be available to answer any questions that the board may have uh
about uh how this matter uh came to be. Um just in uh in in short uh we did in fact um uh pull permits uh pursuant to a uh a 1985 survey. Um we pulled permit
permits for the work uh that we wanted to do uh in the rear yard of our property. Uh and uh but ultimately um there was uh contact um from a neighbor uh with uh the township township
officials. Uh the work was ultimately stopped. We were required to get a new survey which we did and um that's why we're here tonight. Uh because we do in fact need uh bulk variance relief. So with that, I'd like to call our first
witness uh our expert uh witness, our planning consultant, Mr. Bellamy. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. >> Miss Bell, you state your >> Would you like me to qualify Mr. B?
>> Hold on a second. >> Raise your right hand. You saw me swear from the testimony. You can >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. Please state your name and spell your first and last name. Samuel Bellamy. First name S A M U L. Last name
Bellamy. D E L L A M as in Mary. Y. >> Okay. And Mr. Damy, why don't you um have Miss Edwards qualify? >> Would you please put your educational and professional credentials on the record for the board, please? >> Sure. So, I'm a licensed professional
planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is current and in good standing. I have a masters in city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I'm a land use planner with the firm Dresnner Robin and I appear frequently before boards throughout New Jersey as an expert planning witness.
>> Can your license remain in good standing? >> Yes, it does. >> How can your qualification protective? Thanks for proceeding. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. Um so in preparation of my testimony tonight, I did have a chance to review all the materials. Um, I also
reviewed the zoning ordinance and the master plan and I did visit the site um prior to tonight's meeting. Um, this property is located in the R4 residential district. It's identified as lot 51 on block 4101. Um, it has 100 ft
of frontage on Talberg Court and a lot area of 20,000 square feet. So, it's a 200 foot deep block. Um, I'm going to be referencing the survey that was submitted with this application dated May 31st, 2024. I do have extra copies
if any of the board members need it. >> Actually, my copy was cut off in the bottom. Do you have one? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Senator, as you handle that out um and we're not going to mark this as an exhibit, separate exhibit because
it's already been provided to the board in advance of this evening. Um but Mr. Bellamy, I I noticed on the bottom there's um a zoning chart. It's a zoning data R4 with various um
requirements whether it's lot area, lot width. You're familiar with that, >> correct? Right. Um it doesn't seem that it includes other bulk requirements that are applicable to the R4, right? Namely,
um rear yard unoccupied um F. So before you start your testimony, I just want to just kind of clarify for the record actually to help you. Is there any other variances that you've identified as required for this
application beyond lot coverage and sideyard setback? >> Uh no, those would be the two two variances. Um we have a substantial reyard setback and there's no increase to the floor area of the building itself with this for both applications. So, so
for example, rear yard unoccupied which is um needs to be a minimum of 25% of the of the lot area. No variance is required for that. >> No, because we do you know what the measurement is for that or >> Yes.
>> or you just just to confirm that just only because it's not on your on the zoning. >> Yeah, it's a it's approximately 90 feet to the edge of the raised patio. Well, >> I'm looking for a coverage number, army.
>> Yes. I'm looking for rear the rear yard unoccupied. And if you if you don't know the answer to it, it's it's that's your testimony. But I figured before you get started with your planning testimony. >> No, I I don't have that in my uh my notes up front at least.
>> Um and do you know what the F is for this property? or area ratio. >> Again, I don't have the F. Um it's a twotory structure. >> Okay. >> And then and then the other one that I noticed was that
um accessory uses are to occupy an area no greater than 20% of the rear yard area. So did you you take a look at that? Yeah, based on my review and uh my site visit, there were no accessory
structures in the rear yard area >> in the 20% yard. >> Okay, thank you. >> All right, so I did um and I I think we should mark this in. I did prepare an aerial exhibit. It compares the 2024
aerial versus 2025 uh mainly the existing patio versus now the partially constructed patio. So for reference um this was prepared by my office Robin and it's dated what today's date August
25th. Thanks. >> So, which one you want to mark as A1 and which one do you want to mark as A2? Uh, we can mark A1 the aerial exhibit March 2024 and then A2 would be the aerial exhibit
dated March 2025. Good. Just explain before you start testifying what what each represents and where is the image taken. >> Yeah. So these images are both from a an image based aerial um near an online
service provider. It shows the subject property in the center um and then the the adjacent properties around it. Uh the main focus of this is to show the existing patio that was prior to these development permits and the constru
partial construction of the current patio. Um, and then the 2025 shows what you see today essentially on the property, which is a partially constructed patio. >> All right. Um, what are the dimensions
of the the new patio under construction? >> The new patio under construction is approximately 27 feet deep. So 27 feet extending from the house by about um 59 and 1/2 ft wide, which is essentially the entire width of the home on the
property. Um that calculates to 1,616 square ft. Uh which is about 8% overall lockup the property. Excuse me. Would you give me those two numbers again? The width and the depth.
>> Yeah. 27 feet deep. 27 ft from the house and then 59 and 1/2 ft wide. >> You have plans for this? >> We do have That's that survey plan that I I mean, do you have like a real plan, a site plan that shows the proposed improvements?
>> Uh, no. No, the survey essentially captures that because um the proposed improvements are um at least the the footprint of it is what's currently out there today. >> So the survey you're saying is showing the proposed >> that's correct where you see patio under
construction and even the upper uh Lshape is the raised portion of that >> and it's the left side of the patio that has the sideyard fat tissue. That's correct because that that portion of the patio is above grade due to the topography of the site. So that is above
18 inches and is considered part of the principal showyard setback with the patio constructed. >> So it's actually 12 feet to the the raised portion of the patio. The dimension on that survey is to the corner of the house and the patio is set
back about two feet from there and you need to be >> That's correct. >> So the and your excuse me the attachment F of the application summary of variance was requested states
that what's proposed there is 10.070. That is incorrect. Um my understanding is that's the conservative number of the the principal structure itself that's existing. So we did want to be conservative with that. But 12 ft to the the proposed improvement of the patio.
>> Okay. So the patio would not be aligned with the fully aligned with the side of the house. It's about a couple feet in. Correct. And that that raised portion of the patio, I have those dimensions. It's 13
ft wide from that southern lot line. So from the left side of the the survey, about 13 ft wide, and then it's 5 1/2 ft out from the house, which essentially acts as a landing. There's three doorways leading from the rear of the house. So you have a 5 and 1/2t landing
and then two stairs down to the lower portion of the patio. that's labeled depending on their construction. Do >> you have any photos of that that rear area where the patio is? >> Not that uh not that we have personal.
>> Also, you mentioned that you're stepping down. Do you have anything that showed elevation so I could get a grasp as to what you thought about? >> No, we don't have an elevation. >> Just to turn to your A2. Yeah, that just make sure I'm not missing something with the trees, but like the patio
surrounding the pool is exactly the patio that's in the survey. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, my understanding is this survey that stated 2024 um is after the fact of the zoning permit approvals and then when the uh zoning officer came out and looked at
the current conditions after the uh the complaint was filed um a new survey was conducted and what you see on this survey of the 2024 plan represents what's their current. >> That's correct.
>> And My understanding is that it wasn't like there was one survey and then there was another two. My Let's just clear clear this up for the record. My understanding is that um the 1985
survey was submitted, but the applicant did not comply with what was on that 1985 survey, but rather constructed some some retaining walls around the perimeter of the patio and that and that uh resulted
in it being raised to the level of the dwelling. So my my understanding from conversations with the uh the property owner is when he submitted for the zoning per he came in with the 1985 survey that 1985 survey didn't have the
patio surrounding the pool. So when he went through the process of trying to calculate the purvey's coverage with the zoning officer that was missed and that was um obviously a big difference in in the coverage that's on the site. So that's as it relates to the increase in
previous coverage variance that we're asking for the raised patio portion. Um again they were looking at a 2D plan. I don't think it was communicated or understood that it would be 18 in above grade which then becomes part of the
principal structure. So those two reasons are what were flagged and why the work was stopped on the site and why we're before the board. ju just so the board understands that usually when you have an accessory structure the setback only has to be
correct me if I'm wrong 12 ft >> in this zone correct >> in this zone but because they raise the elevation the ordinance states that if you do raise the elevation um then it becomes considered to be part of the
principal building and therefore needing to set back not 12 feet but 15 >> and that's why you see the 12 foot step back that it's at is why it was built to that but again it wasn't understood at the time of that submittal that it would
be above or more than 18 in. >> So can can you explain what the what the patio is? I'm trying to understand the picture. We don't have any pictures at ground level. So, if you if you look at either A2 or the survey, um it looks like you have a square area
that says patio under construction and then there's some area uh almost a reverse L section coming from the house and out on the left side. Is that part of the patio? Is that at ground level? What is that? >> Yeah. So that L section is the raised
portion of the patio and that's basically level with the with the ground level the first floor of the house. So you step out directly onto that raised portion the Lshape >> and then from there it's essentially two steps down to the the square that you
see patio under construction. >> Yeah. So the L is raised and then the that other area is at ground >> and that L is likewise under construction. They're in the same state of construction. >> Yeah, basically the retaining walls are constructed. They're filled in. Um it
was actually built on top of the old patio that you see in A1, that kind of zigzag shape, so you can still see portions of it. There's stone on top of that. And then I I believe what's left of the work would be to put the sand on top and then lay the same paper material
to complete the patio. >> So staying with A2, that L section, how high is that above the nearest grade? Uh it was about two feet I guess from the when you walk to the left of the building about knee high. Um there's two steps that get you up onto level to the
house. Um and then as you go towards the rear of the part rear of the property it does slope down more. So you probably get to about 3 to four feet um at the edge. >> Oh >> yeah, there's a pretty significant grade change going from there back in May I
think. But I mean, so the neighbor looking at a four foot wall that >> u at the side of it um not as much. It's probably the two to three feet westerly portion of it. It's what you were saying three or four wall.
>> If that if that L had been reversed so it was on the other side, would you have a sideyard back problem? >> No, that that side is actually conforming. Um and let me just get you the Oh jeez. So we do meet the combined uh
sideyard setback requirement. I was going to get that exact second. Um so it's a minimum combined sideyard setback of 35% of the lot width which is 35 ft. Uh we have 41.48 ft. So it's 12
feet to the south which is the variance and then 29.48 ft to the north. almost everything on the other side, >> but the three sets of double doors in the back of the house come out kind of evenly across the back of the building.
>> That's correct. Um I I guess now is a good time to mention it and I'll start to get into the proofs a little bit. Um and as you have question, please feel free to ask. Um so the uh the property owner did install a 4ft fence as you could see through the fence. It's not a solid
fence, but he is um he would be willing to add seven arborite trees. Um, so he'd buy them at approximately five to six feet in height and they would grow up to about 12 10 to 12 feet. Uh, and he's willing to space them approximately four feet apart or whatever.
>> Where is that? Yeah, wait. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. >> What you should do is you should refer to the 20 What is this? Um, 2024 survey. you say
uh the board um and where is this fence? Are we talking about this chain link fence that's on the survey or are we talking about a different fence? >> So the the fence starts at the southern property line, the left side of the plan, left side of the survey plan. Starting at the rear portion of the
building, there's a new fence that continues into the existing chain link fence of the neighbor. That's a 4 foot high fence in that area along the southern property line where the adjacent neighbor is um would be where the propo where the trees would be added
um to act as a essentially a screen um blocking the the patio. >> How many you proposing? >> Uh seven arbory um along the southern portion of the of the patio.
>> Correct. So that entire length of of the patio um which is where we're asking for the the setback variance. >> How big are we biting? >> So they would be bought at about 5 to six uh feet and they grow up to 10 to 12 feet.
>> How much distance would they go between the seven of them? >> Yeah. So the thought was to do 4 foot spacing and they would grow to meet each other so that there's no gaps between the trees. All right. So, getting into some of the
the overall numbers. So, the impervious coverage breakdown is about uh 15.8% is the front driveway area. It's a U-shaped driveway that allows for a full turnaround. Uh the house is about 10.9%.
The uh proposed patio is 8% and then the pool patio is about 6% on this property. um the increase from the new patio. >> Can you I'm sorry I'm interrupting you. >> Yep. >> If you're saying the proposed patio is
8% and then you say the the pool patio, where is the pool patio on this 2024 survey? >> Yeah. So the the pool and I'm sorry I didn't reference that directly. The pool patio is hatched with the circles
surrounding the pool. And then the patio, the proposed patio is the structure, the Lshape, and then the square that says patio under construction up into that uh circle patch. >> And you said the pool patio is 6% of the
coverage, >> correct? >> Patio and the pool. >> The um to my understanding pool itself isn't considered as part of the produce coverage. It's locked. >> You don't have an
>> So, does that mean that your proposed law coverage is greater than 40.7%. >> One second. Take your time. Um yes. So just to to clarify this this zoning chart that you see prepared uh
was prepared by the surveyor. I did pull the calculations. Um so the pool was not included in this this 40.7%. The pool is at about 631 square ft. And that brings our impervious coverage
to 46.8%. >> You said in previous you mean what? >> Correct. As it's not worth not Yeah. So law coverage is the defined term and that's the 46.8% correct.
I I know there's been a lot of questions and some confusion with the numbers. Um, at this point before getting too far into my planning testimony, uh, I think I don't know if it's helpful to take a step back, Erica. Um, we don't have a
photo log prepared. I think that's something that would be helpful to the board. Um, and then there seems to be some miscalculations from this the survey diagram. Um, >> would it be um acceptable to the board if we took five minutes?
Well, but here here's the thing. I think um the planner to his credit is sort of saying he wants to take a look to make sure that these numbers are all correct and what was submitted to the board, no fault of anyone here necessarily,
um is either incorrect and or incomplete. So I think that you know and part of this questioning always is to make sure that if there's additional relief that's required of the board that
we identify it now instead of you getting an approval or whatever denial and then coming back at a later date for for additional relief that >> you know so I don't know how the board feels about that
>> question complete Yeah, the plans are just from what we see these plans are severely lacking in any kind of detail. not to >> yeah obviously >> and and you know through this questioning that's you know it's realization that I think we need a full
photo log um we need a more detailed calculations setbacks to all the dimensions um to really put into perspective what's being proposed so that you know you guys have a full understanding um you know I regret that we didn't do that ahead of this meeting
but at a perspective board I think taking that step back is is probably appropriate That's that's well said. Not to mention the fact that even the shape of the pool is wrong. The pool patio is not depicted
on the original survey. So yeah, I mean and also if you're going to be reassessing your planning or potential plans for this since we are talking about a height as which bringing you in
to some of these variances, it would probably be a good idea to have an elevation coming. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think that's that's part of the variance relief. Um I'm not a surveyor so I don't know that I'm qualified to go out there and take the actual field measurements but um I think ahead of the next meeting we could at
least get some spot elevations that put into perspective you know where the exact height is that's above grade so that the board really see it along with tight photos. >> I think that would be very helpful. One other thing that you might want to
take a look at, if you look at A1 and A2 along that left hand side or southern side, there is, you know, some mature vegetation there. And we'd want to know whose property is that on. It's hard to
tell from the aerial. >> Yeah. So, these are both from March, and that was potentially intentional, so you could see more of the patio and the trees have less um leaf coverage. Um the property owner did receive uh tree
removal permits ahead of this process. So, there was some uh mature trees that were removed between 2024 and 2025 um that are adjacent to that prior patio area. So, those trees are this property
owner's trees. They're not the next door neighbor's trees. >> What's what's shown on this survey, the the mature trees, um they're on the uh adjacent property. >> So, we're looking at I'm looking at the pictures A1 and A2. They're whole there's a whole row of what look like
very mature trees. >> Are those trees on this property owner's property or are they on the next property? >> They're not. Okay. All right. This property owner is proposing to
potentially put some additional vegetation in front of the fence that is being is either there now or will be put there. >> Yeah. And I I think that's another element we could probably put onto a plan so that more could understand what's what trees are out there and what's being proposed to kind of show
that that >> is is I'm looking at V1 and I see like to the left of this pool. I don't know if that's a massive dry well or a trampoline. >> It could be both. I guess >> I believe it's a trampoline because there was a trampoline in the back of
the property down in that same spot. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um so you're looking to revise your application. >> Yes. Now, this uh matter has been carried a
few times. We had the uh the flooding situation overall. You were here. >> Several of several people got here. David got here. I did not. >> Um I would ask for the audience. I would
ask if there anybody in the audience who would like to well any comments. Well, well, before we get to I mean, I think that the applicant wants to revise their plans. They're going to need another date, right? It's fine to ask if there's anybody in the audience who's who's
interested in the application, but now would not be a time because they're going to have a chance to once the planner is finished with all of his testimony, including after he comes back, then any member of the public's going to have an opportunity to ask questions, even before they make
comments. But I I I suggest for the benefit of the record, especially because they're going to revise their plan anyway. >> Correct. Speaking >> to maybe not do the cross- examination now. But I think I think it's appropriate. I think Joe, you raised a great point to ask if any member of the public's here is interested in the
application. >> What we're saying for any members of the public that would like to address the board about this application at this moment. What's happening for any members of the public is the app the applicants have identified that there are some shortcomings in their application and
are looking to uh take a time out essentially and to revise their paperwork and put plans together that we can read and make a a very you know indepth decision on if you will but I realize that this matter has been carried at least through other
times and we're talking weeks between meetings so if there's any members of the public that are here on this banner. We'd like to be identified. >> Step up, please. I'm just >> What's going to happen is because the
application is being revised, you will have the opportunity when they do have another date to come and question the witnesses and make comments. But what I wanted to do is because it's being carried, if there was anybody here just to give your name and address and how
where you're located, etc. Yes. Uh this is General Ken Rampel. We are at 27 Talbert Court which is the house that faces the wall if you will.
>> So your adjacent property on the left and I'm sorry your last name is >> Real R P E L L. >> Thank you. >> Uh and we do have comments and issues. >> Okay. I like as I was trying to let you
all know I mean what's happening now with your application they're going to be revising it so you'll be commenting on things and then you'll have to comment again and the record as council pointed out will be a complete map >> we want to get I wanted to just reach out to the public if we did have this
especially since we had the flood situation just so that we board knew that there were people out there >> we'll be happy to come back forth >> okay thank you very much It's also good for the applicant to know that there's some interested parties with regard to
this application. >> Okay, let's see where that goes. >> Uh, do we have a date? Eileen. September 29th. >> You get back to me yet. September 29th. >> No, I we have a a big application on that.
>> Sure. It's important. I hate to >> you know they haven't gotten back to me. I think you want to still seem appropriate. >> I could either put them on for September 29th or not. You don't have anything in October not being there.
>> Okay. hit the applic. >> Are you good with that? September 29th. Eric, are you okay with September 29th? >> 29th. >> Thank you, Spellman. >> Um for the uh for the public, uh we're looking to have this rescheduled to the
meeting of September 29th. >> I think we need a consent extension of time. >> Yeah, I was going to say it's been a while, right? We can get that on the record now. Yeah. Erica, is that okay? Would you mind for the record consenting to extension?
>> Yes, we we consent. >> Okay. So, this application's being carried to September 29th, Monday, 7:00 here in this very location, 434 Milbour Avenue. Board of Education.
No further notice will be provided by the applicant. So this is your notice to appear on September 29th 7. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much tonight. We'll see you on the phone.
>> Thank you. Next matter will be calendar 4031-25 property located at 23 Dors Lane. Um applicant is Ilar Javich. >> Are you here for us? party.
>> Okay. >> Good evening. I'm Rich Keller, the engineer and planner for the applicant. Last time, um, the owner was out of, uh, out of country. I guess we'd like to I know I'm still sworn but we should probably swear on healing.
>> Good evening. >> Mr. Malovic, raise your right hand. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give tonight. The truth, the whole truth of nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. Please state your name. Spell your first name. Spell your last name,
please. Sure. Here we are. I L I P M U J A B I C. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So I think Mr. color. Um, what would be helpful is if you can just maybe give a
brief a brief brief summary as to where we left off and where we're going. Certainly the um we presented uh back in late April uh two of the members of the
board were not present at the time. So um and that was our first day in this venue. So we had uh the video the video failed. just didn't go live. So, we um we provided a transcript for the members who weren't here who have indicated in this data that they have listed they've
read the transcript and therefore would be eligible to see evening. Great. So, let's let's confirm that right now. >> Yes. >> And the transfer >> I read the
Okay. So, um, all five members are eligible to vote. >> Yep. Thank you. So, the, um, and I guess one thing that's, uh, the the transcript is great, but it doesn't always come with the exhibits. So, I'm going to just
briefly show the exhibits as well. The property is a slightly oversized property, 24,0 uh, 36 square feet located in the R4 zone. Uh it is located on the uh the intersection of Dorset Lane and Ardan
Place. The um the primary drawing which we marked as A4 last time. It was the um the variance application was dated the original date uh 33 2025. Uh we did some markings on it as a
result of some questions by I think board chair at the time. >> I'm sorry. So A4 is the marked up plan um from last hearing. What's the date of the plan? >> Date of the plan is 33 3 2025
>> and is entitled variance application 23 Dorset Lane. So, we only marked it because uh we did a little scribbling out of thumb. The um the property, as we indicated, is a highly irregularly shaped lot uh at that corner. And uh we
had an exhibit A1 >> which was uh to show that how unusual it is not just because it's corner lot because it's in a very irregularly shaped lot with the large curve uh the curvature the angled sideline and the
curvature into Ardan Place. So we showed this lot where the subject property has a lot area of 24,036 ft. However, due to the irregularity in shape of the configuration with that sideline, it turns out that 68.7% of the
lot is in the front yard and only uh 9.2% of the lot is developable. So, when we're allowed to put that 7% coverage on a corner lot, it has to go in a very small area. Looking at another uh more standard corner lot, which is very similar application you had uh on
Jefferson that came before you and I think never came back. um that lot um we basically took the same size lot. We showed a typical front yard on a corner lot where you don't have the irregular shaped lot and showed that on that lot 29% of the lot was developable. Uh
whereas only 46% is located in the front yard. So clearly a vast difference between the the two corner lot what I think is probably the most irregular corner lot I've worked on within Milbour Short Hills or actually in any community. and then a more standard lot.
And you see the setbacks are set uh currently to the front face of the house leaving as I said 12 foot setbacks. Um somewhat variable uh setbacks. Again, you get a much larger buildable area. And then a standard lot not on a corner showing the same lot area. Um there you
have about 40% of your lot is available for accessory structures of which 20% of the rear yard can be covered by accessory structures. So there's a uh every lot has every block has between one and four corner lots. So there is
always a little bit of a of a um sacrifice you make by being on a corner lot. But when you talk about the difference between our lot on the left and a standard corner lot and certainly a standard a standard non-c corner lot, you can see that we're at a great disadvantage in trying to fit accessory
structures on the lot and then certainly within within that buildable air buildable area, especially when you figure topography is rolling off towards the neighbor to the west, etc. So that was the exhibit that we showed at that point. Hey Rich, can you just clarify for the board and the public when you're
measuring when you're talking about how much of the lie is in the front yard? Are you talking about the actual front yard to the main structure or are you talking about um front yard or required?
>> No, I'm talking about the actual the actual front yard is defined by the location of the house. And so on this one, um, it runs parallel and concentric from the closest corner of the house. Again, parallel and concentric to the front street over till it intersects the sideline. It runs along the face of the
house. And then from the closest part of the house on the back right, it runs parallel concentric to garden place. And that creates um an area. Keep in mind the curb line is another 10 feet out there, but um that creates the actual front yard that we use for front yard
calculations, etc. and also the placement of accessory structures on a corner lot. So that's clearly defined by the location of the house, >> right? So So put another way, if this house was constructed
and built closer to the intersection of Dorset Lane and Ardan Place, you slid it down, right? That your 68.7% of the lot percentage would be decreased. Correct.
>> Yeah. If we if we could get ourselves to nudge into that corner further, um you know, we have an average setback which is some uh 52 feet I believe it is. Um where um it actually gets smaller as you go up further up ardent. It gets down to
the to the closer to the 40s. If we had a 40 foot setback uh permitted, we could actually um we could do an addition to the house bump out and that would redefine that front yard and I would or if I could slide that down, I could certainly get a much more usable
backyard. But again, this irregular shape of trying to fit a house in and we looked, we worked with the original developer who wasn't so concerned about the rear area. And we tried placing it at a number of different angles and there just was no way of getting even an
undersized house onto that lot closer to the intersection unless you went really undersized. >> When was the house built? >> Um 2020. >> It was built by a developer um not um my client. Um and the uh
>> so so all these all the requirements um in terms of front yard setbacks not building in the front yard they were all in effect in 2020. >> Well there's been a change. So in 2020 the requirement was that on corner lots accessory structures need to be 80 ft
back from the street two times the minimum setback. Minimum setback was deemed to be 40 feet when there was no established average. Um so it was deemed to be 80 ft. So when the applicant applied to come before this board um on the previous 2022 application, there was
a an ordinance that I'll show you in a second that the structures needed to be 80 ft back. They were actually from the street they were proposing between 13 and 18 ft at the time. And so it was a vastly different application which I'm going to go to in a second. But what I
wanted to just go through for the board is though when I for those who were not here when I referred to this as being a uh a hardship that's created by the shape of the lot I think this graphic even squint at it tells a big story and as Rob said if we were able to we
created a more unusual shaped house an odd shaped house maybe we've got to push more into that. Um again in the Nar four zone you can't have frontf facing garages. Um, so there was really um no way of getting this house to snuggle in closer. So even though that's the minimum setback, that's minimum setback,
there's a whole bunch of front area in that corner lot that is orphaned to the neighbors. And so again, when you try to put an accessory structure back in that green area topography, um, it gets very tight. Now, I will say part of this application, we do not need coverage
variance for accessory coverage. We're actually well under the accessory coverage. and we listened to the board last time and we made some changes. So what I wanted to do before we talk about rescue I wanted to give you that back to one of the council's earlier questions
the one on the lab is is the actual condition and the other two are theoretical if built to the >> this is almost there was an application I don't remember the number 29 Jefferson 41 Jefferson that came with the corner of Jefferson and Washington um and they
tried to hire me to do planning I turned it down because said you're just a standard corner lot um putting a fence up uh along the side street. There was really no reason for it because you have a big a pretty usable rear yard. Um unlike um my clients where the rear yard
is really kind of sandwiched in. So this is a theoretical although this lot exists throughout the town and as I said this is almost identical to the one that was uh before this board and dropped out on Jefferson and that would be a standard lot. >> Did you point to change? Sticking with the left hand uh diagram on that sheet,
um the developer who put this up in 2020, he let's didn't max out the whole lot, but did he max out the setbacks? >> Um he set them as close to the street as he could. >> Yes. So he maxed out >> given the topography, not >> given the average setback because
average average setbacks you come up this way. We were 40 feet. There was no I think the average was slightly less than 40. So we helped the minimum of 40 on this side. As we came up the first 100 ft, the average setbacks yield is about 52 feet. So that's why the house was set back a larger setback to Ardan.
And the front facing has a very large front yard. But again, it's because of that acute angle between Dorset and Ardan Lane that forces a whole bunch of area into the front. So when we came last time, um there was
we started before we got into the deeper into the issue of race, there was some conflicting um uh opinions on the board as to whether um some had no problem with the patio being in the front yard. Um
some were more concerned about the patio being in the front yard. Again, we were estab we were coming in 11.8T into the front yard. Um, we listened to that. We did make a change and this would be A
five, I believe. A5. And this is the variance application. Same drawing you saw before you except it's now dated um, revision number one, front yard patio reduce 825 2025. And in this one,
>> does that have a number on it? It's it's also sheet number one. It's the same as the other sheet, but it's been revised. >> So, in this one, what we've done is we've we've uh we've reduced the size of that patio. We turn the corner at 5T and come in as soon as we get even with the
pool, instead of expanding to 13 feet, we we cut that down to 10 feet. 10 feet being what we think is the minimum to allow for a lounge chair. Um, and you can see there that's that's actually shallower than what you see in the photograph in the upper right. So that allows for a lounge chair and a
three-foot walking path in front of it. So um the idea is that you're not just limited to three lounge chairs. You can get a few more lounge chairs on this side um facing back into the pool. It's really not seen as being an active play area. It's not intended. It's not big
enough to put a um a grill on a a dining room table on. It's really seen as a passive location to just fit enough of uh lawn chairs and wrap that corner with additional lawn chairs. So >> that rich you have the the drawing that we have shows it is 13 ft by 34.3. What is it now?
>> This is a rivet. I'm I'm showing I'm calling it out to be 10 feet by uh 28 ft with a 5ft jog and then a five foot jog back. So it's it's now 10 feet instead of 13 feet. And the distance off the property line as proposed on this
revision instead of being uh 38.39 ft from the street is now 41.39 ft from the street. So >> 419. So again recalling much of the R4 and R5 are developed with 40 foot as the minimum. So if you have a don't have an
established setback 40 is what the ordinance likes to see. And I thought it was uh besides um making it so really not a place where you can have um a lot of activity, we thought cutting that down reduce the uh reduce the amount of pavement in the front yard. We go from
399 feet of pavement in the front yard down to 271 ft. >> Bridge, could you maybe pass that around? Like I'm too old to see. Let the record reflect that
>> Mr. Rosen seems very spry. >> Oh, that's a house. >> Able to confidently review this application. >> Would you like to see >> what's the green shaded area?
>> The green was patio. Now it's lawn. Hey, that's the that's part we've removed from last part as a function of this um revision. >> So, Rich, in your mind, there were a number of safety issues raised by the
homeowner as reasons to do things. In your mind, this relieves those. >> Yeah, we we talked about being both C1 and C2. and the C1 um the hardship created by the lot creating a reasonable amount of patio spaces on the property and then creating a reasonable amount of breathing room for that patio um and not
giving up your whole yard um outside a fence where it's really not usable. And then we also talked about C2 and I'll I'll recap on these. We talked about C2 where it advances the purposes of land use act primarily in safety as was indicated. We can't get this goes back
to A1. Um we can't fill in around the upper left side of the pool with a with a a walk or patio because that's less than 12 feet off the neighbor. So it' be a different variance and I think that's a little closer to a neighbor. So we thought we'd rather go toward the street
where there's a dense buffer and basically virtually no visibility whatsoever. So, it allows for grandma or the kids to circumn around the pool without sort of reaching between the fence. Um, the kids are playing and jostling and running. They're not
bouncing off the fence and landing in the pool. Um, so we wanted to get allow some hardcape on that side. And so, we turn the corner at 5T. And I'll be honest, I'm not a great poker player. We think that this is size down. Happy that we got more than 40
feet. Um, if the board I know the chair is not here anymore. If if the board felt really adamant, we would go five foot the entire length. What's most important is that we create safety, which I think the five foot does. The added um going to 10 feet I think makes it more usable. Um, not for active
activity. Most of the noise is going to be generated from kids in the pool. We hope. Um, and then parents and and kids on the lawn chairs generally don't don't generate any activity. Look, we're a corner lot. We hope the kids play in the front yard pro ball or not pro baseball.
Um, that's going to happen either way except it's been it's sort of bifurcated and it feels like it's not their land and you got to go through a fence to get out there. And the result is like it's it's unusual to see any property in the R3 and the R4 zone hills that have a fence that really bifurcates half of the
yard in the back and prohibits people from leaving that yard or discourages. So we think that makes it safe. If the boards felt it will be better at 5T. I calculated that as well. We think this is pretty nominal. Uh we think it still meets the Can you show the board, Rich, what you're talking about, you know,
you're looking at 85, >> right? When you say that to slowly explain what you mean by that, the board would prefer you have it five feet all around. So, what I've done is is we've come here and we extended out five feet
and turned the corner at five feet off the pool. Then we pop another five feet out and then run parallel with the street effectively. So we've removed uh three foot of what was patio on the previous application on the one end,
five foot on the other to allow for uh 3 to four feet of circulation around the pool and enough room in the uh in the last uh bit of that 10 feet or six or seven feet for some lawn chairs to sit in that area. So when I talk about the
possibility of eliminating that, we would also be comfortable if the board felt it to just come 5 feet the entire way. Um basically what's most important is safety and getting that five feet. I think that the the impact of that
additional five feet is nominal um on noise and activity and commotion in the front yard. Um, but there's there seemed to when I reviewed the uh the the transcript, there were some comments of people who didn't like anything in the front yard. There were some people who
had no problem with what we proposed at 13 ft. So, you know, I know the board hates it. We're not asking you to, you know, pick two from column A and one from column B, but we're we're willing to work with the board. We tried to make some changes. We think it's it's it makes it safe where we've done it and
there's really no commotion in the backyard. is now more than 40 ft from the street, 50 feet from the from the curb. And again, remembering that there are on this property there are 50 fairly new overall 100 arborite that ring this property. So when you go out there, except for the one that was damaged by
landscaper, it's a dense you you don't see on this property and you won't. So that's the negative criteria. But I wanted to uh I wanted to just go through on A5 the changes we've proposed that I think bring it even closer to compliance with the ordinance. And then um I wanted
to give an exhibit. By the way, I just so clear here that the um is that you you marked your sheet up. We're all we're going to cons consider the original A5 with the marking as A5. >> Okay.
>> Okay. You broke the cardinal rule, governor, but that's okay. >> I thought since it's a new one, I could >> No, no, it's okay. A5 will be your plan >> for today's date, which includes a market. >> Okay. >> Or was just so I'm clear. So, originally
the proposed patio would have uh was 13. >> 13 feet. 399 square feet. >> You brought when you started talking, you brought that down 10. Yep. We brought that down three feet.
>> If we, you know, if we felt that we could only live with five, you would accept. >> That's fine. >> Just I'm not taking position. That's fine. >> Just trying to understand your >> I think we achieved the safety with >> So in terms of square footage with the three feet that you have given up, what
is the length 39? I mean, what what was the length of >> Yeah, the length is uh on the original one the length was um was 39 feet. Um 30, I'm sorry, 34 1/2 ft. And so on the new one,
we are 29 1/2 ft. I'm sorry, 29.3 ft. Turn 5 ft and turn 5T back. So it's 10 ft wide. Um of which 83, so 8 foot 10 in actually sticks into the setback. So it's 10 feet, but not all of
it's in some of it's in the sideyard technically. So what uh that length there is 20 was 20 comes out to 29.3 excuse me turns 5T comes slightly back. >> So we've taken off a fair amount of
square footage >> 100 square feet more than that. Yeah. >> It's the same length actually. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well we did that little jog at the end so to to corn there. So we've gone from 399 down to 271. Okay. 120.
Yeah. So um now the that said um I did prepare because what happened is the first thing I was asked at the last hearing was whether I thought Rudaata would apply to this and this board would not be um really should not hear this
case. I gave some responses. They were accepted. Then as we got to some discussion, Grace Judicotta came back and I didn't have a copy of the previous plan with me. So I prepared a memo. I think you got that. Now we I've modified that memo. I'm going to hand that out
now is my A6 because what I've done is I've adjusted the number to the revised application I had before you. And so I wanted to pass that out. And then uh so I highlighted the changes in yellow.
So this would be A6. And I'm also going to present A7 concurrently with that. A7 is application comparison. Um, Mujulovic uh Mujalovic residents 23 Dorset Lane
Short Hills August 25th, 2025. On the left shows the 20 2022 application was denied and on the right shows the 2025 application. uh as we've amended it to stated for you showing the uh 8.67 foot
encroachment or 8.8 foot encroachment into the front yard, the five foot and then the job. So this is the shows the reduced version that we presented today as part of a previous exhibit. And I think even if you squint, it's pretty
easy to see that um I've colored in green all of the area that's in the front yard. And I've colored in uh the sort of u light tannanish color uh for the patios and we've got the graded color for the pool. Uh we've added color
to anything that's in the front yard on the application on the current application. So that's on the 2020 application. You can see that the uh the pool was about 19 feet um off the off the uh property line. I think the
applicant uh applicants um landscape architecture was 18.1 ft to the coping. Uh it's about 13 ft off of the rightway line. This window is still another 10 ft from the rightway out to the curb. Um you can see there was 1256 ft of
accessory use in the front yard that was fully in the front yard. And this was in an ordinance that required 80 foot setback. So all of this entire pool um needed a variance because none of it was 80 ft. None of the patio except for a little bit out in here on the left side where the stairs come out of the house.
Basically the uh pool filter equipment, the entire patio, the entire pool was all forward of this 80 foot line. So it was all needed variance relief and then in sort of blending what we look for today, 1256 square feet of that was
actually totally located in the front yard. So not only was it it wasn't 80 ft back but it was actually in the front yard, the same front yard we're defining now. So you can see there's a vastest difference between um the original application and the proposed application regarding the fence. out the fence
turned the corner basically ran with about within about 6 in of the rightway line and tied into the front corner of the house. the proposed application. Um we've actually pulled that back another five 5.1 feet or so. So that um there it
sits inside of those 50 Green Giant arborite that the applicant planted. Not in preparation for this. Once they put the pool in, they said they were, you know, every time they're at the pool, they were waving to people walking their dog um as they were using the pool. So it was for their own privacy that they
planted these arborite in a fully conforming location. That's the That's where we're looking to put that fence in. Right behind it. That 5 foot fence, black aluminum fence will completely disappear. If you've been out there and you've walked, you see that the fence that's 40 50 ft away, can't really see.
And then certainly when it's right behind the landscaping, uh the the landscaping which was planted at probably six to eight, it's probably 8 to 10 now and will continue to grow. Um, so there's really no negative impact, but you can see just by looking at these two the the differences between um the
applications that have for you. Um if you had a chance to read our uh our um memo regarding Christ Judicata um we think that uh this board uh certainly uh has the legal um right to hear this that
the issue of race judicata would not prohibit your jurisdiction from hearing it because we think it's a significantly different application both in terms of fencing in terms of the overall I would point out I reviewed the resolution from 22 fairly closely ly um it mentioned the
variances needed including the front yard. It me front yard fence. It mentioned that the neighbors thought the fence would be that that the pool and fence together would be an eyesore. One of those members I think came out last time and I certainly talked to them and said sorry I didn't realize it would look so nice. Um so there's no neighbors
here in objection tonight. Um the what I did notice was the the most stern language in the resolution had to do with what they thought was a vast excess of of building coverage associated with the vast excess of accessory coverage.
Not it did not have uh anything to do there was really no pointed comments or individual comments about the fence in that application. One of the board members said that the fence was mentioned six times. it was only mentioned in the context of saying these are the variants you needed and included offense primary defense varants defense
instead of so I don't think that the resolution the resolution I think was much more focused on the not having met the negative criteria on the excess lock coverage so if you look at the page two of the uh of my memorandum you can see
the 2022 variances requested um required setback to the pool is 80 feet they were at 18 um to the coping The uh accessory set back to the patio was 13 ft. The maximum accessory covered were 7% is permitted. They were at 9.8.
We're now at 4.65. Um and then the fence not permitted in the front yard. They had 232 feet of fence that was located 6 in off the rightway. Uh we have cut that down to 200 um to significantly less.
Um I'll get the exact I think it's about 167 square feet. 67 million piece proposed. We've cut that down considerably. I'll get that exact number in a second. Um, so not only has the application been significantly changed and reduced, but also there was an
ordinance change that was probably being passed before this resolution would even be being memorialized back in 2022. And that's when the ordinance was changed to to allow accessory structures come up to come up to the front face of the house and no longer have to be set 80 ft back.
And that that change is what allowed uh my clients to put in a pool in a fully conforming location, fully under our coverage, met everything. The problem is when they put the fence in fully in a fully permitted location, they never realize how hemmed in it was going to feel. You feel like you're in a in a
public pool with a fence security fence right on top of you, which divides you from the rest of the your property. We all know what we pay for properties in Short Hills, what taxes are. Um, it's really an applicant who wants to utilize that and get the feeling of the of the
openness of a of a an oversized lot in Short Hills without feeling hemmed in and also creating a safer access to get from one side of the pool to the other side, which is the only side that patio permitted. On the current application, as indicated, um we now need 271 square
feet of 271 square feet of patio um is in the front yard and we have 170 um lineal feet of coat and twine fence. So um there's another typo. >> Sorry, you said 170. >> Haven't 170 yet. So >> what where's the typo?
>> The typo is um 2025 variances requested. Number two, bullpens not in the front yard. 232 was the most previous. It's actually 170 linear feet of fence that is 5.5 back. So that 232 in in bullet number
two under 2025 is requested should say 170 not 232. >> So Richard you're not just so clear you're not you're not saying there would be a safety issue with respect to the fence if the fence went around the
patio. If we were a proven patio as proposed and the fence went around the patio, the safety issue. >> Yeah, the safety issue goes away. Um, so then it comes to um I think you know as planners we often you know you you talk
about the ways you advance the purposes of the master plan and we always throw out you know it it it maintains the character of Gilbert and Short Hills as a residential character of the high court something along those lines. And so I think that's where the front yard
fence comes in. Besides, I think it's more aesthetically attractive for both on the sites. Absolutely. Um with no negative uh aesthetic impact to put it right behind the trees. Um but I think it's also um I think it goes towards
that advancing Milburn as a residential community of the highest order. I think it's it's unusual to have a fence that cuts right through your property and requires the kids to even if it was 10 feet back and two feet back beyond that to do some landscaping, you're still dividing that property in an unnatural
way. Most of my clients who have put up fences that are close to the pool have either done so because they have small kids and their intent is to fully remove those once the kids are a little older. um or they've done um it's been rectangular lots and they've been glass
and they haven't had a setback issue. It's been more of an aesthetic issue. Um but they've never been this close. They've always been at least 5 to 10 feet off. Um but I think in this case even putting a fence 5 to 10 feet off really is a significant aesthetic impairment to this property. And when we
get to the negative criteria, I think absolutely there's no negative impact to the neighbors. the neighbors who saw what um IR um intended to do um by putting up those trees and putting up the fence no longer found the pool to be an isore. They didn't find fencing to be
an isore. Eert had that conversation on me, so technically it's hearsay, but Eer can certainly relate that firsthand. He's here. But I think that there really is no um negative impairment. I' I've watched people walking their dogs. The trees that are there um are not that
different. some of some of the trees further up the street that that do come close to the rightway line. So I think there's really no negative impact. Um and I think it does meet both the criteria um for C1 and C2. C1 it's absolutely there's a you know it's a
unique lot. We sometimes say hardship sometimes we should just say it's a really unique condition that adversely impacts his ability to put the kind of stuff you expect to see on a home in Short Hills on that property and it's actually underdeveloped. So we're under on the accessory coverage. 4.65 is the
new number. 7% is permitted. We're under on lot coverage. We're under on building coverage. Under on all the coverage parameters. We don't have a rear license for a corner lot. But it's certainly not an overdevelopment or overreach in terms of the the accessory uses we're planning
on doing. And I think my clients listened to the board the first time. And when the ordinance changed, they really did suck that pool in to try to make it work. They cut that the size down considerably. um from originally um what was the original size?
>> 36 or 18 by 36 and now it's 16 by 25. >> So it's been significantly cut down. That was as of right. Um again when you get clients who are not um not in the building industry, they say sure we could have a fence right there. I think when the fence goes up is when they
realize um that it's a quite a different issue. So we also had the photo board from last time which showed um this the dense screening this is A2 showed the dense screening from uh Dorset the dense screening from uh Ard Arden place um how
looking along the vista looking southwest you can see there are other properties with trees in the in the front yard area so it's not like we've kicked out a whole bunch of of uh uh evergreens where it's unnatural and the the deciduous trees are still populating the uh space the 10 foot between the
curb and uh and the the landscape. When you see when you come on the other side of the fence, you can see that fence that you couldn't see at all from from the street, you can see um it really does cut the property in half. And when you look at it in photograph number six, you can see that's actually much deeper.
That's like 14t deep. We're looking for 10 feet deep on the other side. It's really not much more than available to handle the the lounge chairs. And that fence location really is unnatural. And that's why we have that the safety issue because it's really right next to the coping um which is shown on photograph
number six. So I think that um I think that we certainly if you squint um or you look closely either one you look at A7 I think and you look at the um the um the information we've provided on what
defines uh resticata. I don't want to read the memo completely um unless you'd like but I think clearly we get over the hurdle of race judicata. It's not like other rush judicata issues which you've dealt with in this town in the past where ordinances got tougher, applications got bigger, coverage got
larger. This is completely the opposite. And you know this is you're not setting a precedent by allowing a fence in the front yard. There are a lot of fences in front yard. Many of them are grandfathered. I think one of your board members has a grandfather who corner lots of front fence front yard fence.
Um, most of the pools I've done, I went back and looked did most everyone I did that we had a front yard pool or had front we were redeveloping an existing front yard pool that was done in the 40s and 50s. There were existing fences replacing. So, I couldn't find many new
fences other than unique lot like um South Terrace. There's a flag lot up there that we did a front yard fence. Um, there aren't many that are exactly the same. We've done some fences in the front yard on Jefferson where they are through lots into Madison. Um any pretty
much any other application I worked on that did have a similar corner with a front yard fence uh corner of Long Hill and um I got think of the name Hampshire um has a front has a pool in the front portion of the front yard with front yard fence but that front yard fence was there when
we got the pool approved. So unfortunately this is a problem on cornerless that has been >> just while you talk about fences rich the fence to the right of the building >> to the right of the building >> to the right >> to the east >> right yeah do you think about pushing
that back to the back of the building >> what >> oh >> eliminate yeah that would get rid of some of that >> um we'd be happy to do that we we did look at that um >> instead of splitting the build at the building midpoint you run it along the back >> the first application actually had it at the front lines it did we removing it
2/ird of the way back. Um, I shouldn't speak for my client. Um, but I don't think the other question was could we put the fence basically um from this point over. >> Look, I mean, we'll consider it, but look, looking at the negative criteria,
I mean, it and I know some of the board members came out and so thank you for that. And I told Rich, I really thank you for doing a very incredibly difficult job. Um but uh you know um I you know it's the the fence and the patio really cannot be seen um at all.
Um um so negative criteria um so even if we move the fence closer to where you would suggest you know I don't see a huge benefit but you know obviously we would consider it especially when uh the negative criteria
um are not really there and I don't think substantially impair you know the intent and the purpose of the zoning law. Um but I would also echo what what uh Rich said in terms of the hardship. I mean the the shape of the lot is really irregular and when you look at that
exhibit that we can only use 9% of our lot as developable compared to like a normal um regular port of 30%. It really that would create a significant chip and and more importantly practical difficulties um uh for us and our family
and not only for us but also our our friends our kids friends who come over and play. It's really not just a benefit to our family but you know um community in general to whoever comes over like you know we want them to be safe.
>> So so staying with uh Mr. Mr. Cfield point um if my memory is correct that piece of the fence that runs out towards Ardan right now is right along the varieties as the one on Ardan would be.
So you'd be creating 10 or 15 foot gap between all the vegetation and the fence. >> It just feels also a little bit but >> it would feel >> it would feel a little bit but what about the visibility the visibility of the fence from Dorset Lake?
>> Is that visible from Dorset Lake? >> Not at all. >> No. >> No. That's we're talking about that's from Dorset. That's the >> Yeah, >> they're mirroring the They're mirroring the when we planted the approval like we really planted the clutching for that
exact reason. We didn't want to be seen. We also like, you know, we knew we want to make sure that we don't I didn't want to wait five years for the average buyers to fill in. We really, you know, planted them right with the landscape architect said, you know, we said, "Let's plant that."
>> Malik, were you the original owner, the first owner? >> Yeah, we bought the house new from Edia in 2020. >> Oh, did you tell? >> Yeah. >> And did Mr. Tally at the time explain to you how he built it and what his setbacks were? Well, luckily it was part
of COVID and you know before we just do here like you know we you know I it wasn't my original intention to like to think that all the you know um eventualities but obviously as co was continuing we you know kids wanted to play everybody was locked in so we said
okay let's try to see if we can put in a pool that's when all of it you know I talked to Rich and I said Rich what do we need and Rich said look you know this I'm like you know we have such a big lot and can we use some of it and the ordinance was very harsh like he needed to be int.
>> Were you here for the original application22? It says in the in the U resolution that there was no professional planning testified. >> No, they um there was a very well-known landscape architect um who's done a lot of work in the town, but there was not a
professional planner um and I wasn't available at the time, but and and and I've done a couple houses with Edalia. Ed's a very traditional builder. He's a good guy. um he doesn't necessarily understand all the nuances of his own and we'll say that um and when this lot
was so unique I advised him not to buy the property and so he's well I already bought it like and so you know we we made a house work it was a little undersized for what the lot would allow but um I don't think the nuances of I don't think Ed tried to hide anything from um the buyers but I don't think he
understood necessarily the ramifications >> you didn't have your first chart >> he did not have I didn't either >> yeah I I wish I had had the bandwidth at the time to work on the application with the other team. Um I I thought it was a stretch. I probably would have, you
know, we would have listened to the board and maybe come back with something else. But if and if we had delayed a month back then, we would have the benefit of that new ordinance. But at any rate, we are where we're at. Uh we think it's over. We think it uh does not get hung up on that. We think it meets the criteria. >> When you say the new order, you mean
when they they 609.1 >> when they went from 80 ft to >> You did. They put a pool in. >> Yeah. Yeah, but we would um we would have probably we would have come back with another application that would have been conforming and had that fence and maybe maybe at that time there would
have been some you know you came back with 1,200 ft square feet in the front yard. Now you come back with nothing to the new ordinance and maybe we could have sold the front yard the front yard fence wouldn't have been so offensive. I think was most offensive to the neighbors and to the board in terms of my reading the resolution was more about
the overage on accessory coverage. >> Well, I don't think anyone would like the fence being half a foot from them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was a little surprised and when I saw that it's like that was not a good idea. Um we we did a fence. We have a client that has um a curve on Old Short
Hills Road. They've got trees that are arborite. They're probably 30 feet tall and they have a fence that's actually in front of those um this kind of fence. And to be honest with you, after three years, you cannot see that fence when you drive by because the all of the le all the branches come right through the
fence. So, you know, these these black metal, they're aluminum, but metal um char type fences, rod iron fences really do disappear into the landscape quite effective, even when they're in front. Because I I guarantee if I gave you the address, he drove by, you'd be like, "Wow, I didn't I never noticed that was
in front of here." You know, the applicant was right away from day one want to do the right thing. We put the the 5ft fence, not a six foot fence, and put a 5ft fence. >> Any other questions? Board members, >> anyh any questions for the audience? We have
any audience members that are here on this application? I was just at their home. >> They want to use the pool at home. >> Any questions from you? We have to ask anyway, gentlemen. And uh before we close
comments and questions and leave questions. >> Oh, sorry. Question question. I'm sorry. Any comments? Any comments from the audience then? Thank you. Um, as far as the rest of your product, >> yes,
>> let me let me jump in here for >> so this application uh you know from the onset um address the issue about whether restriata applied. Now, as the board knows, if
Restruata applied to this application, um let's say that it was the exact same application brought a second time a couple years later. Um the board would be free to rule that we're not even
hearing this application because it's the exact same application that we already denied and need to take an appeal, etc., etc. Well, um, being very familiar with the case law surrounding Rusticata,
um, I suggest to the board and it's up to the board um, I can just give advice in this case legal advice that this application um, overcomes
any issue with resticata. It overcomes it really for for two main reasons. Number one is that if you look at the variance relief that was requested in 2022 versus the variance request relief
that's requested in 2025 especially given tonight's testimony that it is very different um and I think that in terms and plus you have a situation where there was an
ordinance change. So if you take all those factors together, I do not believe that restraudicata applies to this application. Let me also say that the
case law is not such where if the applicant originally requested six variances and now only requests two variances that the board could under the case law
justifiably say well these two variances even though it's a different application these two variances are exactly the same as those two variances back in 2022. So we're going to deny it because of restraat. That's not how restriata works or or even collateral stable. That the
issue is whether the application is different, is it getting better? Is it getting worse? Did the ordinance change? Did the surrounding neighborhood change? uh which I don't believe is
applicable here based on the testing. However, that doesn't just because there's no resticata that does not end the board's inquiry because if you take restata away, you're still left with
an application for development on this exact same lot that's presented in 2022 and denied and then presented in 2025. And there is a concept
that boards ad typically adhere to which is the concept of consistency. Right? Just like if you have two lots that are in the R4 zone that are the same size,
the same shape, the same topography, and they require the same variances even though they're on two different streets nearby. You don't want to treat one, frankly, very differently than the way you're treating the other. You want to have
some consistency in the board's analysis and determination on applications that are presented to it. Now, when you have the exact exact same property presented three years later, that also applies,
right? You don't as a board want to necessarily be inconsistent with decisions in this case that the board back in 2022 made.
But here's the difference for the board's consideration. Unlike restudacata where it's very either it applies or it doesn't apply. When you take restudicata
away and you compare two applications on the same property three years apart you are permitted to as Mr. Heler alluded to, although I don't necessarily agree with all of its conclusions,
factually. You can look at the resolution back in 2022 and analyze what what the board did and why they did it and what was the basis of their
decision and then compare that to today and say, well, can I still just can I justify a different outcome while remaining consistent with what
happened in 2022. So, for example, and this is all for the board's consideration, in 2022, 2022, you had four different neighbors objecting to the application for different reasons,
all for different reasons. You don't have that here. And I, you can see I highlighted all the sections that I was concerned about. In 2022, there was no professional planning testing.
There were doesn't appear to have any exhibits such as A1 through A7 that was presented by the applicant here. Now, there was no negative criteria
um presented for C1 or C2. Now, however, some things didn't change. The property didn't change. Location of the house didn't change, right? So the board
needs, I believe, to assess sort of all of that and make a decision, whatever the decision is, that is not entirely at odds with what happened in 2022,
but whether the board can distinguish between what happened in 2022 and what happened in 2025. by way of example that you may decide. So the board denied
the application in 2022 based on the C1 and the C2 criteria. You as a board may determine that you know what C1 deals with the property itself and the hardships due to the actual property. And you may say, you
know what, there there's really no change here in terms of C1. So, I'm not comfortable as a board considering relief under C1. And I'm I'm looking at what the board did for C1 for
the prior application. And I'm sort of, you know, maybe in the same boat or maybe you can distinguish it. It's up to you. But maybe on C2, you know, things are a little different now. There's change in the ordinance change different belief required professional planning
testimony exhibits. So that's just one example of how you can go about considering this application. I do not have a vote. I don't want to vote. I don't want to deliberate. I can't deliberate a vote. All I can tell you is
from a legal perspective, those are some of the considerations that you may use to determine an up or down vote. Um, also remind the board members that this is not an F other type
of variance vote. It's just majority and there's five voting members that are >> Rob, can I ask one question which is how how do we think about the issue of fence versus
the size well the pool's already in so essentially the patio right in terms from a from a rescue perspective and also from a consistency perspective and I'm not I'm not by my question suggesting that I have a view on this,
but one could look and I know Mr. Keller has given some of his views about the prior decision. One could read that decision to say that in fact the board was not comfortable with that fence. And while there's been ordinance changes
that I don't think has any impact on the fence, um, you know, none of the other changes necessarily have an impact on the fence. So one could a reasonable person I think could come to the conclusion that the board's view at that time was the fence
was not permissible and therefore you know um sitting here today we could either it sounds like maybe from rest perspective that's not an issue that in fact there is no rest with respect to the fence then I accept that
from a consistency perspective you know are we doing something would we would we be doing something incon consistent if we were to say that the fence um you know uh was permitted is permitted now. So can we bifurcate that or no?
>> Well the short answer is of of course you can bifrocate it but not not based on rest. But based based on consistency, you may look at the prior resolution and say, you know what, as far as the fence is concerned and the testimony that was
presented in 2025, you know, for this application, that I'm not convinced that the applicant has me has met the positive and negative criteria for C1 or C2 as to the fence. Like you can make that you can make that decision. Um, but
you need to as part of that analysis actually think about what was presented here as to because we don't we don't have a transcript from the 2022 application. Okay. Um, and there wasn't
a lot and and you may differ with this. There wasn't a lot either way in my opinion as to the fence in the in the resolution that was presented as part of this application, the 2022 resolution. So that's up to that's up to the board.
I I think that um either could be supported back. >> Can I just say one thing? >> Well, we have you have to make a motion to open I'll say I didn't realize it would be closed. didn't really Okay, go
ahead. >> I was just going to tell you that the potential safety issue was not present in 2022 as an additional factor to distinguish 2022 and 2025 because the fence was not built in 2022 and it wasn't proposed to be built so close to the edge of the pool. So that's another
thing and I think as Rich mentioned, you know, we I strongly believe the application enhances the safety uh if we move the fence and that's a critical factor. I mean safety is in everybody's benefit and and so that's a C2 for
example and and I do believe that we have shown and the evidence shows that we have overcome the people who have been at the property have seen that the negative criteria have been overcome. So, if we promote safety, we promote a desirable visual environment and we're
preserving the neighborhood character and not splitting the property in half in some kind of an unnatural way while benefiting not just us, like I said, but also the community de facto by having our friends and family, my mother and my kids friends come over and enjoy the
property in a safe way. you know, from my perspective, I do believe, you know, that that does establish the purpose of the law and it advances, you know, the zoning order on both. >> Yeah. I I don't think the issue I mean with proofs are the proofs are done and
that our you made that um argument very eloquently before currently and and Mr. Cull as well. I think Mr. Rosen was talking a little bit more about comparing it to 2022 for purposes of consistency. So we get like
>> Can I just I was going to get to that. Sorry on that. The consistency you know I get the point you know um consistency and precedent. We all want to follow president. It's a well established um doctrine but I do believe it's a completely different project and there
was a change in law and if somebody wants to claim look board you approved this application I want you to reconsider my application consistency I think it would be really challenging unless they can also show that there was a change in law um and als
I'd like to just because I didn't have in my hand cut just go back to the the 20202 resolution for a Okay. Um, I looked through it all and I didn't see any place where the fence was singled out. It was often mentioned together. On page five, twothirds of the way through item number 17, the board finds that the
variance is triggered by the proposed accessory lock coverage, pool, and fence would not advance purposes of ML. And so there's three things together. Proposed accessory lock coverage, pool, and fence together. Doesn't single out one. Um, and it's not singled out anywhere else that I saw other than the neighbors have
concerns both the visual impact of the pool and the um and then if you look under uh note 18 at the bottom of page five, it says that the um any benefits of proposed landscaping fails to substantially outweigh the applicant's detriments imposed by vastly exceeding the bulk requirements contained in the
township zoning ordinance. So to me that was the that was the point that at least the resolution focused on most was um that they were vastly exceeding the bulk requirements putting some 1,260 ft into the front yard. So I think that
um in terms of the way we've seen it is that hardship that's created by the lot shape is why we such a small area why we feel we need to expand our shoulders a little bit and go into a front yard where we wouldn't want to otherwise because we the shape just there doesn't
leave much room to provide the type of amenities associated with any lot in the zone certainly not only have a pool and then we really saw the the fence as being a C2 um application where uh the benefits of the purpose of municipal land. You saw an advanced safety,
general welfare consistent with the fabric of short hills and then um we saw that there was no substantial detriment certainly any detriments from that incursion which will not be seen or felt um certainly outweigh those the the benefits outweigh any detriment because
we don't see any detriment. So we really saw it as a as a combination of C1 and C2. Um that could be each each variance could be argued separately. And uh we think in the end um I think that um
positive criteria is often um a touchyfey kind of thing and and where I always come down to is what is the actual harm? What's the harm? What's the negative impact? There is no other law I've ever worked on in shorts that is this unique. So, it's not like you're
creating something. The only one that's like it is one that you saw four years ago, but we vastly changed that application. So, I I ask you to consider both C1 and C2 uh and the various groups we've offered. >> Okay, we can close the public portion now.
>> Um after hearing Rob discuss um board members, your thoughts? I can pick David to go first. >> Um, I find this to be materially different application uh than the original. Um,
reading through the neighbor objections from the original one. Um, most of them uh stemmed around the the original pool being so close to Ardan uh to the avenue of place. Um, I was out
there today. Um, the safety issue gets solved if you run the fence on the backside of the new proposed batting. That doesn't address the fact that that's going to look ridiculous
as the existing fence does. Um, and I think running the fence along the edge of the arborite is a very sensible thing to do. It satisfies the need to have the fenced in backyard if you have a pool.
It's not going to be visible unless the deer go wild on the arbor lighting, which they can. Uh my thought is that you're likely to um due to the privacy issues, you're
likely to if that starts happening, you're likely to rebuild that. Um and so I think there's a lot of I think skinnying down the patio as as as
uh has has been described. Um the the abotment of that into the uh the front yard is is is now very very small certainly relative to the 22 application and even u even skinny town from what
was in our packet. Um and I think putting the fence where you're proposing is the the sensible thing to do. My thoughts. >> All right, I'll go next. um given the word. Um
couple things I I also read through number of times the uh resolution from the uh prior board hearing and I I really centered on paragraph 17 which states similarly the applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria for
variance relief under the statute. the applicant failed to demonstrate that the application constitutes a better zoning alternative for the property. The application will only benefit the applicant and his family as opposed to the surrounding neighborhood. That kind
of jumped off the page at me. Um, as far as benefiting the public with a municipal land use, I don't see that here. I wasn't really centering on the fence either. um until you question Rob on it. And I can't for the life of me
think that the prior board decision did not include the fence or that they just excluded it or they just had it as a side note or a footnote. Um I do I don't think kind of applies. I do think I agree with David that it is substantially
much different than it was back in 2020. I have a 2022 sitting up in front of me now. It's dramatically different. I agree with Rich on that. But um I am on the fence actually and the reason I say that is for consistency. I
mean we had a board take a look at this and one aspect of it is the fence. That's the consistent element that seems to be here. I mean I realize it's only it's 5t more off the the rightway line but is that substantially different? Um,
I also realize it drops back from the front of the house as well. Um, but as as far as consistency also, we've had a number of corner lots where we have fences that come up. I think the one that Rich mentioned on Jefferson that was also at the time we heard this
originally and that was pulled I believe. >> Well, the one that was recent that was pulled wanted to put the fence had very nice shrubbery and all that stuff and a uh a a drop down behind it to the street. They wanted to put the fence
along the street, >> right? And then we see that that's what they wanted to do in 2022. They see that a lot, but you know, >> yeah, they want to encompass as much as possible. >> Um, so I'd like to hear the rest of the board what your thoughts might be.
>> Yeah. Look, I I um this is clearly a very different application than what we saw before. Um, you know, I think it's um I I do think we have to clarify what it is we're actually approving because there's some there was various proposals
offered with respect to the size of that patio. So, I think was originally proposed that it be 10 ft wide. Um although the applicant be willing to go to five to the extent we approve it, I think we just have to be clear on that. I'm I'm personally fine with 10. Uh I
don't I don't think that's particularly large. I think given the um the irregular shape of the property and the fact that it's a corner lot, you know, I just think um it uh uh I think that creates a a challenge in terms of
creating a safe space uh you know for a pool that's there as of right now. So uh so I'm not I'm not really troubled by that. Look, with respect to the fence, I mean, I I I raised it because I did when I read the
prior decision, though I agree there isn't a lot of commentary with respect to it, it did seem like it was rejected. Um, now maybe it was rejected in the context of a an application that was excessive. Certainly in that board's
view that time, it might be now. Um but um you know so it it might have um been rejected or you know um just given the overall context of that application. I mean I'm personally not overly troubled by the fence. I don't I mean I generally
don't like those fences around the property line but um you know but I think in this context um you know I think it would look to David's point funny to try and draw that fence around the the uh the revised patio or the new
patio. So I I think I would I would be okay with that. But I am I mean just I am a little bit concerned about I've come to a different conclusion from what that earlier board did. um in this context
but uh but net I think the the application as revised is uh significantly scaled back more sensible um and I think probably better from a a safety perspective so I I would be supportive
can I just make this one little side comment um it's a little it's not directly related but I think it's worth stating just to remind the board that when we look at a C2 uh variance application. One of the
things that the board is charged with considering is whether the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments, right? It's a little bit of a balancing test. And there's this famous case called Pulland from 1999 um that basically clarifies that when a
board is to do that weighing of the positive and negative criterion criteria for a C2 that when you're looking at the negatives from the deviation what you are to compare it to is not the
positives from the particular deviation but the posit positives from the project. So, put another way, when you're doing that balancing, you're not just looking, let's say it was a rear yard setback, you don't just look and say, well, what are the benefits of this
rear yard setback versus the detriments. What you're supposed to do is you're supposed to look at the benefits of the whole project, whatever the project is, compared to the detriment of having that rear yard setback not comply. So I think that in terms of defense just as an
example that however you guys decide to come out that any detriment associated with defense and you know all variances have some detriment that's why they're variances right but to compare the what
are the detriments associated with that fence versus the benefits of the project if any you know whatever however you decide to to conclude on that. So thanks. Thank you.
um actually agree uh with uh my board members that this looks uh different this application looks different from uh what was presented in 2022 and I was digging my my brain into you know I was here at the time and I know what was you
know at that time from what I recall that was the size of the pool which was extending far into the into the front yard area and as such that was and and with with the neighbors. I I don't remember that part, but the neighbors
had actually objected. So, thank you for pointing that out. In totality, I think may have not looked at the fence at all at that time because the pool was too far protruding. And thank you again for presenting that to jog my memory back in terms of how that looked at that time.
Uh so from the two side by side I see that this is this looks fairly different uh from that application and from the concerns that were raised at the time. Um and I think here uh you have done a fairly good job in terms of you know
listening to our comments from the previous uh meeting and scaling it back um and I think you said you know 10 ft wide for a certain angle and then jogging in uh and you're willing to take it down and I'm I'm you know willing to listen to what people here think but I'm
okay with the way it's presented because it sort of brings in uh the safety feature. As far as the fence I would say that you know And I I I hear what what what the you know owner said in terms of from a safety perspective from your family's you know friends visiting and
you know everyone visiting from that perspective it does add that safety feature from both sides and Rob your point about benefits versus detriments I think clearly uh see that yes it is
invariance and that's why we're here but the safety that it brings and the fact that I'm seeing no neighbor neighbors in terms of you know objecting to what is being proposed today gives me the comfort that we I could be comfortable
with supporting the way so I should go earlier but I work here now so it's a tough point so um yeah so I do agree there's a couple things here right so I agree with my fellow board members a substantially different
app. So that's the first thing. >> Um for me I'm I'm still I'm still not 100% around that um and you know what was looked at in the previous uh application decision that the court has made. Um
however you know looking at Mr. Keller's, you know, artifacts, um, you know, the the photographs there and the and the way that the the the applicant has, you know, managed to put the trees in a way that it's it's compressed and
it's it's, you know, hiding the fence. Um, that that to me from a, you know, from the way that it looks to me it seems acceptable. However, the question around, you know, um
whether the previous decision by the board, you know, hinged around the fencing, I I don't know. And it seems like, you know, that's something that I'm I'm still not sure of. Um but the way it looks right now from personal perspective, it looks, you
know, looks right. Um and then also from a patio perspective from you know what we heard from the uh from the team few months ago to what we're hearing right now and the way that they you know reduce that uh space and they the step
down whilst keeping it safe for the elderly um you know occupant the house as well as the people that are using the area makes sense. Um so considering you know weighing out the
the positives and negatives I I am going to say I do I do uh I can support that I can support the application based on what we have uh in front of us today. >> Okay. Thank you board members. Uh do we
have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. I propose that we approve the variances with the construction as as outlined in Mr. tell it's marked up number one with the 10 with the 10 as the motion
85 >> 85 >> a second >> David Bradford >> yes >> yes >> Rosen >> yes Robert Yes. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Good. Thank you very much. Good luck. >> Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> That was the final application we have this evening. We have anyone in the audience have any other business? >> Not now. >> Very good. Thank you. I'll let the
record show there is no one in the audience that has business. >> Okay. So the top user >> we had a meeting in October 20th >> not meeting in October and then
um there are no other Mondays in October. because it's Wednesday the board of education two days no other Monday so I think that other days I came up with I think October 8th or
October 9th and I think >> yes >> so it's just something that kind of you don't have a quote that probably is September 29th I can't schedule anything for
>> 91, >> but that because the second >> we'll forget it. We're not >> Thankful. >> If I go the first the first Thursday said it's done before. >> Yeah. >> So, we can't meet the front at it would
have to be and then I have planning board so I have to be careful with the Wednesdays I use and I have to coordinate with time to communicate meeting on this. >> What's our next meeting? >> September 29th is the next meeting. Okay. >> Because of Labor Day and board of
education they're meeting and it was a Jewish holiday. >> Right. >> So >> and we're not doing any special for the rack the uh tennis club right because we're looking at that but you said we can't pick that in at all. Um, >> well, last I heard they were
>> That's the email they sent. Correct. >> Um, >> I I believe the application was withdrawn without prejudice. >> What is what's the 29th? Is that that apartment building? Well, they're one of
them on it, but I haven't received plan. That's why >> he hasn't, you know, seen anything. I scheduled other applicants for the same night because I didn't want to get stuck with >> right >> them home and then >> we have a large number. >> Um, with the one we just carried today,
I think there were >> three others. Okay. >> So, you know, and I mean they're couple of these. Okay. So, it's not meeting October. >> I unless I >> Bob's house.
>> Yes. Come over. I'll make a nice dinner. I'm sorry. >> Right. I So, I guess we'll just cancel. >> I think I I think we just we just wait and we see, right? And if you're getting
overwhelmed, we can always >> I don't get overwhelmed. >> Okay. >> Or your staff >> of 200 times. >> I'm I'm setting it completely in a protective, >> right? I know what you're saying. The
the applications get like so >> have you know four meetings in November and four in December and we'll be fine. When when does that property get ready for >> Oh, I'll be gone >> another year.
It's >> like, didn't you love that answer? >> Problem. >> I'm not even answering you. >> Next year, they thought it probably be a construction.
>> Probably sometime in 2027 early. So here here why why did we move from the 15th of December to the 22nd >> because um I don't know I'm going to be away the second but I I don't know what other people are doing
>> Monday. Yeah, I probably because >> well Hanukkah is one of the first >> and frankly you know it's it's even where professionals may not be around you know
>> we well done it before >> are we concluded we >> are So make a motion to close this board meeting. Board meeting, please. >> Motion to second. Second. >> All in favor? Motion carries.
>> Thank you, Eileen. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.