This is section five of the open public meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975. Be advised that the notice of this was made by putting the B board of town hall serving the officially designated newspapers a list of media dates annually indicating this meeting will take place at the motor board of
education center at 7 p.m. on uh 15. Um okay. So um >> oh sorry here >> here >> Robert >> here
>> chairman >> here. Uh we have seven minutes to approve of 2226. Um, >> okay. Uh, any questions, changes? >> Motion we approve the minutes.
>> A second. Second. All in favor? Anyone? >> Next. You have three memorializations starting calendar 405825 Diamond Towers 5 LLC at 137 JFP Parkway. We have eligible and
>> um any corrections or changes otherwise have a motion >> Gary Rosen >> yes >> yes next to the calendar 406225 uh Fang Zang Three Ridge Terrace Hills.
>> Okay. Any corrections or changes? If not, I have a motion. >> Second. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. Uh, next we have calendar 406525.
Uh, Reneer 50 Barbrook. Uh, I have a motion if there are no corrections. >> A second. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Rosen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um, okay. A couple announcements to
make before we jump into our um applications for this evening. First, calendar 40325. um that sorry calendar 405925
which is San Hawksworth at 116 Cypress Street that matter has been withdrawn. So if you're here tonight on that it will not be heard. Also calendar 406625 uh Quinn and Chang 738 Rididgewood Road in Milbour that application has been
withdrawn and it will not be heard. So here's the big news. calendar 407426 Little Tennis Center will not be heard this evening. Okay, it's going to move to April 27th. It'll be the first case
heard that evening. Okay, so if you're here for that one, it's going to move. >> Uh, and I'm not I'm not telling you this because I couldn't get to it tonight. Just just too much on the docket and I will not be able to give everyone enough time. So we'll make the first on the
27th of April and everyone will be heard any comments you have questions and there'll be a fair representation. So um that's that and there'll be no further notice um >> on the application
>> and we'll still Yeah, we'll still be here. Right. >> So I appreciate everybody. Yeah. >> Uh we have an extension first. Yeah. So the first thing we have is calendar 39 6423.
That is an extension of variance Jose Valdez and Lori Huber 353. Sagenor. Come on down. Real quick. You swear testimony proceeding the truth. all three of the main
ones. >> So, you're looking to extend your uh current relief that you've been given. Any changes you're making to your plans? >> No changes. We've actually over the past year, we've made a ton of progress. We have construction plans ready to go. Um
we just need more time to find a contractor. >> Okay. And you're not asking for any further variances? There'll be no further applications? No. Okay. Uh, any questions for the board? >> You need a year. >> A year would be great. That way I can guarantee I don't have to be again for
you and extend or request request another extension. We're a busy couple of professionals. We have a 2-year-old. We're doing as best as we can moving things forward. We have trouble sometimes agreeing on things. Uh, so it's just taking a little bit longer
than we'd like. But um with a year um we can get this done um for sure. Last time I was here I requested six months expecting that we would work more than a year. So um I would be grateful for a year if you last time you asked for 18 months and
gave me a year. How close are you? >> How close are you? It's difficult to tell for sure. >> Yeah. So we're we're pretty much at the end of the of the process of the design phase. We have already proposals from a couple of contractors. We're not
completely enamored with either of them and we just need more time to really find a contractor that we like. This is our forever home. So, we want to make sure that, you know, we get the right person for the job. Um, and just given our busy schedules, uh, we we would just appreciate having the, you know, the the
the time and the slack to be able to get make the proper choice while balancing all our other obligations. >> I'm leaning on giving you the year, but I think you'll see that the board will be losing patience at the end of that year. >> Understood. Yes.
>> Do I have a motion to approve? So move second >> and until that be the second. >> Okay. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen. >> Yes. >> Best.
>> Yes. >> Roberts. Yes, >> Steve. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Get it done. Thank you very much. >> Um, okay. Next up, we have uh calendar 40 53 45.
Um, this continued from 126. Who is everyone eligible to vote on this? >> You and I have the background as well. So, >> so my guess is that are you up to date on this or or not? I mean >> I believe our shoes is not
>> the tapes tapes, right? >> No. >> No. Okay. So, one, two, three, four, five. >> Is that case here? >> Yes, he's >> behind the monitor.
Oh, okay. >> You were previously sworn. >> Yes. >> Okay. So you're under oath, so please proceed. >> Yes. So um appreciate you all hearing out again uh this evening. Um you know the u just to shortly recap originally
we had no intent of coming before you for a variance. Um found a hardship through the storm water drain which restricted what we can uh build in terms of the area. the 36 reduction in space
that we can work with um for updating the property. Um so since the last meeting we've made some revisions reduced um the variance relief request that we're asking for. Um so hopefully um you know what we're requesting is you
know reasonable given that situation. >> All right. So tell us what you want to do. >> Yeah. Um so so we're looking to do a uh renovation extension of the property um due to the storm water pipe that cuts diagonally across the property. Um the
original plans that were compliant that we submitted >> we all know all this, right? So this is a recap. So let's get to where you are now going forward because we've all been on this case. Tell us what changes you made, what uh variances you've eliminated. You're the homeowner, right?
>> Yes. Okay. Professional here tonight or no? >> Yes. Correct. >> Let's go let's go through the plans on what you've changed. Um any variances you've eliminated or
>> minimized in? >> Yes. Um so we eliminated the var request which was the height of the building. Um that reduction in building height um eliminated the attic. So there's no attic. The previous proposal was a two and a half story building. Now it's it's
just a standard twotory building there. Uh um it's under the 32 height uh zoning um um regulation. Uh on uh the front setback we had originally asked for 23.2
fund setback. They've increased that setback to 25. Um uh uh uh and and and so that reduction actually decreases the square footage. Um so the um SA uh
square footage uh is is 34% versus the uh 36% that available well within um or um three um we are um closely looking at it's an existing uh patio on a secondary
front yard. uh with the the new design of the building, um the the the front portion of the uh house actually blocks the view of the patio and so um it actually reduces the nonconformity of
the existing patio. It's also a smaller patio. How far from the secondary street? >> Uh it's about 60. Show us real quick. >> Go ahead. You sworn it also. So >> yeah so the true story we now have the
true and now we we don't have that you know whatever we have before the side view like >> so just flipping back to the front where in the past in prior iteration it was a
little higher with a flatter roof because of the attic Okay. And so here you can see that uh you know the attic has been illuminated and the um roof is relatively pitch to normal architecture standards that we see. Um you know we
believe that the aesthetics of the house matches current um architectural and modern standards today consistent with what's being developed and updated in the neighborhood. Um you know uh much better than what is currently existing. Um given that the property is on the
notable corner of Glenn and Cypress and across from Slain Field, we feel that streetscape viewscape um is dramatically imp. what you would see from along Cyprus, right? That's right side elevation.
>> Yeah. >> How many bedrooms it uh >> How far is the neighbor's house off the street? the ones that are property. >> Um the current sub is 27. We're requesting total
>> the um the setback on site versus 60. >> Yeah, I know you're really far off that. >> Any other points? >> And and you're not going any the house already goes over the garage or the garage is staying.
>> Yes. Yes. And so you're not going any further over than that. >> No, from the garage. Not quite. >> Anything else? >> I'll close the public portion. Um comments from the board. What are your thoughts?
>> I appreciate the revision. uh downward. Thank you for kind of hearing what we said and regarding the sort of feeling of the third floor, the high height deck and upward level. Um I think you you could hear our discomfort with it last time.
So I appreciate the revision to something. >> We all know I should speak myself. I I know that you have a that pipe created a problem that you were unaware of and it wasn't easy to find out that it was
there. Um there was a you know despite the due diligence it didn't show up when we bought it. So you know we all accept that that's a creates a tricky problem dealing with it. Um, and so I I think you've done something that given the
size of the property is going to work fine because you got all that land that you've lost because of um so um I don't really have any problem and you got rid of the F. So that makes
me agree. Yeah, I'm supportive of it. I I think we haven't talked a lot about requirements for variance, but I do think there is a hardship here. Um and I think um uh the positive and negative criteria are are
met. Um I also appreciate the changes that have been made. Um, and I think the house is much more proposed is much more consistent with what you see in the neighborhood post. >> Yeah. I mean, in regards to the proofs,
you know, you do have a hardship case here for C1 perspective and a flexible C. I would say the lot can accommodate the massing. So, I think you're you're there. Um I I do think the um the new design is far better in keeping with the
streetscape that's there now. And the one setback I don't love the limited you're kind of close to your neighbors set back. So you know there's no reason to have a disproportionately high setback. So u I too would support this application.
Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion approve calendar 40 50-20. >> Thank you. A second >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosen.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Roberts. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck in the project. >> Thank you all so much. >> Sorry not to see you monthly. Next up, we have calendar 40642542
road. How many speakers you got tonight? >> Um, four of us. >> Four. Okay. >> Go ahead, Eric. You ask you swear from testimony tonight you
>> both names >> but your name >> we have >> y I >> okay >> y that's Clark >> Timothy You ready or?
>> Yes. >> Oh, yeah. So, we're going to start. So, my name is T. This is my wife. Uh, we bought our house 80 years ago. Uh, when our we have two daughters. So, uh, we
bought a house when they were very little. My older one was five years old, younger one was three years old. Uh so now they are like my older one almost 14 years old and she's going to be go to the Muburn High School next year. My
younger one going to go to the middle school. Uh so right now I think the PS uh is a little bit too small for them. So we only have three parents only one bathroom. Uh and also like my uh father-in-law passed away last year. So
my wife is for is the only child in the family. So my mom-in-law is gonna move in with us to live with us. So in order for my two daughters, my mother-in-law and us to live together in that house.
So we want to make them little bit bigger so that we have we can have one bathroom for my mom and we have we can have like two different bathrooms. >> Yes. So we need like individual bathroom for our daughter.
Uh we do love the neighborhood a lot and I my daughters enjoy the schools neighborhood and friends a lot. So here thanks. So that's my hair team to design
the new house to make it uh better. >> Um yeah, so my name is Tim Clie. I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey and New York and been licensed for about 30 years and my license was in Pittsburgh.
>> Your credits are accepted. >> Thank you. Have >> you ever presented the floor before? >> No. The So anyway, this site is on uh 42 Campbell. It's block 1709.
It's an or zone. It is just under 6,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size. Um, we have additions adding on to the rear of the property and renovating the
house. It's almost like these guys have been in this house for about well, I guess eight years now. And um, we're going to come through and just clean up the whole interior. And we'd like to make these small additions onto the rear which are
basically occurring where the deck is right now and um give them a little more space and add another bathroom on the second floor. name it's it's all um you give us a little more like livable
area and not adding I'm going to say to the bulk of the building when you see it from the street will go into much greater detail on it than that but on my I'm now on my BOA one street the left side is the existing surve the
writings are proposed and if you do if you turn that See the way we do that single crosshatch for a for a one-story building or when we add over the two the double hatch for a
twostory building. It's basically adding over the deck. We went about a foot deeper than the existing deck just to fit everything. And that's what led us to trigger the rear yard unoccupied which I think his fer
will do better than than me. But that's really what's going on is a lot of work is occurring in the rear. The sun is kind of well suited because on the left side the first floor is only about 9 ft off the property one but the second floor is
pushed in a little bit. A little relief of the properties. And on the or on the left side. On the right side, the garage is way back off of what I refer to as the picture plane of the house, that front wall. So, and we're
not adding over the garage. So, that it actually appears as if there's a lot of gloom on the right side of the property and over to the neighbors. I go I'll go in to my VA2 sheet or 12 and I'm trying to move
it along because I see the agenda and make this happen a little bit but >> the you can see on my left side the first floor plan and do you can actually see the existing depth and we're at
about a foot beyond that figures is addition of rear yard unoccupied. What we actually did is we hit the rear yard setback so we wouldn't trigger that period. The garage is still deeper than
than our um addition. Garage is still another foot deep. Then we came and we left a little bit of deck on the left side there, but we didn't want to add more deck going into the rear yard. So, we just have a small deck.
On my second floor, we reconfigured and added a second bathroom because there really is only one bathroom on this second floor right now. So, we reconfigured this existing rear bedroom,
added a bedroom in the back, and end up with a really three bedrooms and sort of the mother-in-law's um really it's a bedroom in the front here. It's small though, you know, more like
what we normally call a nursery, but these three rooms are really sharing that existing effort. This area is the new area in the back. That box there is the garage, right? We haven't violated into the garage space.
We stay in context to the building. I go to my 13. It's going to see that on my front elevation. There's really no change to the facade of the building. And when I
was talking before about the sideyard setback coming up to 18 feet and then going in as I get up till 32, you can see how our existing building is sitting at about 9 foot. The second
floor is at about 13 ft. But we're already addressing that. We haven't modified it in any way at all. There's a lot of openness between the two buildings. On the right side, the garage, which looks to be forward, you know, in the elevation, is actually
pushed back about 30 ft. So, there's no work going on really on the front facade of the building. If I come to my left side, there's this the deck in the foreground, then the one-story building, and then beyond that is the twotory building,
which is basically in that area in the rear. I'm going to go to my POA14. And now I'm in the backyard looking back. You can see our onestory edition our second floor on top
of it. And this is really a projection of about two and a half feet that we had to come out to make that bedroom wide enough for Mark to fit the bathroom which is actually right there back in the existing building.
So all my my new roof like on my right side elevate to the building itself. I'm gonna I guess I have one more picture. I guess I have to this
one. You took these pictures, too? >> Yes. I took these photos um about three months ago, I guess, before the snow. the uh it was probably in September.
The front of the building, you can see how on the you know looking at it, this left side is laid back on the second second floor stays. That all stays. Nothing's happening to the front, right? It gives me actually a pretty nice
looking scale building on in this neighborhood on the right side the adjacent house. I come into the back. This is where we're building over the existing deck. This is probably, you know, the kitchen edition of originally
an open porch that was enclosed at some time, but they were going up over. And then this is just another shot from the front because I wanted you to get an idea how deep it goes till the garage actually occurs here. This is an aerial
view which I can pass around if anyone wants to see it. You can see our proposed addition is about equal to the one on the corner. When the Campbell itself is cutting on an angle, you see how deep the property
gets immediately to the right. I mean, we're not we're really building over that existing deck which is in this picture. With that said, I'd like to pass it over to Mal and you can come back or ask any
questions now or later. Uh, I'll see if the public has any questions. Uh, public have any questions for the architecture running his testimony? And I guess I'll move on. >> Good evening, commissioners. Mer Robin.
>> Sure. Your credentials, please. >> Yes. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey since 2021. My license is current and deep in good standing with a background in landscape architecture and a master's degree in city planning. testified before a couple dozen boards uh throughout the county and before you
guys uh previously earlier this year. >> Great. Your credentials are accepted. Please proceed. >> Great. Um I have a little slide deck to pass out. So I guess it would be a two for the recordation. Okay. So, um I don't want to go over the property description too much since the architect really gave you the lay of the
land, but we are at 42 Campbell Road. Um we are seeking relief for three variances tonight. First being A4 variance for maximum F and then two C variances, one for maximum building coverage and one for minimum unoccupied
yard. Um we are located in the R six zoning district. The purpose of the zone is to provide a range of lot sizes for single family dwellings. Uh the development of vacant lands in these builtup neighborhoods shall be compatible with existing development patterns. I'll
touch on that a little bit more when I uh discuss compatibility with the master plan, but essentially um the zone and the master plan really emphasize maintain this whole neighborhood scale as a priority for the residential community. In terms of the um variance relief, I'll
start with the F variance um that being the uh largest burden of proof here before the board tonight. Um if you see on slide two, which is the second um little square on your page, uh there's a summary of the existing
building for floors one and two, you have a really minor additions as Kim stated, uh enclosing kind of what existing deck area is and then adding a small second floor addition as well, which total between the two floors an
additional 426 square ft of floor area. This gives us a final uh proposed square footage of 2365 square ft. Uh for reference, a compliant building on this lot would be 2,145 square ft. Um I do want to note for you
all in this analysis for F both for our property and and nearby properties, the code does call for you to consider uh garages as part of floor area. So just for reference, um our garage is 162 ft. just like to discern that so you get a sense that it was actually like truly
habitable versus just overall structural property. If you go to the following page, you'll see uh highlighted in pink where the new bulk is proposed. Um that's also obviously been covered in the architecture plans, but gives you a sense of um the fact that we are really
just essentially meeting the existing deadline, projecting an additional one foot, but we are maintaining a compliant rear yard setback. and then a smaller portion of that being added on the second floor to um increase the bathroom size and be able to achieve a fourth
bedroom for the family's uh second daughter. I do always in evaluating these F variances like to look at the existing uh bulk that's in the neighborhood for character and there's a couple considerations that I'm really
evaluating when I'm looking at whether I think project is appropriate. Uh the first being just the crude calculation of F Um, so you can see on uh the bottom of that page that there's a a little table. I took a look at all of the properties
that were on the east side of Campbell Road. The properties on the west are often oriented and addressed to different streets andor just have a a very different lot configuration than the east side. So I thought most appropriate to look at the east side.
You can see uh I've analyzed 14 properties in total. uh six of them are existing non-conforming from an F standpoint. They range anywhere from 37 to 041. We are proposing a.396 F with this
project. So we're right in line with kind of what the existing bulk is in the neighborhood. There's a couple other properties that are at the max of.36. So any kind of addition to those properties would require relief. Um, and so really
I I would say the first step is to look at, you know, where are we at? What are we proposing for F and is it compatible with what exists. I also like to kind of take a step closer and really analyze what the overall built square footage of the property is and what we're
proposing. So I would um bring to the board's attention that we are proposing in total 2365 square ft. And if you look at that column in that table, uh we're very much in line. if not lower than a lot of the the overall structure size that exists
in the neighborhood. And I think that's an important consideration because we can do these F calculations, but to the lay person, you're driving by the street, you don't know where property line ends and begins from neighbor to neighbor, and you're really looking at how big is this house? Is it abnormally
big compared to everything on the street or really is it compatible um with what I see on the street? And so I think it's an important consideration for the board that overall square footage in bulk is really um proportionate here and very much in character with the neighborhood.
Okay. Um so in terms of the the proofs under the MLUL case law um really establishes through town center and uh vandolph that the uh positive criteria for Coventry Square is the uh really
defining case under which a D4 can be granted and that case establishes that unlike a D1 uh D4 is not evaluated based on overall site suitability uh for the proposed bulk. It's it's really just evaluated on whether the site can accommodate the impacts of the wolf
that's being proposed. So it's not about uh this the best site for this kind of uh use andor um building size. It's about what are the negative impacts associated with this additional bulk and can we mitigate those? I think this is a
great project um to really evaluate those kind of impacts being that uh we're able to propose this F while we do need the relief without triggering any setback variances. So I think that that's a major consideration when you're looking at impacts on adjacent
properties. you have a compliant rear yard setback, compliant sideyard setbacks. And we're able to also uh achieve this without actually expanding the building line or the built two line when you when you consider that existing deck. So from a neighbor standpoint, um we're not going to have a major new
projection that's very much out of line with what exists today. Um additionally, I would just offer that um there is a building coverage variance associated with this which I'll speak to in a second. Um, but I think
it's uh very relevant to the board that we don't actually need any lot coverage relief. It's another major consideration particularly like in a in a community like Milbour um where you have storm water considerations and flooding as a major concern um that I consider is is F
triggering building coverage and lot coverage and being a catalyst for kind of a waterfall of variance related and I don't believe that that's the case in this outage. Uh moving to the building coverage, um we have an addition of 243 square feet,
which is about 4% additional building coverage on the property. Um again, as I've stated, a lot of that is is over what is existing deck, which does not get included in building coverage. Um so that's where that that increase in percentage is coming from. A
lot of the talking points on the building coverage are very similar to considerations with the F wherein um we're not seeking lot coverage variance. We're not seeking setback variances in order to accommodate this goal. Um and so from an overall site plan standpoint,
there's no real impacts to how the site operates from today in terms of storm water drainage um and runoff management. Um and then in terms of the unoccupied rear yard, that's an existing non-conforming condition on this property. we are making that a little bit more severe by about I think it's
0.9% or 1%. Um so it's a marginal increase in that nonconformity. Um and again this a lot of this is the the same talking point so sorry to echo but um you know we do maintain fully compliant facts on all sides despite
that um unoccupied rear yard and again I think being an existing non-conformity it's really a function of the placement of the existing structure and the fact that the best place for an addition on this property is in this rear building rather than aside or changing the front
end would have a much more drastic impact on the overall neighborhood of the character and the experience of the property from the public right. Uh in terms of the master plan, I did review the recommendations that are uh tied to the the R six zone. Um the
master plan identifies protection of neighborhood character as a key community priority that was voiced during outreach. Again, our our um addition isn't even visible from the rightway. So there we if if any I would say not really any um impacts overall to
neighborhood character. Goal one of the master plan encourages appropriate land uses to promote township character. And again I think we're just reinforcing that by being able to expand the structure without um visible alterations from the rightway and the fact that we are able to maintain those compliance
setbacks means that there's no impact to light air and open space for our immediate adjacent neighbors. Um the zoning recommendations for R six specifically uh call for the township to ensure that new construction andor
additions are not excessively bulky in relation to neighborhood context. I think we've shown that through that F analysis that looks at overall built square footage and that we're proposing be very in line with the neighborhood. Uh finally I do think we are advancing several purposes of the ML with the
project. uh specifically purpose A to encourage municipal action um and appropriate use for development of all lands uh in a manner that promotes general welfare and safety. Purpose C is to provide adequate light air and open space. Again, that hearkens back to the
fact that we are maintaining compliance setbacks on all sides, which is consistent with the zone plan. And purpose E just to promote the establishment of population densities and concentrations that will contribute to well-beings of persons and neighborhoods. So, we are a single family home. We need to grow that single
family home so this family can stay here. Um, but we're maintaining that use, that density, and the overall boat parameters of the zone. So, I do think we're able to meet the proofs of both the D4 and a C2 on the building coverage and the minimum unoccupied rear yard. I
don't think that there's any substantial detriment in the granting of the variances. And I do think the proposed bulk is a better overall design alternative than other potential expansions of the structure which would have significant impacts on existing care. >> With that, I'm happy to answer any
questions. >> Any questions for the board? >> Yeah. Um, it looks like you noticed for it said it was a violation of four different variances. That was honestly I saw that because I think it just got carried over from
you talking about the three and the three that were in your application, but I was noticing. Okay, great. >> Good job. >> I have a I have a question. Um, >> and I'm going to show a little ignorance here. Is this Tim is this considered an attached garage or a detached garage?
>> There's no access to the building, >> but it it's attached. >> Detached. Okay. Um maybe this question then is for our attorney. I thought rear yard unoccupied was from the furthest reach of the building in which case the garage would part of
>> right. So since you're not going past the garage I don't see a change in the rear yard enough to >> I would for real but for not I I that's then that's like saying you can't build anything excessive in that area. It's not
>> no but it's not attached. So if it's attached, it's part of the building, >> right? But I would use the entire entire >> the calculation here is from we ignore the garage for the for the calculation of the for for where we
measure the rear yard setback. >> So I would just offer that the um zoning table for the zone uh calculates the unoccupied rear yard based on lot area. So it's not just a linear dimension, it's a lot area dimension. So because our addition is projecting additional 1
foot into the rear yard from what exists today that would shrink that total 25% area that's proposed >> but >> it's not a straight line right there. See how it's not square?
>> Okay. >> If if it did go straight, you're right. You would have increase. >> It's just that where that deck line is is changing slightly. So, we have a slight reduction in what is going to be proposed. Like I
said about% and I would offer um what you can see in the survey that was submitted there aren't any accessory structures currently in the yard. So not >> what's your current re on right now? >> It is probably >> uh yeah a little over 1300 square feet
or 22.7 >> 22.7 right. So you're not compliant now. Yes. >> So, can I ask um I understand your rear yard setback will be compliant, >> correct? >> Um how far are you built from the house
on the other side? >> The house in the rear. >> So, we actually have if you look at >> the tax map that's on page two, >> you'll see we actually have a rear to side relationship on that. So, we're not actually aligning with the primary
structure. they do have an accessory garage in their backyard. Um, I would have to probably pull up a satellite image to verify that metric for you, but I would say with our 20 ft, um, assuming they have a compliant accessory structure there, there's probably an
additional 10 ft. Um, so from us to their garage would be about 30 ft. >> So there >> that's a detached garage on that property. >> It looks like looks like more than that because the garage is on the farthest side. >> It is. Okay. Oh yeah, it's on.
>> Yeah, it's not it's not close to the >> air driveway goes up the left side. >> Okay, you can take it back. >> I don't want to bring the same amount of back in there. >> Right. if they were back. >> Any other questions?
Any questions from the public regarding the testimony you just heard? Um, anything further? >> That's it. Thank you for your time. Okay. >> Um, any comments from the public regarding these applications?
I posted um what are your thoughts for >> I think the fact that the effect doesn't change much from the street is you know as testimony alluded to
keeps the view from the street character of the you somebody passing by or walking by consistent. Um, I think it's, you know, a nice way to adjust the home to be more useful. I think a one-bedroom house, I understand,
is one bathroom house is challenging. Um, so I can understand why the applicant would look to make these modifications and I think I understand they do impact, but the lot size being small does seem to be a hardship. So, I think it's compelling.
>> So, you do have a hardship in regards to the lot, albeit a small one. Um, you know, I appreciate this application because one that I often say, you know, you have your two choices. You can go for what you want or for what you need. And here you went for what you need. And
I think that's that's admiraable because it it you know, these rooms are modest in size. So even if I said, "Hey, let's chuck that half a percent off on that." It's almost impossible to do because these bedrooms are like not even bedrooms anymore. So, um, they're going to be like large walk-in closets. So I
you know it would be a hard request even to say can you trim here or trim there. So uh I would be in favor of this application proposed. >> Yeah I agree have a lot more to add except I do think the the F analysis is actually quite helpful
and show showed some wisdom letting you speak. Um, I thought that was a very good analysis and you know I think if we're concerned about massing u with an F on see that here and I think as as the
chairman noted I think this is modest ask and uh I think it fits within the context of neighborhood nicely. Since this is a dev and we are short on people, I would ask everyone to make a
comment whether you're in favor or not. >> I I I would I would support this and I again say Mal once again when I saw you saying you're going to have a good analysis on some of that. >> I agree. Yeah, I think uh you know don't have a lot to add to that but just based on the
analysis that we have here and you know great job you know once again with the analysis you know just around the surrounding property and yeah concerning with the you know lot area size there and tastefully done you know to to meet
the need I think I'm in that >> it's a thoughtful design you receive forward vote. Um I had a motion in this case. >> I move to approve the application and uh
>> second. I'll second >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Darren Rosen. >> Yes. >> Sol. >> Yes. >> Roberts. >> Yes. >> Ten. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck in the project. Thank you. >> Next up, we have calendar
6826 690 Ridwood Road. What? >> Yes. >> Mr. Singer, are you the lone professional this evening? >> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm I I did not afford this, but I'll give you as you know, we
are short this evening and clearly you need five out of six tonight. That's a five out of seven. So, uh, I just want you to know that for your variance, >> you haven't. >> I don't. Okay, good. Then you don't have to worry about it. So, you're only
looking for the application. >> Yeah. >> Matt Case, uh, who who's gonna be speaking tonight? >> Swear you both in. So, >> okay. >> Why don't you both raise your right hand
to swear from testimony? You could I truthful truth and truth? >> Yeah. >> Just your name for the record. >> Your name? Thomas lic since 198 planner in New Jersey since 2011.
graduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania. >> Have you presented this before? >> And I presented before. >> All right. Your credentials are accepted. So why don't you get going? >> Okay. Um >> yeah. All right.
Good evening. Uh this various application is about preparing a home so that we can live independently for years in the town. My name is Rajesh Mahari. I'm a 72 year old retired active
electrical engineer and my wife is retired biologist. We lived here for 38 years. We would like to live here and we call this our home. Our two children went through the kindergarten through the high school in
this town. We blessed with six grandchildren and this has been more than a place to live. It has been the foundation of our family, our friend, our community. My wife suffers from autoimmune condition which makes her sitting with a
leg up and she cannot stand or walk for a period of time is difficult. He has ticardia and temporal arthritis. Both of us have hypertension and I suffer from severe spinal cancer and that's the reason for this
presentation this evening to prepare our home for the years ahead. We need to make some practical modifications so it can accommodate limited mobility and eventually wheelchair access which is not there. We need to expand our current 84T
kitchen so we can put a dishwasher inside and we need to put an elevator so we can transfer our test through the floors as time went through. Uh we respectfully request your approval of this variance and which Tom will
explain in detail. Thank you. Thank you. I also have some paper. >> What are you screwing on building? >> Okay. So, So,
we're looking ahead. and make some kind of arrangements around you. So the the existing house follows that 70
um square feet of space that's like that's open. And this is a small threeseason dining room beyond that. But all the all the construction work is going beyond
that. So the addition is 70 square ft extends up to the second floor and the three seat easiest way to look at it I think
is that's existing house that sort of complicated Um we're taking that and and second floor some of it building corner
on this side is above the existing house here elevator located there so that close to the stair. Step out if you load it up the stairs.
So assuming you got a wheelchair or something that won't fit wheelchair carrier, you've got got a quick path to get upstairs. Um
right now this is the kitchen. I'm going to go to a sheet that's it's a little lar. Um, so this has the the area that's left out. >> Yeah.
>> You don't have colorized. So the whole thing individually mark the whole package. >> Okay. Um, so there are Well, this is the elevator. Here. This is the upstairs. Upstairs
there is a small shaker that's got a bed could be used as well, it's initially going to be used as an office. It could be used for an there are three variances that we're
looking for. One is for building coverage, one is for sideyard setback and one is for pipe deciders. The setbacks are all along this wall
this side of the site. The the distance from the property line to the building is 7.28, 28 ft, which means that there's a 72.7 ft beyond
the the building exceeds the the setback by 72. >> Just for the record, you're not exacerbating that condition. Correct. >> We are not exasperating exacerbating >> either one. Correct. >> Um >> in terms of side your setback. Well, the
extent in terms of the length of the building along the side is getting >> correct. That was getting close. >> That's the only >> It's not getting close, right? >> It's not getting And there's a little tiny piece up here because it's
it's 19.37 to the bridge. So, we're kicking the height of side guards just before that a little there. over here. So Rosedale Avenue Ridgewood Road in a
45 degree angle resulting in irregular shape houses in the R six district lots along the west side of Rosedale Avenue mostly 37.5 by 100
the R six district 60 by 90 are required and 6,000 square ft is the minimum lot size. This one is 5450 so it's slightly below
the standard for the district. Um, in addition to the diagonal, because it's a corner lot, it's got to meet the side step back on two sides, which forces the building back a little
bit further than it normally would. um a current home with a shed. A shed down here that was prior approval.
I forgot what year, >> but it's in the package >> 2009. >> Yeah, November 2009. Uh anyway, the the current building coverage is 1341
and the allowable is 1255 square ft. So the uh the current is 24.56 which is above the 23
and um We're adding 70 ft which brings us up to 1411 25.85%. Um 17 home comprise the subject side
only one of them beats 23% building coverage. The subject property has a has the third smallest cover ratio in both uh configuration both 24% 55.
Um the other the 14 other houses are noning and larger than this one and these vary from 26 to 37%.
The minimum side guard 18 ft is 72 ft variance and above 18 ft there's an additional 41 to is 1.13 ft
at the roofing uh in reviewing the 15 properties on the same side of rules they have. Um there are 11 of the 15 that can't meet the side require based on the width of the house and the
width of the lot. So there would probably be more because some of them that were big enough could have been closer to line. Skip the additional.
We are requesting relief these condition based on C1 and C2. Um C1 allows belief in cases of exceptional narrative shape of specific piece of property on
the structures of the existing strict occupation or school. All the relief relates the line of structures leaving home. The rod is exceptionally irrelevant, irregular, shallow and requires
set back practical difficulties adding to the others I saw. The uh house exists and the set is merely an extension of the structure.
We're not changing what the sight set back is when the site set back. The except the exceptions being requested do not add new nonline but minimally increase the degree of
existing. The setback relief being requested the extension of the ground floor. The setback is dimminimous in size making the new work form would create an outside impizability
of the house. Adding projecting roofs to manage the setbacks would wider side roofs which would make the uh setback appear narrower. Um and Harlo versus R versus
state ruled that hardship relieved could be grantly for a vertical extension of existing nonconforming building based on addition plus 11 of the 15 houses with parallel sideyards distribute cannot meet the
city background without partial demolition or uh complete demolition. of the buildings roughly existing. Um 17 of the 17 lots on the block exceed the building coverage limit.
subject line is the third lowest building coverage and that applies to existing addition and the new both the benefits of the deviation would satisfy substantially outweigh the
detriments of particular application the balancing test C2 uh this is all about situations uniquely affecting this piece specific specific piece of property including the
structures locally existing narrow home improvement adds value quality to the site which adds to the value and quality of the area improvements sighting and gave sideways
and the purpose is purpose one that satisfies purpose one providing vision as a physical uh project provides a better living environment that makes it possible for the family that lives there to age in place
and safety purpose. A the renovation could keep the house from becoming a tear down. months uh recovery recycling of the full screen alteration maintain the historic and
historical context of the neighborhood. It's some tear down. It's generally keeping the same basic character at the house promotes u respect for the history which is jail
purpose J in addition to the modest 70 square foot coverage it's not introsive or overwhelming which helps which addresses purpose C light hair the addition does not create additional
population density. It provides critical support for the family that's already that already was there which is the purpose density 70 additional square feet is behind the
house from the road and over 82 feet from Richdale Avenue limiting uh visibility from the street. No variance or other related can be granted without without substantial without such
substantially detriment. No variance of their relief may be granted financial detention and vary purpose was closer to the intent of the zoning ordinance than vast majority of other
properties on the street size and shape of property is unique resulting in turn and excludes or by it's the result of internal internal and external forces affecting the area. Well, that's both
undersiz and regular being formed from shift of railway railroad right away 40s 40 years before the ret ordinance was stopped proposed maximum building cover rate ratio
subject property more conforming than 14 17 lots of lot sideyard relief of 8.5 in based So 7.98 set back which is less than the average
on the block which is 7. While a single couple living in a private house is not specifically covered by the inherent inherent beneficial use is not covered under purpose L uh because it's not community housing
can be inferred in public based on state of New Jersey defer to make it make it easier for seniors to age in place uh through tax programs like senior free state of New Jersey and the anchor programs
the fans master plan re-examination checked 1.3 encourages action to allow senior citizens to dam um it's reasonable to treat this as not detrimental to the public
for these reasons my opinion be previously enumerated request thank you um any questions with me architecture planning testimony
that was given >> state that the width or size of the elevator does not accommodate the wheelchair >> the way you phrase it depends on >> run up I I >> it depends on the in most cases somebody ends up running up the stairs because
there's groceries growing going with it for but it is intended to be a three personality >> three person. Okay. And then are other uh ADA accommodations were made so that
>> there is um other accommodations like either to front steps or egress between the looks like there are steps between the garage and the um floor. I don't know if I'm interpreting the ground floor plan correctly. Like are you making the whole
house compliant while you're there? >> Um at the moment uh we don't need to do that. You're making it access comp until it's in which case.
>> However, the elevator takes the bulk of that. >> Obviously, it takes the biggest portion of the pipe to go up. >> But the front steps, the access from the garage, those aren't changing right now.
They're not in training right now. There's probably there's a opportunity in the garage for which would be the easiest way to avoid. Any other questions for the board? Any questions from the public regarding
the testimony you've heard this evening? Any comments from the public regarding this application? I'll close the public call for board members or thoughts. So, I'll go first. Uh, you know, I think this is another
thoughtful application. You know, at the end of the day, you're trying just to accommodate the needs here of the applicants. Uh, and, you know, you're not exacerbating conditions. You know, building coverage I usually can see as a C1 and borderline C2. I I think that the
lot going to accommodate mass. Uh from C1 perspective, you're 500 square feet plus below the the zone minimum. So with that 500 square feet, probably the bulk of this goes away in
>> 5%. Yes. So you're just about gone. So uh with that, I would be supportive of the application. >> I agree. But um it's interesting you mentioned the ADA and you know seems like there's a real hardship here that addressed
way. Um you know the state encourages people to age in place if they can. So you're helping. >> Yes. I have a motion. So a second.
>> Second. >> David Bradford. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good luck with project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next
We're done here. Next application is going to be calendar 405125. 521 mill. We don't fight. You're more than welcome to come down. Are you good? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh members
of the board of work professionals, Lawrence Sax on behalf of the applicant 521 MA properties LLC. This property is located at 521 Milburn Avenue, block 1707, block one.
>> Uh so stop you there real quick. Um as you know, um we are short members tonight. So, if we do get to a vote um and you don't like what you hear or whatever, I will give you the opportunity to potentially come back. Um
we will not hear any new testimony here. >> Okay. >> Um and obviously we have the giant breast judic. >> That's correct. So, >> so I would ask you to proceed, but knowing that on with this application,
>> um there are some uh large gorillas to get over. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's uh this is not your normal run-of-the-mill uh hearing. Uh and just to give some insight into this, uh back in 2018, this board did deny an application.
>> I think I was the only one on this that sat on that. It was one of the first. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Anyway, back in 2018, there was a prior application this property which was denied by the board and in the resolution, there were several reasons
expressed for that denial. Uh we're here this evening to discuss and I have three witnesses here this evening. I have uh our project architect, Mr. Don Fiori, who will talk about some of the changes that were made with respect to the application. I have uh our professional
planner Nancy who will also talk about the issue of how this pertains to race judicata. Um I'm not really going to get into the variances tonight because that's that's a subject for a later date, but certainly we'll prepare to discuss that as well. >> What variances are somewhat the
overshadowing issue? >> Well, you're fascinating your F. >> I'm going to talk about the F as well, Mr. because I do have testimony from the planner and I also would like to talk about in my summation about uh conclusions that were made back in 2018.
Um so with that said we we propose to indicate to this board that there have been sufficient changes uh which would overcome the doctrine of race judicata and as the and I'm sure you return to
the instructor on this but uh race judicata would bar a subsequent application on the same property from proceeding forward unless you can sew sufficient changes and that's elucidated in the case of Preston gash which is a Supreme Court case from 1993. I'll talk
about that in my summation as long as chair but I do have three witnesses. >> Sure. >> Can you give us a kind of proper as to why did not apply this case? >> Yes. I mean I didn't talk about it but I think the testimony will support it. But
back in 2018 uh we had an application uh that had no parking on site. Uh we now have parking on site. uh over the last over the course of the last several years, we were able to negotiate uh with the township in Hillburn uh to obtain an
easement to actually park in a we we have spaces on our property, but they would overhang into the township right of way. That's been have been resolved. We have an easement to utilize that township right of way that's recorded with the Essex County Clerk.
>> Still substantial deviation. >> No, no, I don't think it's a substantial dev. I don't I don't want to argue with you, Mr. chairman, but it's not a deviation. I think what I have to show in order to overcome race judicata is that there have been sufficient changes with the second application. I had no
parking back >> threading the needle there. >> Okay. >> Well, all right. Well, I'll reserve comments. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think you need to hear from my witnesses, but um but certainly that that in and of itself is a sufficient change with respect to the application. We had no parking. Now we have five
parking spaces which by the way comply with the RSIS uh in terms of the residential use. Um there's also been a suggestion from your police department. They don't have any objection to the application. They understand that we we do ultimately need a parking variance.
Uh they've suggested that we obtain additional parking by way of permit from the municipal garage across the street. We're prepared to do that. Um there were no comment there were comments from your fire uh district. We're certainly willing to comply with that. And the only comments, interestingly, from your
engineer were the elimination of a dry well. They feel that we don't need a dry well on this property. So, one change obviously is the parking. Second change is the aesthetics of this property. >> Yeah, I would I would I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Okay, that was one
board member back then that made a big deal about the the tutor look. Okay, that was certainly not, >> I would say, a general opinion. Okay. And this board doesn't have an opinion on aesthetics. >> I understand. >> Okay. You can still build whatever you want to build even if we don't like it.
>> Well, we did change the aesthetics though, so we will talk about that as well. And by the way, I'm not going to belabor these points with the board because our presentation is rather brief. Uh but I would like to at least get on the record uh the testimony of the professionals. I would like an opportunity to sum up. And
>> what about the F? >> We're going to talk about my my plan is going to talk about the F. All right. Um, and in terms of the F, >> in terms of dress judicata is what I want to hear. That's what I'm interested in him telling me about the F. I'm interested in you telling me why how the
F pertains to R Judicata and what you're doing about that. >> Well, I'm not sure it necessarily pertains to race judicata. All right. Because again, my planner is going to discuss the issue of the fact of how an F applies when you've got a mixed use here. Obviously, I've got a a
quantifiable lot of a certain size. I already have an existing commercial use on that property, albeit it's vacant at this particular time. I'm adding a residential use. The argument could be made that we actually satisfy the F, which is 75 in the zone, which is what
the residential use triggers. Now, I don't have any available continuous property uh to abate any F variance, but I'd prefer to have my planner address that as well. >> Wasn't that the argument the last time? >> It was one of the arguments. One of the arguments was rejected. And now you're bumping up the F.
>> Uh the F is >> the F well the initial plans submitted were 1.36. Uh they dropped it 1.9 >> 1.12 and now we're up to 1.32. But again I I will address that with with my planner and with my architect.
>> So uh at least I'd like the opportunity. Are they going to give us planning testimony as to why they should be granted or are they going to tell us what makes this substantially different? >> I don't have to give you planning testimony to support any variances at this point. All I've got to demonstrate to you because then I've made sufficient
changes to the application under breastman B. Gash. Now, if you rule that uh race judicata does not apply and I proceed forward and I come back and I'm not suggesting we would handle that this evening, but we'll come back. If you determine race two to kata does not apply and I can proceed forward, you're
certainly free at that point when you hear my variance testimony on the D4 to either accept or reject that testimony. You know, that's obviously the risk that we run at a later date. Uh but I think for purposes of this evening, the only thing I need to demonstrate to you is
that I that this application is sufficiently different under breast versus gash that it takes it out of the >> contract. See before we hear test, >> I don't provide test. I don't have >> I I get I get what you're saying. Yeah, I get what you're saying. I mean, even
though you have um you're you're still presenting a case here that the conditions are exacerbated over the previous application and and the largest one too. You're talking about your your DVR >> and the one that they specifically say is why we turned this down. It's too
high of an F. >> Well, you turned it down for too high of an F. And again, I believe that that was not a proper decision at that point. Obviously, the appeal period is expired, but I think I I'm at least entitled to the opportunity this evening to address
those issues in front of this board to establish a record and we see where it goes. Um, but again, breastman versus G, by the way, doesn't talk about intensification. It only talks that you have to make sufficient changes. >> Not to the worst.
>> Doesn't say that. I wish I wish it did say that. All right. But let's let's let's proceed. Okay. Uh just know that there will be a vote on uh rest of God. Okay. Um because sit here and go through all this just
start smoking mirrors. It's not >> No. And again, I'm I'm an attorney. I'm not a planner. I'm not an engineer. I'm not an architect. So I think I need to have you need to be afforded the opportunity to present that testimony on the record. You'll weigh your decision based on that. And uh and in terms of
taking a vote, I know that and I see that your procedure has been to somewhat pull the board. I'd probably request the same courtesy of course. >> And of course, if we decide not to take a vote tonight, you won't or we or we might. >> Yeah. We'll hear this testimony and then we'll make first witness I'd like to call Mr. Don
Fiori. >> Oh yeah. Just explain quick. uh so that everyone here understand deals with basically the same application coming for you it's the same party coming
at one of the elements it's substantially similar for the first one it's an element must be substantial change to either the application itself or the surrounding area not just the application must be an adjudication on the merits of
this application, it must involve the same cause of action which we're here for two residential apartments which is what the previous ones. So based on that those five criteria the board can make a
decision. Now as far as intensification intensifying uses for any versus double that and they said that that causes a retreat of issue the same application and the same deviations are testified.
So based on that whether they have the same applicant, it's the same application. Our big problem or big issue here to discuss with council and the applicant is is this substantially different application for this actual property or is there something in the
surrounding area that changes everything as it relates to this property. We need to determine that. And we're going to hear testimony as to why this is or is not substantially different from the previous application. And if we determine it is substantially
different, we will then be able to >> after they have a presentation, you can deliberate and have a vote or if it's clear it's substantially different, we can just proceed. >> Thank you. >> Your credentials, please. Okay. Thank you. your name.
>> Fury for um I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. Uh license is in good standing. Um I testify before uh planning for the custom historical
in within the general area on a regular basis. Uh been practicing in Milberg since 19 98. Um currently uh I'm the managing member of
Superior Architects uh over Birmingham uh in fact is still effective here for the most part. >> It's a good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um my intent just so make sure uh I was
doing a general overview of the project just make sure we have an introduction and the intent was to try and isolate some of the uh differences between this project uh currently proposed and the prior application um based on the items
listed in the denial. So it's I'm literally going through the resolution. Here's the item that is mentioned discussed. Here's how it's done for the application. Um
our 8 0.2 on the right hand side we have the site plan that we are proposing basically shade gray area. You're seeing the uh existing building simpler gray up the right hand side the alleyway that's essentially the increase
in building coverage under the proposed project. There's a back alley just painted trash uh trash gathering area that's set back there that is uh to be incorporated into into a hallway to get
uh from the building to the rear and draws to the over. Behind the building there is a existing uh open area. We are proposing uh in that area a a forest paver um treatment of that courtyard. That's the proposed
and existing loading area. Uh we will also be doing landscape screening to the rear and dumpster enclosure along the rear property line. One of the big differences to this project uh as Mr. Saxs had mentioned in terms of parking.
The parking spaces on the lefth hand side in the existing building and in the prior application um basically there are areas where people park but none of it has been actually legally established parking. Uh that building has been there
for about 80 years. This is now the first uh opportunity to make those legal park legal parking stalls. Uh in the negotiations with the town, an easement was established to reduce service uh wire hatch portion which extends that
site property line uh roughly 14 ft towards drive to achieve uh conforming parking stalls and that agreement was basically set up condition uh site plan approval or not. So this pro the project
is uh presently discussed as part of that um that process. So it is something that we were able to establish with the pair. >> And just so the record is clear the exhibit you were talking about Mr. Pori that was part of the submission.
>> Yes. Uh everything you're seeing here is the submission packet that that you have received. uh for R for our A1.1 basically this is the floor plan I think that would be most uh important for what we're discussing at the moment first floor plan is on the
left hand side second floor plan on the right hand side first floor plan uh the intent would basically be to establish a retail entrance on that corner it's a great corner for the for this property it's where at that corner that's not where it was hit. Um that it's just a a
very strong location for that particular element. um coming up Milburn for upper Milbour or upper Milbour Avenue uh or upper Milbour as a district. On the right hand side of the property there
would be a our intent is to establish a through hall basically giving access from or residential um uh for residents um off of and giving them direct access to the rear. So basically
it's um clean secured access both off the street and to the rear of the property off the stairy guard. We on the interior we relocated the existing stair down to the basement over to coordinate with that stairs so we could consolidate that area and Brian established
something to clean for uh the retail space which has been vacant. uh it has been put up for lease um has not gone anywhere at the moment. On the second floor, uh this is basically set up
central hallway providing access to the apartments and essentially the building is split front and back. You have two twobedroom apartments each approximately 1300 uh 138 ft in 493.
So just that's in terms of the >> so rather doing a site plan review here. I want to hear as it pertains to variances. Okay, that's what we're doing here. We're not just doing a site plan blow through. I want to see exactly where there you mentioned your five
parking spots. How does that pertain to your parking? >> Okay, I was a question looking at the deviations of uh >> right and that's one of them. >> Yes. So I So what I don't want to do tonight is a site plan. >> No, I'm and and I agree. We're not doing
a site plan. All I'm doing is just having him describe what's being proposed. I I mean the answer to your question is initially we had zero parking spaces. Now we have five and I think we require a total of 17. So the additional spaces we we've already
agreed that we will provide a permit uh with your municipal garage at the recommendation of the police department. That's one of the memos that was included in >> No, I'm well aware of that. But permits are access to parking. It's not actual park. We >> understand that. Okay. >> I mean, obviously the site has not
changed in size. The building hasn't changed in size. >> Correct. >> We understand. >> So, so what we want Exactly. It's actually bigger. Uh what I'd like to hear is more testimony, more meat on the bone as it pertains to this rest issue
we're facing rather than just to build. >> Okay. Right. I was treating it as the general overview just to make sure the board was comfortable with the application we're talking about. Um, I can go back to the
site plan and do the specific issues. And with that, I think I would I would probably start with the park. So, as I said on the site plan, there there has been no legal parking for this property for for the years since it's
been in existence use. Um, there have been no resolutions that, no deviations. Um, at this point we >> wasn't used though as parking like was it sort of under the radar kind of? >> Yeah. >> There was always a rumor in that
neighborhood of semi semi that it was public parking but somebody figured out how to make it private. >> I my office has been right there. So the roof >> Well, that's right now. But when Ganny Russ was there, it was actually door
parking. Yeah, it was it was it was always used as that for the building. Like I said, it was just rumor wise it was just it was this public, you know, it was like on street parking that only they could use. Never really understood until I got into the second but saw this
site. So um so with that with the um establishment of the eent uh we now have five legally uh legally conforming spaces in the application. would require 17. The entire the intent of five spaces
would be set up uh one for each of the two apartments and one permit for each of the two apartments. Uh the residential in the neighborhood typically uh uses lot 14 similar to uh the apartment building across the street. Um we don't need a justification
why parking bar. You have five legal spots now. They weren't legal. We stick with what's different, not just the justification for the variances where you're going to get other parking from. Why is this how is this different from the previous application?
>> Okay, >> you told us about the parking spots. That's fine. >> Yeah. And I I think that in and of itself is probably a sufficient cause for this board to determine that there's no race judic issue. You had an application. I guess I'm doing part of my summation now. But uh certainly you
had a situation where no parking was being provided on site. No parking would being provided that would satisfy residential site improvement standards. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Bori. Uh with those if those five parking spaces were dedicated just to the residential
use alone, would that satisfy the residential site improvement standards? >> Yes, it would. Okay. All right. Um the other the other change uh deal and again why don't we talk a little bit about the aesthetics. I understand the chairman has indicated that we may not he may not
be concerned about the aesthetics but let's talk about >> we have no purview over aesthetics. >> I understand that but that was one of the conditions that was >> a condition. It was a comment that was made. >> Okay. >> There was no conditions of approval at all about that. >> I'm sorry condition but not not a condition. It was one of the uh reasons
for the denial. the fact that you know there's some extensive language regarding the aesthetics. Um Mr. Bori if you don't mind could talk about the change in the aesthetics on this project as well. >> Make sure we cover the variances. There
is no variance for >> with all due respect chairman I don't have to talk about any of the variances in this evening. I'm not here for variance. That's something that will be discussed if in fact you determine that race judicata does not apply. Then at a
subsequent hearing when I'm seeking preliminary and final site plan approval, D4 area ratio approval and both variance approval, I will address the variances. I don't have to address the variances to see. >> You also haven't addressed anything to
do with the address judic parking so far. address if you want. >> All right. Again, I've addressed the parking. Um I'm going to now address the issue of aesthetics because in the resolution of denial, um
let me just read it for the record. >> I'm very well aware of the record of those. >> Well, let me let me read it in because I think I have to establish it for purposes of my record. Um >> those aesthetics are presented to the board tonight. So, they have no way to even review them. >> Well, I understand that. No comment on
this. >> Well, we are we are presenting a change in the aesthetics because there was a great deal of there was a great deal of commentary devoted uh to this particular application with respect to the aesthetics. Um for instance, in
paragraph 15 of the resolution from August 6th of 2018, it states quote the revised plans are designed to reduce the massing of a building with addition. The proposed tutor architect tutor style architecture is different from the architecture of the neighboring
commercial buildings along Milburn Avenue which are more modern in style with flat roof flat roofs concealed by power pits facing Milburn Avenue. Uh the building with the proposed addition would be higher than the two-story building at the opposite end of the
block at the corner of Milbour Avenue and Campbell Road. Um and that's that's from the resolution itself. um as well in in the findings or fact that were contained in that regular version. Uh
I'll go to paragraph 22. Um and this is the findings or facts sort of in the middle paragraph. Uh the proposed improvements include an new exterior facade of the entire building using the tutor style. The board notes that the architecture of the other commercial
buildings on this block of Milburn Avenue is more modernist in style. As a result of the proposed tutor design, the structure with the proposed addition will be too massive in appearance and out of keeping with the scale and character of the other commercial properties on this section of Melbourne
Avenue. To illustrate, even though the structure with the proposed addition would be a two-story structure, it will give the appearance of a three-story structure which includes fake attic windows to foster the proposed exterior exterior tutor facade. The neighboring
commercial properties are more are are more modern singlestory structures with flat roofs and rooftop mechanicals concealed by front facade parapits. So obviously at the last hearing in 2018 there was a good deal of commentary and
findings of fact a specific finding of fact made by this board. So based on that Mr. Fiori can you describe the changes that have been made to the exterior of facade with with respect to this application? First, in terms of the scale of the
building, the prior application uh was at a ridge line of 32 feet allowed by ordinance, but maxed out. Uh for this application, that 32 feet would have been would be the top of what I'm calling clock tower on that corner. So
the building itself um though we are increasing the economic the massing of the building itself is five feet lower than what was previously proposed in the five feet. All right. So we dropped the building 5T to this highest mansur then drop it down
another 18 in to this lower mansur. those those pieces of uh manser are basically there for equipment screening to uh uh do any of the rooftop equipment. So in terms of the height and the massing and scale of the building,
it's starting 5t lower than what was previously submitted. In terms of the aesthetic, uh this is intended to be more of a transitional um style than the t the tutor that was previously submitted. Uh I did read in the
resolution um as Mr. Saxs has been uh pointing out that it seemed to be a point of contention and concern in that resolution. So that was one of the reasons we were trying to address that specifically. So in terms of the scale
massing building, um we did reduce the size of this and potentially and and massing to something I thought was more definitely more in keeping with the existing commercial on the street and as a transition into the residential uh
neighborhood. In terms of the existing commercials that are the commercial store crunch that are on the on the block, let's say one block high away, they're they tend to average about 22 to 23 feet
high for existing one-story stores. that some of it may be parapit, some of it may be the height of the building. Um, one of the buildings on the next block, but basically continuously streetscape is
I would call a one and a half story in terms of the front facade. However, it's a two-story building once you get back to the residential neighborhood, same residential district behind the property. So, it's in terms of scale, this is um probably bigger than what
would be that average. Um but it's set up as a true twostory building. Uh we're not trying to create uh that false the false narrative of the threetory or the habitable attic type of so that was something that was uh
specifically referenced in the resolution. Um I have our planner is obviously going to cover some of the variance. Uh there there are changes in variance and I will have my planner cover that but in terms
of anything else uh any other things to add Mr. Fiori, I know you've commented on the change in the style, change in the massing, the diminishment of massing, uh, and obviously the fact that we now have five additional parking spaces, which would satisfy the RSIs,
uh, and the recommendation from the police department to provide or to obtain additional parking permits. Anything else you need to add in terms of >> addition, uh, lot coverage? uh in the application we are reducing the lot coverage in this by uh introducing the
forest paver uh treatment in the courtyard and then trying to incorporate that into the uh storm resent retention system in that area. So in terms of the change from the prior event that that is uh a specific change uh we also have an
increase in the landscape screening and buffers. Okay. >> All right. Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions, but Mr. Pory certainly is available for any questions. >> The board any questions for Mr. So, so
the resolution says that board binds and concludes this site will not accommodate problems associated with proposed floor area larger than admitted by the proposed floor area ratio var 50% deviation from the allowable area ratio.
Is that still the case or is that shady? Uh you still you you have an increase in the F >> by 50%. More >> more >> more. Okay. And so I take your I understand your testimony about the massing being improved in your view.
Does that um satisfy uh or is that consistent with the finding that the proposed floor ratio larger permitted by the township court not be appropriate in this case? uh the F has done is a a square foot
number in terms of of calculation. uh in my experience and actually I think within some prior uh testimony uh on other projects the it tends to be consistent in terms of intensity for a
commercial use retail space that that type of application on the uh residential end of the scale it tends to be more of the massing uh work into the neighborhood that it's it's basically a
a different slightly different goal, but they're both developed in this case out of this zone off of that commercial number. Um, >> so does the massing matter? The fact that you produce the massing, does that matter in this case if you're saying this is commercial?
>> Viewing the F from a commercial perspective, not a residential. >> You're it's a commercial property. Uh, we're working on a residential component of on that property. uh and considering it within as a as a element within being
a you know leading into a residential neighborhood. So in that regard um it is not a specific application on square foot per square foot basis. Uh but it is something more consistent with the scale massing of the building and it's the
scale and massing that was part of that resolution but it was specifically tied into the F correctly. I don't have it sitting in front of me. Um, so I do believe I mean for my end architecturally is it that
part of it is a large uh that's a large change from where it was going from what reads as a threetory to a straight twotory from 32 feet to 27 feet. Um those are big changes. However, in the F
by the ordinance, it's a square foot number, no matter what the F um you know, if I were comparing a residential use versus um a retail use. So, if I wanted to do retail or office upstairs,
I'm now requiring uh quick 28 spaces. Um another 14 for that as opposed to the four for the residential. All right. Well, that's as a comparison of intensity. It's four parking spaces for
the same square footage or if I went to an office use, I had 14 space. So, it it just I'm saying in terms of the residential aspect of it, yes, it basically is a slightly different animal. In this case, we've kind of
mixed use um as in a commercial zone, but >> but the intensity isn't changing. Right. Still four apartments, still retail space. Sorry, two apartments. Yes. Yes. The intensity of the use of this property is not changing your
>> uh No, it's not. Right. >> Okay. And there's no change in the F. There are some changes um that would uh make the massing appear better in your view. >> Is that fair? >> Yes. Okay. >> And just so the record's clear, just so
I can state this, Mr. Fiori, the FB uh F for the I guess for the retail use is.56. >> Yes. >> And the F for the residential use on the second floor is 76. >> That's how we come up with a total of 1.32. >> Right. >> All right.
>> But again, if you were to take them in a mutually exclusive context, uh the F in the B3 zone, I believe is 75. That's the maximum. >> Yes. So we would only be slightly above the minimous amount from 76 or 75 for
residential use in the in that zone. >> Yes. Okay. >> I So you're saying we should look at this as an look at the F for the residential piece and then separately the F commercial. >> Well, I think that's probably something
that should have happened at the initial hearing. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, you know, >> that's not case law. You have case laws and that that supports that. >> That's not how works. Stop it. >> Excuse me. All right. I I I'm just s I'm
just indicating to you what the F was for the two specific uses. This board will be guided by legal counsel as to how they're going to determine that. But the bottom line is that for now I've shown you, at least through Mr. Fiori uh two significant changes that being the
uh the architectural changes which again were listed as binding of vacuuming resolution and the fact that we are now providing on-site parking which we didn't have before. I do have my planner who will briefly cover the bulk in reduction in some of the bulk variances
and we'll also be prepared to discuss the F. Okay. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Any questions from the public for Miss? >> Yes. >> Your name for the record, please. >> Nancy Weaver Smith.
>> Mr. Smith if you could give the board the benefit of your CV qualifications as planned. >> I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I have testified before the the zoning board but planning board for this township
several times in the past in approximately 2017 would be the last one before the planning board >> and your license. >> Yes. Great. Please proceed. Well, Mr. Fury has uh gone over quite a
few examples of what the differences are in this in this uh application, mostly the parking and the facade and also the height which makes a big difference. Uh there are also some other differences in
the application. The uh building coverage the prior application was 68% and this application before you would be 61%. The lot coverage is also different.
The prior application it initially was 96.8% and they did reduce it to 89.9 or approximately 90%. Our application is 87.6% 6% in lot coverage.
>> Just one sec. Your existing building coverage is 61%. >> Yes. >> And your proposed is 66.1. >> Yes. >> The F. >> Sorry. The So the last proposal it was
68 >> and I'm sorry. What was the last in the last proposal? What was the lot coverage? >> The lot coverage, the initial lot coverage was 96.8% the initial application
and during uh the review process and the application where it was voted upon was 89.9. So it's 90 basically 90%. >> And what's being proposed now? >> 87.6. 6
>> and what's the existing? >> The existing is 89.4. >> So reducing the lot coverage from the existing lot. >> Yes, we are. >> Your drawings say 91.4. Yes. >> And you're achieving that. You're
achieving the grass page, correct? And again has stated the the height difference. The prior application was 32 ft. Our application is 27. The F on the prior application initially
started at 1.36 and through the process of reviewing it was revised to 1.12. Ours is 1.32. And maybe this is for the architect and not you. How did it go from 1.12 to 1.2?
That's a substantial. What happened in the building to make it? >> I actually would have to have the architect answer that. >> We can answer that. >> Y we'll do that. You can continue talk about the changes
in the between the two applications. That basically is the some of the uh vote changes in the application. the the biggest was the parking providing parking and changing the style of the facade to
make it more contiguous with the area. And if you also look at the rest of uh the photos on on your plans, you'll see that uh there's not much difference between the actual height of our building as compared to the parapits and
the rest of the buildings on the neighborhood. But what would be interesting is, and I will provide this, they can get to the rest of the application at another date. If you took and added residences on all the buildings going on down the line,
they would all need FA because they're all one story in accordance and then they would have to add a second story and it would cause in it was enclosing the entire explorator.
So, so in the previous um resolution it stated that the proposed improvements including new uh sorry um the board is persuaded granting approval to allow the construction of the proposed second
story of structure uh resulting in 112.7 40 47.4 per feet area ratio would result in a substantial detriment to the public good and substantial impairment for the intent and purpose of the the established zone
plan and zoning ordinance of the township. So that was 50% deviation you have a 74%. So tell me how a 50% at 112.7 was considered to be a substantial detriment to the public good but one at 132
is not. It would have to do with the design of the building. Your ordinance states that F includes jander closets, stairways, hallways, all of the things that really aren't used in the residential. The stairway to get up, the stairway to get
down. That's really not a part of what a residence is used. It's just an access point. And it's also an access point for the commercial, as the architect said, that this common hallway, this common little lobby area is for both uses.
So if you take out all these little nuances and >> well wasn't the measure the same way in the last application >> I believe so >> that was true.
>> Right. So so now so it was deemed that 112.7 was a substantial detriment to the public good and now you're at 132. So explain how 132 is less substantial a detriment to the public good than one.
>> I would actually have to have the architect describe what the difference in the square foot area is >> building the same height. I mean it may it may be the fact that it doesn't it peaks but from a zoning perspective you're not coming for a a height. So
neither did the priorification did the priorification say that >> it is it is being a substantial change as far as the facade and the look of the building which it has to do with the height and that was in your resolution
as being a very large thing that they did not like. >> It also says in the resolution the board satisfied the proposed second story addition to be further reduced in size yet you made the size larger. So, I'm going to have my architect indicate the reasons why there's a decrease in the F
oil. And in fact, if you'd like, I'll I'll do that right now. I want to come up with uh from the prior application uh they originally started as a three-bedroom and a two-bedroom apartment. this I believe it was two departments and a
larger and a smaller um during the presentation project uh the F I'm presuming the response to comments was reduced in terms of the actual square footage on the second floor by rem by
moving the rear building line forward in a building to essentially take that space out of the F calculation Uh that thing went down to I think it was two I believe there were two two
bedroomedroom apartments um ultimately um and then that area then becomes roof and it's no longer used as the F calculation. However, what they did is then moved all mechanical equipment onto that back roof area. So by doing that
we're taking the mechanical equipment uh which is also discussed in the resolution and putting closest to the one neighbor that I would consider the residential but I would be trying to stay away from uh where I've been talking about the massing and things of
that nature. The movement of that rear wall took the square footage out of that calculation, but they maintained the elevations on the Glenwood Drive side of the of the
building. Basically, this became a false uh false gate probably in about that area. They maintained that part of it. So the building and massing um remained as it was. They just figured out a way
to take the the portion of the building out of the calculation but never actual look of the building. So even went down but the building mass remained the same mass. So from the street basically everything
remained exactly the same. Uh that's >> that was still determined not to be sufficient. Yes. >> So, how do you get to 132 and it's better? >> Yeah. Explain how you get to the 132. And I again, I don't think you have to state that it's better, but uh has there
been any change in the intensification of this use? I'd like you to answer that, but why don't you explain how the F from the prior application of 1.12 has now increased to 1.32. Okay. It basically returns it back to what was
originally um most like closest to what was originally uh presented in the prior application. the intensity of the two-bedroom use I would assume or if I made a you know at some point uh if I
took 100 square feet out of week one I'm I can still maintain the two bedroom apartment the f with the gown but essentially the intensity of that use uh if it's a actual utilization uh consideration still a two-bedroom
apartment so that type of of consideration hasn't changed uh And in the prior application by reducing the square of footage but maintaining the visual massing of the exterior building they haven't necessaril they haven't uh
also changed out the essentially that scaling and massing of the building which uh effectually still say is a f that's being attempted uh to scale a building or use to a neighborhood. Um,
but haven't been doing the uh uh maintaining the square footage, I still get the I get a higher FR, but I'm getting a smaller massing and scaling of the building. Uh, the property is a unique property. You know,
obviously that's not necessarily what we're talking about for the the reg. Um but in terms of of scaling of the building relative to other properties, it is very similar to what is out there. There are other two stories. Uh there
are things of very similar scale buildings. It's just in my perspective looking at architecturally um I'm looking at and trying to tackle the massing uh to have something that's more appropriate for the neighborhood
to reduce you know to reduce the square footage and keep the wall. I don't know that there's actually a benefit to anyone other than I've reduced that number. Uh, in this case, I'm not trying to hide the number and I'm not trying to, you know, put up the
false wall. I'd rather do the I would have recommended do the full second floor, reduce the volume of that massing, and it gives me an opportunity to have a roof that I can uh relocate away from the residential properties. I
can screen it, you know, things of that. Oh, okay. So, so that I understand that. I think that's logical to me. So even if we don't count the extra point two that you now added in for reasons that sentence I guess um you're
still at the same place you were at the time of the last application from an F perspective and I understand your point about the massing on the outside and your judgment looks better but you have the same F the same
>> no I'm saying if you >> I'll move the wall. >> You forget the forget the the point two. He said he's he's got a let's say had a legitimate reason for adding the point two. >> He if you if you don't credit that you say he's still at 1.12. I'm saying you're nothing has gotten less intense
or less F. >> No, I agree with you. The F right even if you use has not changed. >> Well, the intensity of the use has not increased. Let's put it that way. Okay. >> It has not increased.
>> Not increased. And again, I don't want to belver the point, but the other significant changes we have made. >> Understood. We'll have to we'll have to weigh all of that. >> We'll have to weigh all >> but in terms of intensification, it's no better, no worse. It's the same. >> Yes. I I would F is
>> being charitable to your argument is no worse. >> Correct. >> It's the same. >> It's the same. I agree. >> In fact, it has gone. But >> okay, I'm giving you the matter. I say it's the same effect just I I I won't argue with that. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. I just have one question of my planner if you can come up for one second and then I I continue to Mr. Um now I know you're familiar with the case of Bman versus Dash 1319 517. It's a
Supreme Court case. uh which really deals with the issue of uh grace judicata and in determining the differences between two applications uh the Supreme Court and tell me if you agree with this with this colloquy that
basically there has to be a showing of sufficient differences in the present application to support the board's finding that the doc that the application would not be barred by regata. Now in in the investment phase um interestingly the only change that
was made in that in the second application was the addition of additional landscaping additional buffer. Um in this scenario where we've now incorporated um obviously on-site
parking by way of the easement we've gone from zero parking spaces to five. We know that we need 17, but we have the availability at least according to the police department purchase permits for the balance. The fact that we scaled the
massing of this building and and also that we have changed the design facade. In your professional opinion as a planner, are those sufficient reasons to indicate to this board that race should not have?
>> Yes, I totally totally agree with that. Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything but Mr. >> Thank you. Anyone from the public has any questions or comments regarding this application? You do please come forward what you heard today.
Any further questions for either one of the professionals and I will close uh the public portion regarding uh res. >> Yeah, I'm going to sum up just real quickly and just one last thing also. I
know we got some reports from uh the professionals. I just want to make sure that they're incorporated into the record. Uh there's a report from the Milburn Police Department um dated November 4th of 2025. And again,
understanding that we require 17 spaces. Uh the Milbour I'm quoting the Milbour Police Department would recommend that part of the applicant's plan including the development of more parking spots on the property without is not feasible or
the commitment by the applicant to mandate that future tenants of the property purchase 24-hour parking permits. We will agree to obviously provide those additional parking permits. uh if it's back this board does determine that race does not apply and
then we will proceed forward to a a full hearing. There's also a report from your uh from Captain Michael Adabado, fire official. Uh he's made some recommendations here. There are nine recommendations. We'll comply with all of those.
Uh there is um a memo from your forester that uh indicates I have no comments at this time. It's dated January 15th. I have no comments at this time. Their landscape plan exceeds requirements. And finally, there's a report from uh Martha
Callahan, township engineer, who has recommended that we don't need to provide dry wells on this property. We agree to that. uh has made some general comments about doing any work that requires a road opening permit. And then in terms of recommendations, has made three
recommendations. Uh concrete sidewalks and curbs should be replaced along both frontages. We agree to that. New Belgian block curb should be placed on the Glenwood Drive side along the length of the property. The curb alignment must be approved by the township engineering department prior to construction. We'll
agree to that. And then finally the grade and curve piece on the drainage inlet on Glenwood to be replaced to meet current NJPD standards. So with that said we will certainly comply with those reports. Uh just in brief summary uh Mr.
Chairman members of the board. I think we have established uh that there are sufficient differences between these two applications. I don't want to belabor the point but again we've provided on-site parking where we had none previously. We've reduced the mass of
the building. Um we have made changes to the architectural facade. Uh there have been reductions in the uh building coverage from the prior application from 68% to 61%. There's been a reduction in lot coverage
from 89.9% to 87.6%. Uh there's also been a uh reduction in the height of in the height of this building um which I guess goes to the issue of massing. We do recognize that the F has increased uh that again has
been explained by Mr. Mori as to why that is occurred. Uh but the bottom line is that we have not increased uh the intensity of the use on this. It's still uh proposed to be two two-bedroom apartments uh and we do have sufficient
parking on site to satisfy the RSI. So with that said, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the board uh determine that race judicata does not apply that you permit this matter to proceed forward uh to a hearing for
preliminary and final site plan uh D4 area ratio use variance relief and whatever bulk variances are necessary. >> Okay, thank you very much. Uh with that I will close public portion. >> Board members, what are your thoughts?
Can I hear from the attorney again? What those criteria are >> criteria was whether or not this application is substantially similar to the last application whether or not we have the same parties involved. >> We do, right? >> Correct.
>> Yes. >> It must there must have been. >> No, it's not the same parties. No, it's not the same parties. This is a new >> Well, it's an LLC. >> I'm sorry. New new applicant. >> Oh, it's same applicant for their
>> Yes. >> It's the same >> name, same adjudicated first case on the merits. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> An adjudication on the merits of the first case. You had there was a vote on it. Uh the application involves the same
cause of action. Same it's a two-bedroom apartment on top of the existing building. And whether there have been any substantial changes in the application itself for the conditions in the surrounding property. The change in ownership would only be I relevant if it
had some relevance to the property, right? I mean just the fact that it's somebody else I would assume doesn't change anything with respect to what the board found was problematic about the proposal the last time or am I wrong just by virtue of the fact that
there's a different person before us if it's different person that's a factor to consider it could be a factor to consider um you know everybody gets their day before a board new application
Now question is and if it's relevant did they purchase it knowing that this has already been denied public record >> it's supposed to be the same as the same parties if board decides that that's
their different parties and to allow this their shot. Other than that, you have to decide whether or not this is a substantially different or substantially similar aid. >> So the if if the party came with the
same application and and this uh applicant is arguing that they had made potential changes, but if a party came with the same application, why would they get another chance? It's >> not the same application.
I mean it's the same application that's applicant >> same applicant would not consider it's the same >> I understand I'm saying if it's a different person coming but with exactly the same proposal >> right why I I you know I guess you're saying we could say they get a shot too
but they would be arguing exactly the same here right now they're arguing the same thing but >> it is a different applicant >> understood all right so we can consider Yes. >> Right. And that's what we as a board are
trying to determine if the application >> is substantial. >> Substantially. >> That's the real question. >> Yes. Any guidance on what's substantially different? >> Well, I mean, we've got reductions in lot coverage and building coverage from
the previous application. They're both under 2% changes, 1.9 1.4%. And the size of the actual apartments has gone up 1,293 ft to 1,38. And obviously F we've discussed come
previous application at the low end was 112 1.12. Now we're at 1.32. >> I made it a lot bigger so it's substantial. >> So So when when I look at those I I look at those and I say you just set the parking up. There's a couple of small
changes on a few things and there's a major increase in the F at least major in my mind. Um, and so >> some of it comes down, >> yeah, certainly not a reduction. And some of it comes down in my mind to whether I feel like five parking spaces
substantially different in the 17th requirement. Uh, and is getting permits enough to kind of say, yeah, you it's different parties. Well, the other thing I would say about that is that agreeing to the permits
in dealing with the acceptability of their new variance is not what we're >> but all I'm saying is does that constitute a substant I'm not necessarily asking you for for no answer >> but kind of in our mind is that
substantially enough >> right it's less than a third of the market space you also have to consider the u resolution of the last hearing discussed >> a lot whether the tutor is a significant part whether the parking is a
significant part of that decision >> the concern I have here when we read off the old resolution where we've determined clearly that 1127 was a substantial detriment to the public good so it's hard to say now that
132 is somehow less substantial who are beneficial uh a detriment. Um 50% was the deviation prior and now we're up to 74%. Um so it's a massive deviation. Um I'm
just struggling to see where this project is somehow substantially different than what was already denied. And to say that we're having five parking spots, a struggle with that as 12 still need to be put on the township to solve the private
properties problem. Um, and once again, permits are great, but permits are access to parking. Permits aren't actual parking. Those lots sell well in excess of the number of spots. >> I don't know. I I mean I I just don't
know parking changes material change in the application. I think it's change and it's obviously better but it's not to me the fact that the intensity of the uses and the um the F um which not only has not
gone down has gone up and I understand but you know hasn't gone down. I mean there's been no effort to make it less and so I don't I don't know how we could say this is substantially different. I was not on the board at that original
time. I'm not saying whether I would have this as it was presented at the time. I don't know. But, you know, the reality is there was a decision and it was based on an application that's very similar um if not not a little better
almost than what is presented today. One could argue. So, I don't think there has been a substantial there have been substantial changes to justify the finding that rest. >> The ground coverage also somewhat of an
issue. The ground coverage here I realize has been introduced but it's been reduced based on materials. It's not actually being reduced on physical ground coverage. Township allows grass paint not considered in ground coverage but it's still technically
caring. So if I if I could just comment on that, I mean the the state the state of New Jersey in its best management practices has encouraged all developers to try to use porous pavement to reduce to reduce impervious coverage because it
does drain. I mean that's a mandate from the state of New York. >> Right. It's interesting because we've actually in this town looked at removing that because of the poor condition it's kept in and the homes that have it don't maintain it. I understand but it is a state mandate under the best. >> Yeah. No, I I get all that but like I
said it's it's there's also there's mandate and there's practice and we found the practice to be very difficult. >> Ownership alone be substantiated. It's an element >> but because of the fact that this was
adjudicated to an end and this is the if you find to be the same application it could be considered collateral stop form that really could remove that element because it's the same case being prosecuted in the same manner and it's been done
>> also also our decision of the land they did not run with the owner >> so so regardless of ownership whether this current owner retains ownership tomorrow or sells it tomorrow after the work's done. The the the variance from travel with
the property, not with the owner. Um, so with that, um, >> Oh, I should >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> No, no, sorry. Um, uh, I'm just speaking for myself. I think I potentially could be
compelled to understand the merits of it not complying race the way where we could hear an application feel like I'm using the negatives. um take what council had asked us just to get sort of get a sense of where we might fall and I would just sort of
reiterate what some of you know my fellow members said which is that the F is is a big concern is part of our mandate as the zoning board to you know we're we're beholden to the the zoning this is a B3 zone it's a
neighborhood zone I think it's an appropriate development type I think the size of the development is in is is in excess. It's not what I think it's numbers um of what is allowed. I think the idea of residential over commercial
is is appropriate. Um however, it's not it's not appropriate given in being in line with the zoning regulations and a buts on an R six zone. I think all those things would get be taken into account were taken into account on the prior
application. Um, so while we maybe could to decide that there are merits to hear the case, I think once we actually get to the substance of the case, I I'm anticipating a lot of issues. So,
you know, sort of two issues at hand. One, should we open up the case to be heard in general? And two, how would it do? And I'm just giving my personal, >> just so the record is clear, we did notice anyone within 200 feet. helping anybody who's here this evening
objection to this application. All right. But I I've heard, Mr. Chairman, I think I've heard the sentiment of the board at this particular point. Um I'm going to request that you not take a vote on this. >> Very well. >> I'm going to request that you carry it to another meeting for decision at that
point. >> If you want to bring us more information. >> Well, I'm going to talk to my client, but uh I know you don't have a full board this evening. I mean, realistically, I would be four affirmative votes. Um, >> yeah, I would I wouldn't recommend voting the same, >> right? So, I don't think I have that
now. Um, and even if I had seven, I may not have it, but >> Well, no, it's I it's not a use. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, ratio, I just need a majority. when you're talking about the number of people here.
>> Okay. All right. So, respectfully, I'd ask that it be carried to another date. >> Um, what I mean, obviously, we keep it on the record so that, you know, keep it live so you don't have to renotice. So, >> do you want to put it on for the next? Do you want to
>> I mean, what's your intention to come back with something or Okay, my client. >> Fine. So, let's let's put it on for the next meeting. Okay. And if No. >> Well, you just put >> Oh, sure. Put that on. Well, no, no, that's 27.
>> Okay. So, we have a tendance issue with that one. >> But do you think you're going to be heard or do you just want to purpose? >> I think I want to speak to my client and our team and if there was going to be a full board here, maybe I would ask for a vote. Uh,
>> you're not going to have one that day either. >> Put it on just for >> What day will that be? >> March 16th. The next and that's two weeks. I don't know. >> Uh, what's the meeting after that? >> April 13th. >> Okay.
>> So, um, this uh this matter will be carried till April 13th. There'll be no further notice. uh needed um and uh we any further materials if you want to present that date make sure you have it there within 10 days. Okay. >> Thank you.
report. >> So, real quick before uh Before we end here, um, still on the agenda, we have the annual report for, uh, 2025. Um, it was circulated. Are there any corrections or changes that need to be
made based on what you folks saw last year with the what did anything else? No. >> So typically in the past, >> yeah, like it's just like things that we see on a regular basis like whether it's
like see exceptional number of steep slopes disturbance as bad. We see number of what you know that's typically what it goes. I I think we see a lot of >> Yeah. >> And it's merely just if the board makes
enough sense to take Um so with that um anything that's not on the agenda this evening I'd like to discuss please make no one. So with that, can I have a motion to adjourn? >> Second, second. All in favor? Opposed?
So days come