All right. Good evening everyone. This is a regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustment for Wednesday. Uh June tw 18th a notice has been given in accordance with the open public meetings act by posting a copy of the notice on
the first floor of the municipal building and sending a copy to the Montlair Times Star Ledger and Herald News. This is a public hearing in which any members of the public are welcome to attend. The meeting agenda is available on the Montlair website as is a link to the township's YouTube channel where
their hearing can be viewed live or after the fact. The hearing is also being tele televised on channel 34 and I will call the role. Chair Harrison here. Vice Chair McCulla here. Mr. Cfield here. Mr. Church here.
Miss Harris here. Mr. Moore is not present. Mr. Simon here. Mr. Beer is not present. Miss Grant here. Mr. Griffith here. Mr. Cruz is not present. and Mr.
Sullivan here. All right. Thank you. Do you want to announce the postponements? Yes. So, um, application number 2935 for applicant Kristen Anderson and C. Nogara
for um, Two Woodmont Road has been postponed to July 23rd, 2005. They will redo the notice to the newspaper but not to their neighboring properties. And for that's that's the July 23, 2025 meeting,
right? Yes. And then hearing um for application 2936 has been postponed to July 23rd, 2005. Um that is the application for 21 Vera Place for applicant Shaina Fishkind. And
again, they will not do the mailing to their neighboring properties, but they will do the newspaper publication for the July 23rd date. And that's that's also 2025, right? 2025. Yes. Okay. So, if anyone is here for either the
application on two Woodmont Road or 21 Vera Place, they'll be heard on July 20 July 23rd, 2025. uh you will not get any new mail notice. There will be new newspaper notice. So if you're here for those, we'll see you
on July 23rd. We have the minutes of the June 4th meeting. I just have a couple of corrections. Um the on page two line 46
uh just so it's clear after great grandson u put of Howard Lan Fleck um and then on page three line 71 put his partner Lisa Web so it's clear when we're referring to the webs above
that why they're coming to the festivities and Then on page four, line 121, instead of testified, put made a statement. And then on line 123,
after notice, replace he with his client. Anyone else with any changes to the minutes? If not, someone want to move the minutes for those changes? So second. All in favor say I. I. Any
opposed? Any extensions? Okay. And then we have the resolution for um the property at 21 Van Black Street. Um a revised resolution was handed out this evening. I don't have
any changes to the revised resolution. Does anyone else have any changes? Not someone want to move the resolution as proposed. I'll move the resolution as proposed. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any
abstensions? Abstain. I don't have the notice for the Yeah, never mind. I found it. It's for the wrong file. First application is that of the Monontlair History Center for property at 110 Orange Road. This is an
application for variance is to erect a postmounted historic marker sign on the property. The property is located in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot and block 1,34. Variances are requested from Monontlair
code section 347-109.1B to permit a historic marker sign mounted 6.5 ft above grade where 6 feet is the maximum height permitted and from Monontlair code section 3 47-109.1D to permit a historic marker sign
measuring 8.5 square feet where two square feet is a maximum permitted size. Uh is the notice in order? Yes. [Music] Good evening. You just have to press. There you go.
Good evening. How are you? Good. Uh, our attorney is also present this evening. Do you want her to come on up? Okay. Hi, Nathalia Bernardo. Okay. And you're you're the attorney for the applicant. Yes. Okay. Everyone can
sit down. Unless you like standing up. Can sit down. Wasn't sure. Okay, I'm going to swear you in. So, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board? Yes. Would you state your name and address? Angelica Diggs and it's 110
Orange Road, Montlair, New Jersey. Okay. I'm going to swear in Zanabal. So, would you raise your right hand with respect to the three applications we're going to hear tonight? Do you swear to tell the truth of the matter pending? Matter is pending before the board. I do. Okay. Just state your name and position with the township, please. Zanab Gazmi,
assistant planner. Okay, thank you. Um, so I'm the executive director, Angelica Diggs, at the Monontlair History Center. Uh, so this evening we are here presenting for a variance regarding the pull height and size of a signage in front of our crane house and historic YWCA museum and
property. I did have Zanib um, just repass out. There are two proposed locations for that historic sign. Um, but is it okay also go through the slides as well? So I'll just get up and maybe pop over and do that. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay,
so just a little bit about us and then I'll give more detail on the signage itself. Um, for those who may not be as familiar, we are the Monontlair History Center. So, we're stewards of three historic sites. Uh, the one we're here for regarding the signage tonight is the Crane House and historic YWC museum.
Serves a museum, educational learning center. We also have the Clark House, which is our administrative offices, research library, and we also have the Nathaniel Crane House on our site, which is um a visitor center, museum store, also has um educational program space.
Just a little bit about us, we um service the Monontlair and surrounding communities. We reach upwards of over 10,000 people each year between on-site community programs, walking tour events, and also virtual programs. A substantial amount of what we do is actually field
trips for youth on site. That includes all of Monontlair's third graders as well as all of NORC's second graders that come to us through contracts. Um so we're really proud of that and serving Monontlair's community to share local and New Jersey history. And just for a second this PowerPoint presentation,
this slideshow, we're going to just mark this as exhibit A1 as for the record. Thank you. Okay. Uh why we're here tonight um is the Crane House and historic YW.CA CA was nominated to be on the newly formed New Jersey Black Heritage Trail. So that is through the
New Jersey Historical State Commission. Um I also would just like to say two other sites in Monontlair have been nominated that include St. Mark's United Methodist Church as well as the HO House which we all know so well. So you'll also be hearing from them soon. Um the YWCA history is a really intricral part
of Monontlair's community. Um, the Y began in 1912, founded by 16 African-American women who saw a need because of discrimination and segregation in Monontlair's community. Um, they needed a much bigger space as it began to get traction in the
community and lo and behold, the historic crane house was for sale in 1920 in its original location on Glenidge Avenue. And the YWCA operated out of this historic site from 1920 to 1965. Um, so that's the historic significance that brings us here tonight
to commemorate and honor these women who provided educational programs, clubs, and even dormatory space um for women who were excluded or could not dorm at places such as Monontlair State University. So, it's a really important um historical fabric of the community, and we're really excited and thrilled to
be part of that new Black Heritage Trail. I did I won't read it, but it's in the handout you had. That is the state approved text that will be on the marker honoring the women of the Y. Um, we want to put this sign of course right in front of the museum itself to honor that historical heritage. Um, what's also
pretty cool about it is it gets a QR code and any new site across the state and Monontlair included that gets added, the QR codes just automatically updated so people can go and see other locations in town or or other towns nearby.
We have two proposed locations for the sign. Um the first is to the right of the staircase area in a general vicinity the contractor would feel appropriate with us. Um the second location was a proposed location from the historic preservation commission which we're very
agreeable to as long as putting the sign directly in front of that retaining wall and sidewalk poses no issues to any plumbing you name it or anything going on with the wall. So when we are ready to actually contract and put it in the ground, um the suggested location by the commission will be first explored and if
it's not feasible in front of the retaining wall, we'll default back to going to the right of the staircase is our plan. Thank you. Any questions for members of the board? Mr. McCulla. Yeah, thank you uh Miss
Dixs. Um uh just a couple of uh clarifications. Thank you for the telling us about the script because I wasn't sure the you also had uh the script for Louise Archer Champion for education on the presentation. What was that for?
I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. That is um the example that was given to me by the contractor. So, they weren't able I apologize for that. They were not able to provide a markup sample with our actual text. So, I just wanted you to at least have the exact visual of the color of the metal
and text that is on the sign. Thank you. Apologies. So, the metal will be it's like a white aluminum. White aluminum uh with black gold. Correct. Uh trim and black lettering. Correct. And there will
be nothing on the back side of the sign. Just front facing. Correct. Um, so in terms just in terms of the location of the the signage, you've indicated that you're perfectly willing to have it posted in front of the bushes as the historical commission has
suggested. Yes. Um, and it's in front of the the hedges there. Um, is there any concern about the hedges overgrowing that location? They'll have to be trimmed back. That's correct. And then maintained to not interfere if that is where the sign goes. And will that uh
present any problem for you and your administration to No, we can maintain the hedged so it does not interfere with the sign. And either location you think is um provides good visibility for pedestrians as well as vehicles uh passing by. We do
um Orange Road is is a has some nice traffic. Most people who enter our property are either entering by the driveway, which it probably was not in the photo. So when it's um pictured to the right of the stairs, the driveway is also directly to the right side. So it would be visual from that point. And
also the most common walking path is the stair that was pictured there as well. So whether the sign is to the left or right of the stairs, that's the the highest traffic zone for all field trips, adult chaperones, you name it on site. Yeah. Um and then uh in just in terms of the the um the the signage
itself, the shape, the script, um the uh trim and all of that, will will that be consistent with other similar markers that are part of of this um uh recognition by the uh state of New Jersey? Yes. So all all um markers that
are part of the New Jersey Black Heritage Trail will have the exact same look and and text and size. Exactly. All right. And then finally, is there any way that you're intending to promote this uh once this signage has been uh Oh, yes. We will definitely have a
community event commemorating the signage once it's installed, almost like a reveal, ribbon cutting, invite the public out to the museum. I hope all of you will be there. I hope to invite um other council representation as well, state um and fed as well. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Church. Do you have any questions? I have no question, Miss Harris. Um, just one. Um, the proposed mounting, is that also a standard for this trail or is that specific? The size requirements are coming from the contractor of the state.
Okay. And that's the the height of the pole. We have some flexibility to put more depth of the pole in the ground should we need or want to um if we find it's going to be too tall. Um, so that could be an option. Yeah,
Mr. Simon. Uh, as far is this the first marker in in this the Black Heritage Trail or do they have other sites already in place? There were about I believe it was 16 approved in 2024, but forgive me if I'm adjusting that number. And then a second round of markers were
announced in 2025. The first marker at all throughout the whole state was just installed this past month. So, we might be the second or third depending on when that occurs for the state. And as you said, they're all the same shape and size. Yes, exactly. Miss Grant, do you have any questions?
No questions. Mr. Corfield. Um, thanks for going through the process. I mean, sometimes people don't do that, but thank you for doing that. Um, uh, I I I like the the sign with the original on next to it, not necessarily right by the stairs, but whatever goes
to that. But thank you. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Do you have any questions? Um, is this sign the height and size of it? Uh, the standard size or is it an exception to the standard size? That's
the standard size for this heritage trail. I I can't speak to other state trail or historic markers around the state. Um, comparatively, I mean, they sound standard to me from what I've seen in other townships. Complying with the town standards. Oh, town standards. Yes. But we're here for the variance because
it is above the height requirement. That's what is the height requirement. What is the variance year? Oh, six foot. And we're going to be It looks probably about six inches above that. I think it says seven foot on it. Pole height 7 foot. Guess that's the top of the sign
cuz there's the pole. It's the bottom of the sign. So, the pole itself is seven. So, two to three will go on the ground and then the additional of the plaque itself on top of that. Okay, great. That's I didn't count the ground part. Oh, sorry. I I forgot many times, too.
So yeah, so two things. I mean, it seems big to me personally, but it's standard for for the sign type that you're doing. So, you know, I
should get over that. It seems tall to me. like if I'm standing there trying to read it, it seems kind of taller than I want it to be and a little out of reach for the younger people. Um
I have you considered having it lower? Why is it so high? I was going by the recommendations of the state that said approximately 2 to 3 feet of the pole would go into the ground, but it sounds like we have the flexibility to determine if three feet
or more needs to go into the ground to lower the actual height of the sign itself. Uh yeah, I would so the average say eye level is about 5'6, right? I might put that about the I don't know middle or the bottom third of
the sign and make it comfortable for people to read. The sign the length of the pole shouldn't determine where where the sign goes, right? I think we'll have the flexibility to go further into the ground, right, to get the appropriate height. Um
48. So the other thing is it's very close to the sidewalk physically front to back. So if I wanted to walk down the sidewalk and read stop and read the sign, I'd have to step back to the roadside of the
sidewalk, right, to read it. Mhm. That was why our preference was to the right of the staircase originally because I was a bit worried with the retaining wall, it's going to just be too close for someone passing by. So, I want to of course honor the Historic Preservation
Commission's suggestion, but if we do feel with a contractor it's going to be too tall and hard to read from the sidewalk, then we're going to want to default back to that proposed one location and we can have more room on that grass area to go back further. Unfortunately, the whole front of the
property has that same retaining wall all the way across the front. I I'd suggest you put it 18 inches back from the sidewalk center of pole um as just um comfortable distance right and the
height um I'm sorry 66 I mean, you'd have to lower if the bottom of the sign was at 36 in.
[Music] I I'm not going to do this off the top of my head, but I don't like the height. I think it's higher than it should be. And um I suggest you push it back 18 inches from the edge of the sidewalk, plus or minus. I it's not magic 18, but
um I agree with when I look at this, this sign looks like it's for the people driving by in their cars cuz it's tall and it's pushed out towards you and it's not pedestrian friendly. And I think this this location, you have a lot of people on your site. You have a lot of
younger people on your site. Um I think it would serve them serve you better was a little lower and a little further back. I agree. Yeah. Okay. Mhm. just um um I'm not sure if this is actually drawn to the right scale because the way
it's drawn now the center of the sign is approximately 5 foot three. So, I think it might be shown out of scale on the rendering. Oh, I said that I think the sign is shown out of scale on the drawing or on the
photo because we're with the measurements that they gave us, the center of the sign is at 5' 3, but it doesn't it looks taller in the photo. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um
um let let me do before I go on to the size. Um I guess my concern before I go even there. So, we previously approved the new driveways going in, which are going to be, I
assume, somewhat closer to the sign than the current driveway is just cuz it's you have an in and out basically, correct? You mean from the previous ADA project? Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Yeah. So, that project is um part phase.
That project is not underway. I observed that. Yes. We we have almost completed the whole exterior of the Clark House. So, I encourage you to come see that as well. Um, so we recognize that with the reality that the the driveway project is
something that might not come to fruition due to the increased costs that have happened that we're now facing. Um, so our we recognize we're going to put it to the right side and if should that project years from down the line come to fruition, we would then have to move it to the left. That's correct.
Okay. because I you know one of the things you know with what you were doing with the driveway the the sign where you're proposing it would be very visible to cars driving in it would be yeah and but the way it is now the
vegetation kind of screens it for the people driving into the site um my my concern and you know I have mixed feelings because I agree with Mr. Griffith in terms of moving it back further. On the other hand,
I'm walking by and I know nothing. Um I look at the sign, I look at the Nathaniel Crane house. Yeah. Right behind it and I say, "Oh, that's what they're referring to versus the right." And that was I call the main crane house. Exactly. The historic preservation commission's concern and
why they proposed perhaps then we go to the left of the stairs in front of the retaining wall if that's possible. They had the same thought point. Yeah. Um the my other on the s size um the height um
the what seems to be driving this 6 in that exceeds the height ordinance is the circular New Jersey insignia that goes on the top versus the sign itself. Is that correct that I I assume the same thing. And I assume the state dictates.
Yes. The the the measurements I have all come from the state. That's correct. Yeah. Um I have yet to see one in person because the trail is so new. So that's part of the challenge. Yeah. The size of the sign itself is that is what the state is requiring. Correct. That's
correct. So um that is what we will be given. Like I said there is we can go further into the ground if there's a certain height limit. That's a preference then we can do that. Okay. Do you Okay. Do you have anything
further you want to present? That's I I don't I just I appreciate your time. Are there any members of the audience who either have questions, comments, testimony, anything you want to say about the application? Okay. Anything further before we discuss
and vote on the application? No. Thank you for for listening. Okay. We'll start with Mr. Co. Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm I'm supportive of of the u of the application. Um I do
feel that the signage is probably um better posted in front of the retaining wall. I I'm concerned about the hedges and I keep wondering is there anything historically important about those hedges? There's not. uh and you know perhaps it could be they it could
be replaced with some different type of landscaping that would really uh enhance the signage right uh because I my fear is that in time you know that the upkeep of the hedge may not be sufficient and therefore would detract u from the
historical importance of the sign and the overall visual imagery right that I think you're trying to accomplish. So, I'm in I'm in favor of of um the application and and uh but I I would uh propose uh that uh the location that the
historical uh commission has suggested uh is the better. Now with that said, um if the intent, for example, because you do have school uh children that um visit the site, um I mean, if you if you
envision that there would be a class of students, you know, that would be brought to read the signage, then the location really becomes critical. Then I mean because then you you have children
that are standing very very close uh to the street. Um and so in that in that particular case I mean if if if that is a reality that you foresee then I would be in favor of the other location that you originally proposed and moving the sign further back so that when school
children are gathered they're actually on the lawn right and not on the sidewalk and in uh in any um potential uh pedestrian danger. Those would be my comments, Mr. Church. Yeah, I'm also in favor of it. I think
it's a it's a good thing that we're recognizing these events that take place in Monontlair. Uh I'm also in would be in favor of moving it back only because of the visual, right? Uh it would be easier
to see it. You wouldn't be standing there looking up on a small sidewalk. Yes. you'd be able to step in a bit and see it and like Mr. McCulla says that the um the children who would come would be
directed towards it, they'd have access to it from the lawns rather than uh the only the only thing I would uh wonder about is that if your driveway project takes off Mhm. That's to the right of
where the sign is now. You would have to move the sign. Move or we're going to look at the the the plans that were proposed and if we can just put it before that driveway line so that it wouldn't disrupt, then that also could be a goal depended on, you know, the
tree and the stairs and everything there. Okay. Yeah. Uh so that would be uh one objection I'd have to leaving it where it is and not moving it over. Mhm. The other idea that the sign may depict
the red house in the back. Yeah. As a historical site, right? Rather than the crane house. Yeah. So to move it over gives a direct visual, right? But to move it back 18 there, you'd have
to remove that hedge hedge. Um I I'm also just the retaining wall is so close also to the grass edge of the sidewalk. Um, so it is limiting in that area. Yeah, I I would be in favor of the uh leaving it then uh moving I'd be in
favor of moving it over so that it it depicts the crane house directly and uh moving it back so that it could be visually easier to read. I don't know how you would do that, but I'm certain
there's a way to do it. Contractor might know. Contractor would know. Yeah. So other than that, I'm in favor of the application. Miss Harris, I'm in favor of the application as well. Um, however, I think if you can, you have some flexibility in terms of the
height of the pole that if you can lower it six inches so that you don't have need that variance. Um, that would be good. Um, but generally I I I don't think I have an opinion in terms of the location of the sign, but I do think if there's room to lower it, you should do that. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Mr. Simon,
just one more question. Is that a a light pole that's like right by the sewer grate? If not, is there going to be any light shining down on that sign there? There is not a light pole that's going to be on the sign if Is that what you're indicating? No. In the picture there's a
pole and I think it's a light pole. A street light. Um, I forgot to bring my own and and I said that just in combination of what others have said that if it's very close to the sidewalk and it's low, I can see some of our taller residents bumping into it at
night, you know, if for especially if it's, you know, at the 6 ft and it's that size, right? So, if that is a light pole, then I have no issue. But either way, I think it should that my main concern is just it being too close to the sidewalk and and not visible off
hours. Right. But otherwise, I'm in favor. And when you say too close, do you mean on the left side by the retaining wall? Either side, wherever it is, it's going to be close. So, I can see somebody riding a bike or walking by and just clang. Absolutely. I I would agree. So, thank you. Yeah. And I do not
know for certain it's a light pole, but from the picture it does seem it is. Um I will go check. Yeah. Miss Grant. Um I I like the suggested location by the commission. Um,
I I think the height um I think um probably lowering this 6 in like that was suggested is um good, but I do think the height um because you know we see these markers all over and I think part of it is when you're driving to to flag
that this is um you know and then people say oh and then they like kind of want to come back. Um if it's not prominent enough then you may miss it. So, I think that's probably why this state has like a the height, but um I like the location by the retaining wall. I think it's
aesthetically it's um it's nice by the hedges. That's all. You're welcome, Mr. Cfield. I'm in favor, Mr. Griffith. Um I uh both locations have pros and cons,
you know. I I don't have an opinion. Uh, I would suggest that you lower the sign six inches to make it more accessible to uh the smaller people that come to your site. You have quite a few and I think it's very important for them to feel
included and be able to access the sign pretty well, right? Uh, I think it'll be more comfortable, at least for me to read. Uh, and I would suggest moving it 18 inches back from the edge of the sidewalk and whatever location you put. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Um before I go off on this tangent we've been discussing, I have no problem with the size variance for the sign. Um the height um you know in terms of how we
traditionally look at things I you know they're saying they they can conform to the six feet and that makes it harder to justify it. Although the the deviation is largely a function of the state logo
that's going on top versus the bulk of the sign being above that. Um the location you know I I'm concerned as I said and I don't know that to what extent really our issue other than we are supposed to
be guided by the recommendations of the historic preservation commission. It's, you know, you the the text doesn't really give you any indication as to what building you're
talking about. And if, as I said before, looking at it, I see the sign, I see the Nathaniel Crane house directly behind it, and I say, "Oh, right." Um, you know, how' they make do on such a small
building? Um, and while I was here both when it was used as the YW and when it was moved and you folks took it over. I over time fewer people are going to
understand um what a fancy house the other m the main Mr. Crane built in right the 1700s. Um the um but I I also think you know
having it set further back is um desirable. Um the you know the the tree roots you know I think might the ideal location would be behind
so you could stand on the stairs and see the sign. But I I suspect the tree roots there probably preclude that just looking at it both in person and right. Um so okay um
and okay so someone needs we do you want to discuss this further? We're kind of somewhat diverse views though all supportive of the sign. Are are there any require um
requirements restrictions on to how close to the sidewalk it can be? Any signage? No. Nothing. Okay. And our resolution doesn't have to address the location of the sign
specifically, does it? Because neither of the variances address the the location. Yeah. You could make it a condition uh to be set back a certain distance if you chose to do that. Well, I mean whether it's in front of the retaining wall or to the other side of the stair. Well, I think
you should Yeah. indicate where the location is. Okay. Because I think some of us don't have an opinion on that. So, I don't know that we want to prescribe that. You mean of the two locations that they have or Yeah. I I Well, I think the applicants indicated that their
preference is to follow the HPC recommendation and Okay. you know, but but they also said that in the event there's some reason it can't be placed there that they want to use the other location as a default. That's what they indicated. Yes. Any other discussion? If not, someone
needs to make a motion. Okay. I see a motion. Okay. Go. It was not say a motion to approve um uh both variances uh with the condition that it not to exceed the 6.5 maximum.
Okay. Is there a second? Second. So hold on a second. So So the original proposed height is 6'5 in. The ordinance allows a maximum of 6 feet. Do you want to reduce it 6 in to comply with the ordinance or do you want to keep it as proposed at
6'5? I'll keep it as proposed but the conditions that they do not exceed that 6.5. Okay. Reduce it by 6 in to No, that's not what he's saying. That's not what I'm saying. Give them the various. I I think correct me if I'm that the height
not exceeds 6'6 in. Correct. And we'd be approving the variance for the size of the sign. Okay. Is there a second to that? second question. So, just uh for clarification, are you
um are you saying that the location of the signage close to the sidewalk is acceptable or do you feel as though it should be pushed further back? Is that We don't have any dimensions on where it's being proposed if now and and can't
say how far that wall is from the sidewalk. So I don't want to say something now without that information but I wanted to give them from the height side just give them the flexibility. If they say they can go deeper and meet the requirements without the variance great but if they find a
need that they do need to go keep the pole out longer then we give them that 6 in of flexibility you know since they haven't confirmed what the conditions of the ground is. Um, yeah, I was I was just trying to to
think about how we could um help them in their decision- making to make sure that that wherever they they actually place the sign um does accommodate um the ability to safely
um uh use it as an educational vehicle. Um, so one question, sorry. The sign is intended to be flat. It's not going to be at an angle facing one direction. We want it flat facing the street and sidewalk area. Yes. But I think we can
say that the sign needs to be set back a minimum of 18 in from the sidewalk. Yeah. Because it looks like the retaining wall might be three or four feet from that sidewalk. It it should be able to make it. Should be there be no other issue with retaining wall. I'd like to see that included in the So want
to add that condition. Yeah. Okay. So Mr. Examine your accept. Approve as and with the condition that the pole be mounted um at a minimum of 18 in from the edge of the sidewalk debating whether I want to control my
brain. Thanks. Can't help you there. Do you know where the property line is in relationship to the sidewalk? I can't say that for certain. You mean as if we don't own that part in front of the retaining wall? Is that the concern?
No, it's easier to give a dimension from the propert. Oh, okay. Uh, I can certainly follow up with that, but I don't have that tonight. Yeah. Um, okay. So,
we have a motion to approve both variances with the understanding that the height not exceed 6 6' 6 in. that and that the sign be located at least 18 in from the sidewalk since we
know that under the assumption that that will be on their property and if if not they locate it so the sign so it is on their property. Um does someone want to second that motion since it was revised since Mr. Simon
made it? I'll second that motion. And that's leaving them the choice of where they put the sign 18 in from the sidewalk. Is that correct? Or probably the middle of the sidewalk itself. But you know, because
the sidewalk's probably 24 in from the curb, I imagine. Well, you mean between the the sidewalk and the retaining wall? Yes. on the grass. Yeah. Or did I not understand? Yeah. 18 inches from It's got to be more than 18 inches from the curb. It's got not the curb. The
edge of the sidewalk. Edge of the sidewalk. Okay. The the western edge of the sidewalk. And unless that 18 in is not on your property, in which case you would move it back sufficiently to be on your property. Want to call the role. We're have
getting to abstain. If I'm counting correctly, you're getting to abstain. Yes. Yes. Chair Harrison. Yes. Vice Chair McCulla. Yes. Mr. Cfield. Yes. Mr. Church. Yes. Miss
Harris. Yes. Mr. Simon. Yes. Miss Grant. Yes. All right. All in favor? Applications approved. Thank you all so much. The next application is that of Carl and Anupa Charles Pierre for property at 16
Mount Fernon Road. This is an application for variances required to construct a partial seconds story addition above the existing one-story den on the western side of the subject property as well as to construct a portico above the existing front landing. The property is located in the
R11 family zone is designated on the township tax maps as lot 33 and block 4601. Variances are requested from Monontlair code section 347-45B1 to permit a front yard setback of 26 ft
for the portico above the front landing where a minimum front yard setback of 28 ft is required and for Montlair code section 347-45C1 to permit a sideyard setback of 5T.2 2 ft from the western property line where
a minimum sideyard setback of 6 ft is required. Variance is also requested from Monlair code section 347-45C4A to permit the widening of a second floor to match the existing width of the first floor which exceeds 65% of the lot
width. Are taxes paid a notice in order? Yes, they are. Okay. Would you both raise your right hands? Do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board? State your names and addresses please Jun. Sorry, Javier Enrique Fuentes Jr.
the architect and 422 Woodland A, Roosevelt Park, New Jersey 07204. Mr. Fuentes, you're an architect, registered architect of the state, New Jersey. Is that correct? That's correct. Your license is in good standing. It is. Thank you. Okay, proceed and tell us
what you want to do and why. Thank you so much. Um, I'm just going to stand up so I can [Applause] Hello. Okay, there you go. Perfect. Uh, so thank you so much. As you know, this is 16 Mount Vernon. Um, and this is a
single family residence in an R1 zone. Um the current three variances that we're looking for is for the front yard, the sideyard, and the building max width percentage.
um in this current space. So the first thing I want to start with is the front which currently on the lot you can see here in this image right here we have a setback of the house already
at 30 ft where the minimum requirement is 25. The average however puts us at 28. So what we're looking for the front is to put an addition for a front portico which actually is just going to be directly on top of a raised stoop. So
we're not going to make it any bigger than that. Um there are other houses in the area that are very similar where they have a front portico and front porch. Um and so we're looking to do that for this space. Um and so it's not looking to be any bigger than that. But
one of the pieces to this is that our lot depth does not meet the minimum requirements. So, we're already in a non-conforming situation with the lot depth being 121.5 where the minimum is 150. So, we can see, you know, kind of
the front elevation over here of that front portico, right? The other piece to this, of course, is also the addition that's happening up above on the second floor, which is
situated directly above the den. Uh you can see this perspective. There's two images. The one on the bottom is the current existing picture of the house and then the one on the top directly above that is the addition that's happening above that. So we have an existing nonconformity for both the
sideyard and the building width that the current sideyard setback is at 5.2 2 where the minimum requirement is six and the building width is at 74.3 where the minimum require I'm sorry the maximum requirement is 65. Uh both of
these are existing non-conforming. Um the structure that we're putting on here is um not going to exacerbate that condition. We don't want to make that any more than what it already is. We're trying to from a building perspective go from a very practical approach and how we're structuring it, but from a zoning
perspective, we're not looking to make it worse, right? Um, and so you can see from the plan that perspect what basically we're looking for is this current master bedroom. It doesn't have a very adequate size closet. It has two small closets that actually sit on the
top left of the bathroom, but we're now going to sort of reinvigorate and create that space for the bathroom. And the master walk-in closet will now be situated in the new addition over the den. Um, you know, we hope that given, you know, the existing nonconformities
of the site of the building, we hope that we could uh seek the approval of the board for this project. And I would like to open this to the board for any comments or questions. Any questions?
Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Fuentes. Uh just a couple of questions I think. Uh first of all, in terms of the the portico, um are you basically I mean is this basically about aesthetics or uh just sort of what's the rationale behind uh
this change? Yeah. Um, part of it is the aesthetic, but the also uh is also the functionality of it because currently when you um I actually went there, I think it was one of the days it was raining trying to open the door there, you know, you just like anybody else, right? You're you're getting hit with the rain and all. So, from a functional
standpoint is also a piece of this. Mhm. Yeah. Um and uh uh Mr. Charles Pierre, uh I I would assume that that this front entrance is the main entrance to the to the house. That is correct.
And um so do is it is it your sense that this portico would not only provide uh additional protection from the weather but also privacy in terms of um entrance into the into the house itself.
Not necessarily. The primary driver is what um Javier just alluded to, which is the aesthetic appeal, but also the protection from the elements. Uh if you have uh packagings for for instance that get delivered there on rainy days, those
packages are soaked. And I think this would provide the proliferation of Amazon. I think everyone could appreciate a little bit of protection from the elements because our packages, we've come home before to soak packages. So it's really the practicality of it, right? So um then in
in terms of the the um addition that you're proposing um over the over the den, um take us into the thinking behind that. Uh obviously you've decided to do the addition strictly over the den as
opposed to that entire side of the house. So just sort of what tell us tell tell us in terms of the thought processes that went into what is actually being proposed. Yeah. Um certainly. So you know one of the things is that um you know this is on the
second floor right and so from a structural perspective we want to make sure that you know looking at where the location is works not just for the function of the room but also that we can also think about well you know there are some elements to the house that are
already there that we could use. So building to the outside wall is, you know, is the most structurally most practical and most functional way to do it. Um, and it works really, really well with the current layout because of the way that the bedroom is situated. So I think given that it's off to the side,
uh, the bedroom is off to one side, we were able to take advantage of that space, uh, directly over the den, and it doesn't detriment in any way the, uh, the light that enters the space. Um, so it felt like it was a really good approach for all for all intents and
purposes. And this would have um would this have any impact on the den itself in terms of uh cuz obviously I guess you're taking the the ceiling correct off and creating a new Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So we would have to build a new floor directly over that. Um and
that would be you know in line with the existing structure. Um and so the as the effects to that would be yeah we would be ripping off uh the roof. We would have uh a new addition that sits over that modification to the framing to make sure that we can support that and to get
the the proper roof cover directly over that. So yeah, there would be and I would assume as well because of the effects to the ceiling, the lighting would also have to get upgraded in the first uh uh the into the den and and the the chimney um does it uh offer a
fireplace in the den? No. Okay. Uh would the addition uh of the closet have any impact on the chimney itself? The only impact on it is just that it it just surrounds it encloses it. Um but other than that there's no uh grand effect to
it. It you know we try to as much as possible really think about um how that in the impact itself it does take up room but to the chimney itself it's it's going to be preserved. So um on on your
drawing uh you have uh and maybe if you can approach uh it um uh the uh where the addition is and then you have the chimney and then immediately to the right of the chimney is that roofing
or what is that? Do you have sort of looks like roofing tiles or something? I'm not sure what that is. Yeah, sorry. No problem. So what that is is what we call is a cricket and it's basically a small roof that sits adjacent to the roof line. So what happens is because
the roof sheds water off in this direction, we need to make sure that there's a transition piece there, what we call the cricut to make sure that it can shed off water away before it starts to pull and start to create a any damage to the roof. I see. Okay. Yeah.
And then uh and then uh within the the peak of the addition itself is that uh ventilation. Is that what that is? Yeah. So there's going to be a portion of that that's going to have um you know a peak to that and there's going to be an act um you know from the roof line there to
be able to vent it properly. So yes, there'll be a vent above a pass. It would be a passive vent. So it's just an open air vent. So there would be no mechanics up there. No, no, no. And so the the the closet itself, will it have a pitch ceiling or it just have
a flat ceiling on? It will have a partially uh pitched ceiling. Uh because we're going to have um from a structural um point, we're going to have to have collar ties to properly have that supported. So that's um you're not
seeing a section of it, but basically it kind of cuts up this way, comes across, and then it cuts back again. Um and then um currently uh the the window that is the to the left of the of
the uh uh chimney. No, uh the one above it on the third floor. Oh, yeah. Okay. So you currently there is one on the left and one on the right. Is that correct? That's correct. So you're you're eliminating the one to the right. I am. And um will that change the
historical nature of this property at all? Uh not necessarily. I mean the approach that we're going through with this application I mean it's not for one it's not an historic but the architectural at least we're sort of
enhancing we're enhancing it from the front. um where this existing window really isn't seen um in other other areas other than up there in the attic. Is that right? Correct, Carl? Yeah, I believe that's correct. Uh what is your intent uh for the window
that you're removing to uh remove it and completely seal that opening? But I mean, in terms of the window itself, will you will you take it and maybe put it in a garage or something like that to preserve it for future owners of the property if they
decide they want to do something with it or have you ever thought about that? Did not think about that, but certainly open to it if that's something that's done uh typically, but no, didn't have any intentions. I just was wondering again from a historical perspective since I
understand that it was part of the original house. And Carl, correct me if I'm wrong. One of them, this one, is it the one on the left or the one on the right that's not in good shape? Yeah, it's actually it's actually in good shape now. So, so we're able to close it
now and then we just have to change one of the glass panes on the one that's the one that will remain. Right. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, we're preserving that one, right? And we're Perfect. Okay. And then just the last question I have is with the with the addition on the third floor over the den, looking at it from
the streetscape, uh will that uh uh give the house a greater sense of mass in comparison to the neighborhood or will it uh really uh from your uh perspective uh be in line with with the neighborhood itself? I would say well and I just want to make sure because you said third
floor, but I know you meant second floor, right? Second floor. So yes, thank you. So yeah, no problem. So yeah. No, I I think, you know, this is not an uncommon addition that we see in the neighborhood. I think, you know, it's a very simple application that we're looking for here and we feel, you know,
it is within the fabric of the neighborhood, the the look and style that we feel can fit really well with the home and it'll further enhance the style and you're maintaining the siding and the tiling of the roof tiling, everything will be consistent, right? So, this will appear as as though it's
part of the original uh house. Correct. Thank you. Mr. Church, do you have any questions? Um, I had the same concern about the chimney when I looked at the property. Um, the,
um, there's going to be no adjustment for the chimney. The chimney is going to stay exactly where it is. Correct. Okay. And when you put your addition on, it's going to be in the back of the addition. I mean, how's it going
to function? Is it going to is it going to show into the addition at all? Into the addition. So from the interior, yes. Like it it would be a u you know, sort of an Yeah. A nice aesthetic. Exposed. Yeah.
Exposed brick, you know, and a really nice interior finish for the closet. But there'll be But there'll be no fireplace or anything on that. No, there's the only fireplace is on the first floor facing the living room. Okay. Yeah. That was my only really concern when I looked
at the property because I couldn't figure out how you were going to do it. Um, and the portico, uh, I believe, yeah, I agree with you. The portico is necessary because those flat front
things are difficult in the weather. My house has that and it's very difficult to get in and get out. I have two dogs and getting them in pain. You're soaked. Okay. So, that's the only question I had. It's just I was kind of
wondering about that chimney was going to be moved or what was going to happen. Sure. Yeah, that's all I had. Sarah, um just a question about the width of the addition. Um the den is actually wider than the addition. Is that right?
It is. Yes. And the the only reason and the only reason we pulled it back that way is because of the existing wind window. Um although we don't feel that that really uh affects us as far as the design goes cuz the way we're structuring it is going to be sitting on
top of that that ex outside wall. So it works out perfectly. Okay. And then to in that same elevation, the left side elevation to the left of that set of windows, there's a vertical element. Is that just trim? Is that
just see here? Are you referring to um at the deck? Oh, this piece right here. Yeah. Oh, so there um so because there's an existing smaller piece of the roof here, there's going to be a gutter. That position may actually move over a little bit to the right. I mean to the
left. Uh but yeah, that's just the the gutter line, the the downspout, I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And then um all of the trees kind of adjacent to the den. Is that on your neighbor's property or is that on your property? Um yeah, the tree the large kind of shrubs
to the left to the left. That's that's on the neighbors probably. The the taller one that you see, I mean, the perspective is kind of off, but that's really further in the backyard is is is as deep as you can get in the backyard corner, but the uh shrubbery on the left
is on the neighbor's property. Okay. So you really can't see into that property from that side of the house? No. Thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Simon. Uh my only question is for the columns that are going on the portico, those are
going on the existing slab, right? You're not extending or pouring new slab for the columns. That's correct. Yeah. Other than of course like you know putting the actual support uh footing to it, but there's no need for Yeah. There's no no expanding that. Okay.
Thank you. Correct. Thank you, Miss Grant. Do you have any questions? No, not right now. Mr. Corfield on your um zoning information table. Uh you um highlighted the maximum building
width and then in the planner report it came out that um section whatever it is a is for build it says building additions which widen the existing principal structure. I don't know if we're widening the existing principal structure on this building. Do you No. Yeah. No. Yeah, I mean I think I think
maybe the way in with with what's how it's written I think it's really referring into that second portion but in terms of from a zoning perspective we're not expanding that. I don't know if that applies to this case and like I don't know if that's a thing that we need to think about in this. Yeah, I
mean it's an existing nonconformity and you know and I know that sometimes when we're trying to work around that um you know it is something that it's important for the board to to consider. So that's what we Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Um,
[Applause] I like what you've done. Thank you. I think it's very appropriate, very fitting, fits in the neighborhood. But I am baffled by one thing. Sure. Um on your elevation three on the right hand side there
uh there's a chimney and it comes down and it meets the roof and to the right of that it appears as if you've infilled with brick where I would think you would be putting the same clapboard that's everywhere else.
I'm sorry maybe I'm misunderstanding. So, we're not we're not talking about the we're not talking about this portion right here at the top. Are we talking about that or are we talking about uh cuz this this itself is resembling the the rest of the architecture? I can't
see your mouse. So, Oh, I'm sorry. So, here let me just I'm sorry. I'm not sure if I'm understanding. Are you are you referring to this piece there? That right there. Yes, exactly. So, this was the question about Mr. John. I'm sorry, Mr. Yeah. We had um so this is what we
call a cricket. It's a it's basically a roof piece that sits between this gr gable roof and the chimney because what happens is that naturally the water sheds right. So it's not brick, it's shingles. No, it's shingles. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. I heard the uh I heard the cricket comedy conversation but you didn't connect. That's okay. No, thank you for Thanks very much. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. The um when you
answered about the existing window on the second floor, it but isn't that where the the door to the walk-in closet will be located or roughly that? So there is um yeah, so you can see this one window here on this this perspective
the existing. So yeah, so this would become the door of that space. Um, and that's that's where we're proposing the entrance into the closet. But the the one window here on this side is being preserved. And then the also and also
the existing window at the front which is also part of the master is being preserved as well. Yeah. And then just so the records the existing shrubbery on your neighbor's property um that pretty
much as you indicated blocks the view from your property into his or hers your neighbor's property. Is that correct? That is correct. And then their house there's an area of landscaping their driveway and then their house is some
distance away from your house. Is that correct? Yeah. It's a pretty significant distance away. That's correct. Okay. Any other questions for members of the board? One, if I may. Drainage on this new addition.
Uh roof drainage. Where are the down spot? Are they going to be moved to the corner? No. Uh no. So there's um currently one existing right now on that corner. So we're preserving that. They have we also have then on this side we're going to have one down spout going
from here that would then shed off and then it would have another downspout here which is an existing one now uh from this piece of the roof there and that water would go where? Uh well currently I want to say into the ground or in the
con the connection to is that is that to in the ground or in the ground? It is in the ground. Okay. Y preserve that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for members of the board? Grant,
I had a question for Mr. Charles. How long have you lived in your home? This is our seventh year. Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the audience who have questions or statements, whatever? Okay, come up to
the microphone on the podium and Oh, I'm sorry. recognition. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth in a matter pending before the board? I do. State your name and address. Daniel Flynn, 15 Chester Road. All right. So, uh, members of the board, uh, my name is Daniel Flynn. I live at
15 Chester Road. Uh, directly behind the Charles Pierre uh, property at 16 Mount Vernon. Uh while I respect Carl and uh Anupa's desire to improve their home, I respectfully oppose uh their variance request for a second story edition. Uh
the proposal significantly exceeds the guidelines designed to pervert preserve Montlair's suburban character. These guidelines uh were put in place for good reasons after long and thoughtful considerations. I have no doubt. Um then
the second floor addition breaches the principal building width limit um expanding to 74.3% of the lot versus the maximum allowed of 65%. This effectively
erases over a quarter of the open space uh that our zoning laws protect. And uh while the proposal uh sorry the proposed second story aligns with the existing ground floor um the current ground floor dimension shouldn't automatically
justify an ex um my apologies. The current ground floor dimension shouldn't automatically justify expanding the second level to match. A vertical expansion such as this has a much more pronounced impact on neighboring properties uh through reduced sunlight,
altered wind patterns, and diminished privacy. Uh the addition would loom some 20 ft above the fence line that divides our properties. Upholding these zoning limits helps ensure the neighborhood continues to provide the open space and privacy that
residents value. I trust the board will carefully weigh in uh these concerns in your decision and I urge you to um that this application is denied. Um thank you for your consideration. Great. Any questions members of the board,
Mr. Harris? Um yes, I could you just outline your specific objections to how it affects your property, not just the the zoning law, but like what how it will personally affect you. Um so effectively if we're in looking out from
the back of our house or in our backyard um it would effectively block the view uh from the backyard. And if the fence that is there gives us privacy because you basically can't see from the ground
the current uh porch area uh because it's on the ground level. But once that reaches the level that's uh outlined in the plan, that would be a very different view from our backyard. So it would be fairly disruptive
for us. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'm I'm trying to understand also um uh the view that you have from the back of your house. Um, so when you say that this
addition would block the view, wh how does it block the view? Uh, that I just want to understand what your because it seems to be so far away from your house. How does it block the view? Well, it's the immediate neighbor behind
my property. Um, so there's a it's a view of the other side of the the the the streetscape on the other side. Yes. is is that some streetscape uh light comes from that angle. Um but above all
my my comment is primarily on uh upholding the current zoning laws. Yes. And and uh does this from again from your from the perspective of of
looking uh through the rear view of of your property, does the current structure of 16 Mount Vernon um affect the aesthetics of of of that view from the back of your the the current
building itself? Well, the current building is within the the legal limit. I believe it's actually under 65% width limits. Um I'm I'm not sure if I understand your question. I'm sorry. I'm I'm just trying to I guess what I'm what
I'm trying to understand is um that um as as the occupant of of your property as you're sort of looking looking out um
you obviously um have a a high level of appreciation for the do and for the light and and so forth and so on. So um I mean the current structure that is that is in
place does not have any negative impact on you at this point? No. So your your concern is that this addition could potentially have a negative impact. Correct. Right. Okay. And that's potential you that's that's your sense
but ultimately you don't know. Right. Um, I think I can have a fairly good idea from the plans that it it would impact um maybe even the property value and the the view from from my backyard. I see. Okay.
All right. Thank you. Other questions from members of the board? Mr. Simon, um, you mentioned privacy, but for the intended use as a closet, are you still concerned about the privacy aspect?
I mentioned privacy more in broader terms. Uh I think it's one more window especially on the second floor of the building um where you can see see out. Um there's not a window facing the back. I do. Yes. I have noticed that the
addition doesn't have a window facing your property. It does not. My comment on privacy is more broadly um about more windows facing the street and uh and also the the cons the new proposed
construction is not going to the full length of the house. I think there was some consideration about mass and bulk in this project cuz they could have proposed to just expand the entire side and that wouldn't have changed the
variance requirements. So, I don't think it's a a situation of imposing on any of the the neighbors, but um Okay, that was my my question. Any other questions, members of the
board? Okay, thank you, Daniel Flyn. Okay, you're okay. Thank you very much. Any other members of the audience who have questions or comments or testimony concerning the application? anything either of you wish to add before we discuss and vote on the
application? Um, no. I I think the board, you know, um I thank the board for for giving us the opportunity to present. Um, you know, I think again uh you know, going through uh you know, the search through the zoning. uh we feel that this is uh
you know fitting to to the zone and we also feel that it's it's an improvement uh but it's not a massive improvement uh in terms of you know trying to make it any bigger than its current footprint but um that's everything I have thank
you start discussion with with Mr. church. I I have uh I I have some uh sympathy with the idea that the property in the back will lose some light with this coming up uh in front of him.
But, uh, overall the, uh, application seems to fit pretty well with what's in the neighborhood. Um, the distance between his property and his neighbors property is enough so that the house isn't going
to be uh, overbearing. Uh, the, uh, addition of the portico, I believe, is a a a good idea. Uh, and uh, I I could find the only
problem I did have was with the chimney and I assume that's been answered. Um, I have no other major problems with this application. I think that the uh, the owner is
use trying to use his property to the maximum. As these houses and and lifestyles change, things need to be bigger. it seems. So, uh I'd be in favor of this application. Uh I don't
believe that um there's much detriment to any neighbors or anybody in front or back. So, I'd be in favor of the app. Yes. Harris. Um I am in favor of um granting three
all three variances. Um just want to address your point about you know um we need to adhere to zoning laws. Uh the whole purpose of the zoning pro the variance process is to look at properties on an individual basis and not all properties conform to our zoning
law. So we have to consider that as well. Um I think uh Mr. Charles Pierre has shown a lot of restraint actually in terms of um the size of the addition um in comparison to a lot of the additions that I see around town. So, I appreciate
that. Um, and I think that uh both sideyard uh variances could be granted. They are just staying within the non-conforming um sizes. So, I'm in favor of this application. Mr. Simon, I'm also in favor of the application. Um we're
seeing more and more of these where people are limited to what they can do with their existing buildings. uh and the fact that uh as my colleague said the the restraint shown by staying within the existing um parameters um compared to some of the other things
that we've seen when people try to build as big and as large as they can. Um I am sensitive to the concerns of the neighbor but um I think this is a very modest modification and I don't want to
minimize your impact but I don't think it's enough to stop the application. So, I'm in favor. Yes. Go ahead. I'm in favor of the application and the three variances. Um the portico is um on the existing
footprint. You're not expanding. So, um that's good. Um I the chimney um blocking the chimney with the um addition. I don't like that. But when I looked, mirroring the slope of the den
wasn't really possible given the size of the extension and wasn't a viable option. Um, so it's like you did the best that you could with um, you know, what you were trying to do. Um, the owner is adding to um, you're adding to the property based on an understandable
need. Um, you know, expanding your personal space in the home that you've been in for a while. Um, so I I mentioned loss of the view of the chimney. That is a loss of the full view of the chimney. Um and um that's everything. But I'm in favor.
Um I'm in favor. This application has come before us many times. Um on the same footprint, what year is your house built? 1929. Yeah, that ordinance the the maximum building was 1985. Two the one that we have today is 2005. So this is I mean
this is uh understandable. I I'm in favor. Mr. Griffith, I'm in favor. I have no other comments. I think it's a nice job. Thank you, Mr. Aullik. Yes. Uh I'm I'm also in favor of the
application. I do want to say that, you know, this zoning board has um uh historically, at least at least during the time that I've been on it, been very sensitized to concerns expressed by neighbors. Um so we we listen to that. We listen for it. uh and um and so we
really appreciate you coming and and expressing that point of view. Um my sense is that that the that uh while on paper the the addition looks larger than it actually is, um it it is a it is a very modest uh uh addition uh to this
piece of property. And I think as one of my colleagues has has already noted uh so many of the proposals that uh come before us um are significantly larger in scale uh and raise a lot of questions in terms of um where we're going in in this
community in terms of um expansion of of uh properties. But uh this seems to be very very modest and uh um I don't see any reason to um to object to to this. I think it's a I think it's a good proposal. very very well thought out and
it doesn't doesn't shine any lights in the back of the house and it doesn't have a window facing the neighbors. No, those are those are very positive developments. Um I'm also in favor of granting all three variances. I think one I want to
thank the neighbor for coming. I we frequently have applications where there are no neighbors and I never understand it because it's going to have some impact. I the neighbor to the rear of my house. It's not fully aligned, but put a
big a fully conforming addition on. And yes, my view beyond that was cut in half, but um you know, that's uh you know, but it, you know, the addition was otherwise
unobjectionable and um I could still see them building a major expansion of the house two blocks over behind that. Um the um but to to go back to this, I I think um I think their design
um unknowingly but thoughtfully considered, you know, by not having windows in the rear, not impacting um neighbor to the rear, the neighbor to the west side. As was discussed, this is not really going to impact them because of the vegetation
and the distance of this house. This is a as several of my colleagues have said this is a very modest addition. Um it's keeping um not encroaching any further than uh the existing in terms of the
sideyard. Um I think the width this the house which is much bigger than what the addition is already exceeds um the permitted width. I think this small addition is not um going to have and the
test is a substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment of the zone plan. Um you know there is some detriment to the neighbor. He is not going to see quite as much of Mount Vernon Road and beyond as he currently
can but I think that's very limited. Um the um so I I think that in terms of the portico um it has always fascinated me the number of houses in town that have no
covering in front of their front door and you know as pointed out as deliveries are becoming much more common than they were when I was a kid. It's uh um creates problems and it's a very small portico they're proposing. So, I
have no issues and uh as was indicated, the drainage is keeping where the drainage is. So, there's going to be no impact on any of the neighbors. So, um I don't I have no conditions that I think are necessary. So, unless someone else has conditions, someone want to make a
motion. Move the approval of the application. Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Oh, no. Mr. Okay. Thank you so much.
Proceed. Thank you. [Music] Sabob, if you could just make a note of for our report that the wording of the 65% the B
portion is less. I think it's clear what it's trying to say. I don't think it says it as clearly as it should. Um, so to clarify that language in the reports, the the
provision and you just I just took out my little marker in What's the section? um 347-45 C 4B concerning the width of the structure
where it says for building additions which do not widen the existing principal structure the maximum permitted width shall be applied to the building addition which a literal reading would say oh just oh it's only 15 ft wide so yes So
that was the conversation I had with the zoning officer when I initially said this should be a reference to 45C4B and he said that's confusing because yes so we all agree it's confusing so let's make it unconfused. I'll add it to this.
We recommend that it become unconfused. Sounds great. Thank you. Okay. The next application is that of Kesha Owens for property at 292 Orange Road. It's an application to construct an accessory dwelling unit with a new accessory building proposed in the rear yard.
Alter and expand the footprint and height of an existing detached threecar garage in the rear yard and add a deck to the left side of the dwelling. The property is located in the R11 family zone district and contains a lawfully existing non-conforming two family
dwelling and presently consists of two lots designated on the township tax maps as lot 27 and lot 20 lot 26 and lot 27 and block 2004. The two adjacent lots are under common ownership and are proposed to be merged. The applicant
requests a variance from Monontlair code section 347-112 as a proposed construction is considering an expansion of a existing non-conforming use of the property proposed enlargement of the existing detached threecar garage requires bulk
variances from Monontlair code section 347-46A2A to permit a sideyard setback of less than 6 ft and Monontlair code section 347-46A3 to permit a head back of less than 6 ft from the rear property line from Enclair
code section 347- 22F to maintain the existing non-conforming accessory building width of 36 ft where a maximum of 24 ft is permitted. Are taxes paid and is the notice in order? Yes, they are. Would
you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board? Yes, I do. State your name and address. First name is Oliver. Last name is Young Yo U N G. Address is GK and A Architects 36 Ames
Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. Okay. And Mr. Young, you're a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Is that correct? Yes. I'd be happy to briefly run through my qualifications. I was just if if that was a yes and your license is in good standing, I think we're good. It's a yes and a yes. And
you know, you can stand, sit, you know, however you want to do it. If you want to leave the podium and refer to the exhibit, take the there's a handheld mic, take that. And is that something that we have that that's up on the Yes.
So, um, the architectural plans that are on the screen are the ones that were emailed earlier today, but were they handed out then today? So, um, what is handed out is the change from the architectural plan in that exhibit
that's on your, um, on your desk, uh, compared to the old one. I also have the older architectural plan I could pull up. So, it's it's current to the ones that you have in the version. So, this this plan that's on the screen
shows the revisions that are on this handout. Exactly. So, it's a different file. I will walk the board through every changes every change that was made. The smaller 11 by 10 11 by 17
exhibit focuses focuses in on the changes we made to bring the accessory drone unit back in and I will explain that as I go into printed 11 by 17. Go ahead. Thank you.
Good evening everyone. This project consists of site alterations to the existing residential property located at 292 Orange Road. For reference purposes, 292 is on the west side of Orange Avenue, right before it splits into
Orange, sorry, Orange Road. Right. Right before it splits into Orange Road West, sitting just north of the intersection with Cedar Avenue. This is block 2004, lots 26 and 27. Lot 27 is smaller at
5,829 square feet and does not contain any structures. Lot 26 is a larger almost L-shaped lot wrapping around the smaller lot at 12,535
square ft. Both lots are under common ownership and as part of our application, we are doing a lot merger for a new combined lot size of 18,364 square ft. The existing dwelling on site
is a legal existing non-conforming two family structure. Apart from the lot merger, which I consider simply the paperwork aspect of the project, there are three significant physical alterations taking place on site. Number
one, we are rehabilitating and expanding an existing garage at the rear of the site to modernize it. Number two, we are adding a deck onto the south side of the residence. And third, we are adding adding an accessory dwelling unit at the
rearmost portion of the site, southwest corner. You'll see before you this electronic copy of the drawings that were submitted. The upper leftand corner is the two lots, the existing site conditions. And I'll just approach the
screen just to point out the smaller lot and the larger lot and the demarcation. Yes. Okay. This is a copy of the existing survey. The existing smaller lot is shown on the left where my finger is pointing on the
larger lot with the existing legal non-conforming two family and the existing garage structure on that lot. And you'll see we've added the accessory dwelling unit. It's a little bit blurry at the rear of the property somewhat
adjacent to the existing garage. We require three bulk variances for the garage itself. Setbacks for both the side and the rear yard, a bulk variance for the garage width, and in addition to those three bulk
variances, we are before the zoning board tonight for a use variance that's triggered by the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit is a permitted accessory use in this zone and we comply with all the requirements of
the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. However, because the underlying existing use is a non-conforming two family in a one family zone, the addition of the ADU triggers an expansion of the existing
nonconforming use. Hence our appearance before the zoning board this evening. I'm going to walk the board through a brief summary of each site alteration taking place. And I'm going to start with the garage. The existing garage bays are not
currently wide enough for modern vehicles, and it is somewhat L-shaped. The garage is also previously sustained damage by a tree in a storm, which affected some of the walls and the roof of the structure. We're simply looking to square the garage off. And by doing
so, it will increase the bay size to update its use to accommodate modern vehicles. We are proposing to match the existing garage width at 36t wide by 19t 9 in deep with this squaring off.
I'm just pulling up sheet A1 in our set which shows the existing garage plan and dimensions. The existing plan being in the middle of the page left hand side, the proposed plan on the right hand side. You'll see
how we're taking that appendage and squaring that off and widening the base. However, since the existing garage is 36 ft, the permitted width of a garage for
ordinance is 24 ft. So, by building out that L, we trigger one variance. There's also two setback variance requirements here. The sideyard setback is permitted to be six feet.
However, we have an existing twoft setback that we would like to reutilize that wall. We believe we can keep it. However, we are increasing the height of the garage, hence the expansion of that existing setback deviation.
The rear yard required setback is also 6 feet and the existing setback is 2.2 ft. So we are increasing that variance condition by squaring off the garage. The second physical alteration we are
making to the existing structures on site has to do with the legal non-conforming two family structure or adding a deck onto the south side of the property. And the south side is the side of the structure that faces the other lot which is simply
open space. Right now I will point out that no bulk variances are required for this deck. The deck is 27T 5 in long by 14t deep and will sit approximately 3 ft above
the ground. As part of the deck modifications, we originally proposed access to the deck through one of two bay windows on the side of that house. However, prior to appearing before the zoning board, we appeared before the Historic
Preservation Commission last week to discuss the project and we are in receipt of their summary or recommendations or report which we received today and we understand their concerns about some of the architectural significance that
remains of this house. The house already has vinyl siding on it which covers a lot of the existing potential historic character. However, there are decorative brackets and these bay windows which remain and the preservation commission was concerned with us removing the
windows from one of the bays and adding a door in its place to access the deck. Before we get into the location of the door, the door itself is critical. There is no door on this side of the structure currently and the entire yard sits on
this side of the structure. So therefore, the tenant on the first floor right now to go to access this yard, they have to go out the opposite side of their house where the driveway is, walk around the back of the house to access
the yard. By providing a deck on this side of the house, which is the logical location for it, we simply want a door for convenience. It makes most sense to do that. Additionally, the current tenant is a pet owner and anybody who's a pet owner knows you're going outside
three to four times a day minimum. So, it's a function of convenience. However, we have listened to the Historic Preservation Commission's concerns and in our updated design, we've taken the door out of one of the bays and we've
placed it in between the two bays. So the historic elements on those two bays will remain. The construction of the deck will not affect the windows, the brackets or any of the dental moldings. So the deck will not have any negative
bearing on the historic value of the structure. Is that revision now depicted on this handout that we just got in the SK sheets? Yes, it is. Okay. So, so, so I understand the original plans were I think four sheets. They had a revision
date of 61025. Then there was a subsequent submission that has revision date of 68 and now we have a third submission that modifies the earlier two with the SK sheets. Is that right? Yes. The 610 submitt was we received the historic
preservation commission consultants report right before the meeting and we were able to accommodate some of their comments before that meeting and that's what that 610 modification took into account. However, the 610 modification still had the door access to the deck
through the bay windows. So, that's one of the two differences in this set of drawings we're presenting tonight. The second difference being the dimensions on the accessory dwelling unit which I'm about to discuss and I'm I'll move into
that. Okay. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't mark these two subsequent submissions by exhibits so that we can keep the record. I think we should just for the record. So let's let's mark as A1 the submission which is sheets co1
A1 and A2 with a revision date. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like 61825. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Then we're going to mark as A2 the sheets that are SK1, SK2, SK3, SK4, they have a revision date of June
1825. Is that correct? That's correct. And with these, there's no uh title block on any of these SK1 through SK4. Are they also prepared by you? Yes, we put that sketch together today simply for honestly visibility purposes on an
11 by7 in front of you. The original drawings are 24 by 36 and we weren't able to produce those at that scale in time for tonight. So, we took the took only the updates from the set and put that in the 11 by7 sketch. If we are
fortunate enough to receive approval tonight, we'll incorporate everything back into the full 24 by 36 and close that off. Moving on to the accessory dwelling unit
at the rear of the site and I'll walk the board through all the changes we've made prior to tonight and why we've made those changes. When we originally submitted to the town, we knew we were going to the Historic Preservation Commission
first and we submitted back in May and the size of the accessory dwelling unit at that point was 24 by 24. However, after we submitted to the HPC, we were made aware of an ordinance change to the ADU that allowed a larger size. So in
our haste to accommodate the larger size of 30 foot dimensions, we submitted to the historic preservation commission a 30 by 30 accessory dwelling unit. Unfortunately being done in haste, we missed the key
part of the ordinance update that stated while you can have a newer maximum dimension of 30 feet, you still have to keep the overall square footage at 800 square foot maximum. By us going to 30 by 30, that brought it to 900 square feet. We do not want to request a
variance for 900 square feet. We want to keep this in full compliance with the ordinance requirements for an accessory dwelling unit, hence the sketch in front of you where we've taken one of the 30-foot dimensions and reduced it to 26'6 in which should keep us under the
800 square ft. I apologize for the confusion. We understand the ADU ordinance has been somewhat in flux and we're trying to stay a breast of that. The floor plan itself of the ADU I'll
flip the sheet bear with me. It contains an open living dining kitchen space and then we have a bedroom and a bathroom. We also have a small upper level which is intended as a storage office or study space. This groundup accessory dwelling unit
will fully comply with the barrierfree sub code as required by the Montlair ordinance and state building codes. We have surrounding landscaping for this accessory dwelling unit consisting of permeable pavers with a
ramp and flagstone pathways, a stone retaining wall, border planting consisting of evergreens, annuals, and pollinators, all indigenous to the area. So, this will not only be beneficial for the environment, but help soften the
appearance of the ADU from the street. although it is set as far back on the property as we can provide. I will touch upon parking requirements very briefly for the record for the existing
legal non-conforming two family structure. We believe two parking spaces per unit are needed. So two for one tenant, two for the other tenant. For an accessory dwelling unit, we are required to have five parking spaces. Sorry, one parking space for a total of
five parking spaces between the two family and the accessory dwelling unit. In our site plan, we show with ease at the existing driveway, we can accommodate and garage, we can accommodate seven parking spaces. So, there is no concern about being
underparked with the addition of the accessory dwelling unit. In regards to the architecture of the ADU and both the garage, we've designed everything to be compatible with the main residence in terms of adding accent
brackets onto both the garage and the accessory dwelling unit to ma to somewhat match some of the historic elements on the existing structure. The current proposed finishes on the ADU and the garage are vinyl siding with
trim and asphalt shingle roof. And the colors of these two will match one another. They're proposed to be a darker green. We are considering a residing of the existing structure which is a I
believe it's a tan or a light beige. And if we do move forward with residing the existing two family structure, we would utilize the same color between all three to further tie all elements together. Can you um tell me what page the parking
you said that um you have Sure. can park five cars with these. What page is that shown on? If you go to sheet C-0, you will see it's a little bit blurry right here, but towards the rear, we've deline del delineated if we had to
stripe parking spaces where we could provide those in addition to the three-way garage. That concludes my direct testimony. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions board members or township
professionals might have. Mr. Co, do you have any questions? Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Young. Um, I the first question I have um I think and it may be more for my edification than anything else and so
I'm it's really directed to you, Mr. Chairman, or perhaps to Mr. Sullivan. Uh, and that is just in terms of the notice of the hearing. Um there's this reference uh to the merging of one lot as uh of the two lots as into one as
part of the application. So does that effectively mean that if we approve this application that it merges officially merges these two lots? Well, if we approve the application, there will be a condition that the applicant's going to have to file a consolidation deed that will put on record the merger of these
lots. So then they would become one lot. So, so that would mean that from the perspective of the zoning board, we would have no objection to that. I wouldn't think if we if we had a right to have an objection to it, but Right. Okay. All right. Just I wasn't familiar
with that. So, thank you. Um, where to begin. So um on this let let me let me start with the garage. Okay. Sure. Okay. So uh the the garage
itself is basically the the basic structure of the garage is is to be maintained um although it's going to be renovated. Is that correct? Yes. We're looking to keep depending on their condition as we move
through demolition. Two of the exterior walls the actually the side and the rear yard walls which are in the setback. The front wall where we have to completely remove to widen the bays. Okay. So that's where the three garage doors are is what you're saying. That's correct.
So that the the uh the two walls that um face uh the neighbors yards, you would you would anticipate those are the two walls that you're saying are most likely subject for demolition. Is that correct? No. The
two walls facing the neighbor's yard, the rear yard and the sideyard, those are the two walls that we're proposing to keep. They they will be resided and re-shathed if necessary, but we intend to keep those. And as far as you can tell at this point, they're in pretty good shape.
The sidewall, the roof area is where some of the damage sustained. So, we're going to as we peel off the structure, we will further make that determination because the roof itself is going to go. We are raising the roof to provide storage space above each bay. Okay. So,
the entire roof will come off, correct? And there'll be a new roof and put in place. Now, as part of this structure, there is a there is and I guess this is part of where you're how you're sort of gaining the additional space to expand the threecar garage. Uh is this small
structure that looks like it could be I don't know what it what it what it is, a storage area or whatever. So, I mean, basically that that area is being captured as part of the garage and then you're where you said it was going to be
squared off is the area that is behind that. Is that That's 100% correct. Okay. Um and so now the the foundation of the current garage is in is in good shape as far as you're concerned. As fortunate,
you know, we will know better once we undergo once we start construction and expose the existing foundation in the area of the new foundation. But there's no there's no evidence that there's any foundational concerns. All the
structural concerns we see are based on the damage from a tree and a storm. Okay. And so and that and the currently that the foundation is a concrete uh flooring to the garage. the the floor itself is. I can't comment on the
foundation itself. I think this garage was built at def several different times, two or two or three iterations. So, we could be looking at different supports under the walls for the foundations. We we won't know until we
dig. Okay. Right. Um and and so the the the plan is for this garage to be able to accommodate three fulls size vehicles. Correct. That's the intent. Each bay,
the clear width inside each bay will just be just under 11 foot five in. And if you look at a a well-designed parking space at 10 ft, even 10 ft is tight, having an additional foot and a half gives you plenty of clearance to
navigate the vehicle and open both doors, the driver's side and the passenger side comfortably. And those will be consistent with the other four spaces that perhaps will be marked off in the in the uh in the driveway itself.
Yes, we believe it will be consistent. Consistent. All right. And then the the area above the the sort of Okay, you're putting on a new roof and so there'll be an area above the vehicles. Is that going to be an open space? Is that going to be a storage space? What is that
going to be? It's going to be a storage space and there'll be a pull down like you see in an attic, a pull down stair to access the space. Okay. And and that space would be available to whom? to to whichever t I don't know how the
tenant breakdown will be utilized for the garage. Let's say just for for argument sake that you know we have three dwelling units the two family in the ADU. So let's say with three dwelling units one dwelling unit gets
one space per garage so they would have access to it but I'm not sure how the owner intends to okay divide that. Okay. Um to your knowledge, does the current garage have any historical significance? I believe based upon what
the report prepared by the historic preservation consultant, it was dimminimous at best. Based on all the modifications taking place, their research based on historic Sanborn maps, it was really hard to pinpoint what happened and when with the garage
construction. and they felt favorably in their report that our design for the rehabilitation of the garage would not have a negative impact on the property. In fact, it would have a positive impact on the property.
Uh in terms of the design of of the new garage, um do you anticipate any exterior lighting that would be uh uh facing out to the street or or that would have any impact? There are at the front of the garage where each of the bays are, we are
proposing a small wall sconce. So with three bays, that totals four wall sconces. So again, the garage is set back significantly from the road, but those lights would be visible from the road if one stopped and looked.
Uh, and but in terms of the neighbor to the to the north, um, would that have any impact on the neighbor's privacy? Do you We don't believe it would have any impact on the neighbor's privacy. No. What about what about the um
um the four uh parking spaces uh that are um uh on that adjacent to the ramp? Uh would those would those cars um especially if they backed into those spaces? Would those have any impact on
the neighbors quality of life? No, we don't believe so. That's actually very similar to the existing parking configuration on site. That's where the current vehicles because they can't utilize the garage, that's where the current parking exists. So, if I were to ask the owner, the homeowner whether or
not the neighbor uh to the north has ever at any point expressed concern about uh the lights of the cars or the visibility of the vehicles and all of that having any sort of impact on the quality of their of their life and their ability to entertain in their backyard.
Um the answer would be no. the owner is here and we can bring her up if you feel the need to answer that direct. I don't want to speak for her. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that question. Okay. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth in the matter
pending before the board? Yes, I do. State your name and address. Kesha Owens, 292 Orange Road, Montlair. So, Miss Owens, uh the the question that I've posed is that uh the neighborhood to the north um uh there is there is
vegetation uh uh that sort of runs along the border, but it's not thick ve vegetation. And so with the number of vehicles that we're talking about potentially within this uh parking lot area, I'm wondering if historically if the neighbors express any concern about
uh the number of vehicles and car lights at various hours of the day or the night and activity that would encro encroach upon their sense of privacy. Sure. Um so currently as Mr. Young pointed out the um the existing configuration of parking
that we use back there is such that it can accommodate four cars next to each other. Um it's been that way since we moved there since I purchased the home 10 years ago. Um the um whether you choose to back into a parking space, which is typically how we park, or drive
directly in, the area that the lights, the headlights of a vehicle would are positioned against the neighbor neighbor's yard, the home that is most closely adjacent to our yard is forward facing. So, it's actually not facing
directly to the house next door. Um with respect to the house that's two doors down there the placement of their building is such that there's actually a pool there. So they are not again it's not facing the residents directly. It is facing their yard as well. So we've
never uh received any complaints at all from any of the neighbors concerning yard um uh headlights or tail lights or anything like that. H would you would you have any objection if the zoning board was of the opinion that um you
should uh consider putting some vegetation on the northern border of the property in order to shield the neighbor from um the uh vehicles uh that uh so no um I've actually considered that because at the time that I was placing a fence
around the property line um that was something that we looked at um as a way to afford more privacy for the yard in general because the neighbor directly adjacent to us has an open yard that align that lines up with our uh our
driveway. So yes, I would consider that. All right. Thank you. Um thank you. Uh so let me now uh just turn to um the the deck and then we'll we'll come to the ADU. So in terms of the the
the the deck that is being proposed uh um is this this is uh uh intended to accommodate the first floor tenant is that's I think it's
correct and and it's a a deck and um I guess it looks like it's a fairly substantial hot tub. Yeah. Yes. There there is a hot tub proposed to go on the deck. And is that something that is that's the request of the tenant or that's the the the vision of the
homeowner. That's the vision of the owner. Um no is the occupant. Okay. Oh, the the the homeowner is the occupant of the first floor. Correct. That's very helpful. Thank you. Um and uh so the front entrance uh the the house the main
house itself is is uh is is like a duplex. I mean the second floor is a separate apartment in in other words. Correct. Yes. No. Well uh no the figures. Thank you. I'll speak briefly actually because at the one of the
questions the historic preservation commission had for us last week was you know the building bumps out at the rear a little bit instead of putting a door right through the bay windows. Why didn't we just utilize that bump out at
the rear for the tenant because the that space at the rear is actually the other tenant. It's not the first floor tenant who the deck is intended for. So, we could not provide I will flip to that page just to show you. Right. I think I I think I know what you're referring to, but it it would help us all. Yes.
If you look at the proposed floor plan right here with me. Mhm. You'll see how the building steps out. Here's the bay windows in question. Here's the deck where the building bumps out right there. The commission
suggested, why don't you just expand the deck a little and put the door there? This wall right here separates this occupant from this tenant. So, this tenant here will not have access to the deck. This tenant, the owner, that's who the deck is intended for. So the the
homeowner um occupies the first and second floors of the front of the building and the tenant is the just the first floor of the back of a rear unit of the rear
unit. Okay, that helps. And so the when so when when when you made reference to um the tenant um if uh he or she needed to walk the dog 10 times during the day, they'd have to walk out through the driveway. There is there is a I think a
doorway that leads out to the driveway. Is that from the is that from the the the homeowner or is that from the tenant? Both on the north side of the property facing the driveway. So both have access to that. Yes. I see. Okay.
This is a common entrance for both. No, it's two separate entrances. So, on the north side of the building, you'll have to come to the microphone. You can have a seat. Mhm. You may want to sit down and just be part of the conversation.
Photos that will just press the push button at the bottom. Okay. On the north side of the building, there are two uh uh exits. One is for the primary unit, which is the residence that I live I occupy. Um and
then the entrance and the only entrance for the tenants unit, which is the bumpout that he's referring to, is I don't know 15 ft away from that side entrance. When I go out to walk the dogs, I exit through the side door and
up the driveway and through the backyard into the backyard into the gate in order to let them have access to the yard. The tenant, who also has dogs, by the way, um does a similar thing, exits through her primary door and through the backyard, through the back fence and
into the yard. Okay. Um, so if I'm working from home, for example, at the front of the building, it requires that I get up, exit through that door, go up the driveway and out multiple times throughout the day. And so now, primarily the vision is that
as the homeowner, you'll be able to utilize the deck in order to access the backyard, whereas the tenant will still be wrapping around. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. For reference purposes, I' I've pulled up sheet C1. This might not be color in your packet,
but these are existing site conditions photos of both the two family structure and the garage. At the top left, second one in exhibit number two, that shows a photo of that side of the house facing the driveway. And you'll see the two
Miss Owens entrance and the tenants entrance as we've been discussing. Okay. So, they are they are distinct uh doorways. That's correct. Okay. All right. Um
All right. Um now I want to move into the into the ADU. So uh but uh just before uh I want to ask a preliminary question. Um and that is so you I mean you are proposing an ADU. Um, I don't
know if if um if the ordinance um in any form or fashion would ever allow for more than one to exist on a piece of property. But uh uh in the area that is adjacent to the deck, that's the basic
that's the yard that um would now be um um that's the larger that would be the larger open yard. Uh there is no there would be no plan at any point to ever propose an ADU to go into that space. Is
that correct? That's correct. Okay. All right. Um now where you are proposing uh for for the ADU, you currently have a gazebo that is going to be removed. Correct. Okay.
Um and then um the ADU now has been scaled uh to 800 uh square feet. Um one of the questions I had, Mr. Young, for you was looking at the at the um
SK4. Um uh the bedroom uh does have uh uh egress on the on the um south I guess that maybe the the the west uh wall.
Yes. Okay. Would you speak to that please? Sorry. Yes. The west wall which is plan north. If you look at proposed plan number two, the ground level plan, the bedroom is on the upper left hand corner and there is a window in that bedroom which is the rear of the
property facing west which will be an egress window to meet building code requirements for emergency egress. Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that that has been accommodated. Thank you. Uh and uh
and then all of the um I noted that all of the um the the sort of kitchen kitchen uh facilities uh then uh to the east which means that any ventilation uh
from uh cooking or whatever within the ADU would remain on the property itself would have no encroaching uh element uh to to the neighbors. Correct. It's easily 30 plus it any exhaust provided through the roof per se will easily be 30 ft minimum away from
the closest property line. Okay, appreciate that. Um uh the the the ground where the ADU is is proposed is a sloping slightly sloping ground.
It's relatively level relatively but there is a slope. So just speak to how that is being addressed. I mean it's yes what we're actually doing is we're excavating down okay a little bit to be able to provide enough height in the
space to add a mezzanine up above. So we will be regrading within that area and excavating and providing both a ramp as well as stairs for barrierfree requirements.
On average it's I believe approximately 2 feet. However, we will obtain topographic data if we are approved to finetune that calculation. Okay.
Um and uh historically have there been any issues of um water accumulating on that part of the property or I have to defer to Miss Owen. No. Okay. So, it's a dry area and your
basement, your current basement is a dry basement. Correct. Uh, I recently installed a uh French drain, so we don't have any difficulties with that. Uh, what's the in intent of the the mezzanine? The intent of the mezzanine
is just to be used as an office or study or storage space. And then there will be an area that looks down on the living room kitchen. Yes. For it to be considered a a mezzanine by code, the mezzanine has to
be mostly if not fully open. We're intending to have it be fully open to the space below. And what kind of uh it looks like a railing of some sort. What kind of railing are you proposing? We haven't designed the railing per se. We have not moved that far enough along
with the construction documents. I see. Okay. We're not sure if it would be an open railing or a solid half wall, per se. And then uh you have tempered tempered glass uh in the mezzanine area that um
presumably is uh to accommodate again the privacy of neighbors. Is that what that is? The tempered glazing for the mezzanine. We're going to vet that per building code requirements with our design team. I'm not 100% convinced at this point in time. It needs to be
tempered. Okay. Okay. And then uh just um in for the external area leading into the ADU uh it looks like you have it look I think the what I read was two ramps. Is is that
what one ramp uh to the to the north and one ramp to the to the west? Yes. Due to our estimated Well, it's one continuous ramp. However, due to the length of it, we have to provide a landing per code requirements. So, it's an L-shaped ramp
with a landing at the L or the distance of the ramp and our estimation of how far below existing grade will be that necessitated this length. And then there are and then there are pavers uh to provide additional walkway
from the parking area to the to the ADU. Correct. So there are two which also pavers lead to stairs. It's a little bit hard to see because we've hatched the pavers there, but there are also stairs at the end of those pavers. Okay. All right.
And uh next to the garage, the concrete patio is going to be removed. Is that going to be lawn? Yes, it will be landscaped area. Landscaped area. Okay. Sorry, I can't clarify if it will be landscaped or lawn, but it will not be
impervious coverage. It will be pvious. All right. Thank you. Um and then uh finally um and I I I think this is in a sense been addressed in by a number of the questions that
I've asked but I just wanted to hear from from you or maybe from both of you specifically and that is in terms of what is this overall proposal um will have no detrimental impact to the
neighbors uh to the to the south or to the to the west or to the north. I mean, there are homes sort of on three sides of of this of this property. Uh, and uh,
a couple of them do stand kind of tall and perhaps they they provide they have a great view of of your yard. But uh um but uh just in terms of what uh and uh the other uh areas uh
uh it it does seem as though what you try to do is to take into consideration as much as possible to provide for the privacy not only of those that are living on your property but uh for your neighbors as well. Is that correct?
That is correct. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all my questions. Mr. Church, do you have any questions? Yeah. Uh, one question I have. Uh, the You're building an ADU on the property. For what purpose is that being done?
I have two young adult children. Um, so potentially for the purpose of um, family occupancy andor rental. It's I haven't determined exactly what, but one of those two applications. Okay. So, it's it's got a per it's got a
a direct purpose. You're putting it there for a direct reason, either rental or for your children. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Miss Harris. Do you have any questions? Um, yes. Uh going back to the parking,
you said there's a total of how many parking spaces needed for the entire the ordinance requires five total parking spaces, two for each parental unit in the existing non-conforming. So 2 plus two is floor and then the ADU requires
one parking space for a total of five by our count. And we've shown between the garage and parking in the driveway, we account for seven. And the two extra are for what purpose? Visitors.
Okay. Um, so I'm just asking because you're requesting to expand the garage. Just wanted to know if there was a specific purpose for that expansion because it doesn't seem required in terms of the parking count. So, the expansion um refers to the size
of the garage. Each of the bays currently presumably were accommodated horses maybe because the garage has been there that long. But in terms of modern vehicles, they're too narrow for my current car, um the neighbor's car and
so forth. Um, so the overall footprint of the garage would allow increasing it would allow regular vehicles to fit in there. So it's not an expansion in terms of additional bays. It's expansion in terms of the overall size of each bay.
So we would maintain the three existing bays but have them larger. And then currently the yard, the driveway opens up to an apron. That's currently where we park. And we do have four as many as four vehicles can fit there. So that
accounts for the seven total parking spaces that would exist if we had access to all three parking garage bays and the four um in the apron. I guess my question is could you modify the existing garage so that you
can comfortably fit two cars without expanding the size of the garage because that's part partly what's driving the variances for the garage, right? So, you can modify it so you have two bays as opposed to three. And then you still have four parking spots
in the in the parking lot or in the driveway and you will still meet the minimum parking requirements for the property. I I think in theory that's true.
However, I'm cons thinking it through in my mind with the raising of the height of the garage, you know, physical floor plan space aside, I think we still would trigger the, you know, even if we didn't do that floor plan expansion just by
raising the height of the garage as well, I think that would still keep those variances in place because those those two existing walls are violating the setback and where raising the height of those walls. So I think those I think
those variances would remain in place. I think the third bulk variance we're discussing which is the 36 ft width. I think that would be one that would be eliminated by my count. Okay. And we'd have to
speak with Miss Owens to see if she'd be willing to reduce the garage parking versus non-covered parking. Okay. Thank you. Um can you walk me through um the section for the ADU in terms of the
heights of each floor and your roof peak? Sure. And is there a is it slab on grade? Is there a small foundation? It's going to be slab on grade. Okay. There'll be no crawl space, no basement.
Okay. I'm going to refer I'm going to refer to sheet A2 for the elevations for the sketch we submitted today to bring the ADU into compliance for square footage. We did not update the elevations with
reduced dimensions, but since we're discussing heights only, I'll refer to what we previously submitted. If you look at the elevation right in the middle, it's the front elevation. You'll see how we dash in the proposed
foundation supports. It is intended to be a slab on grade. And actually I'm I said a twoft estimate of how we're going to lower the grade. It's actually we're estimating 2'6 below existing grade is
what the finished floor would sit at. Then we're going to have an 8 foot6 clear ceiling in there for the bedroom and bathroom and closet spaces. We're accounting for approximately 1 ft of
floor structure and then the mezzanine space is going to have at its highest point approximately a 6'8 high ceiling. However, we are proposing shed dormers at both the front and the rear. Those will have a slight pitch. So that's at
its highest ceiling point. the mezzanine as it will slope slightly down to off the top of my head somewhere around five and a half to six feet I believe at the windows at the rear. So the top of the
structure on the outside will be 15 feet above existing grade while the finished floor of the structure sits by our accounts 2'6 below grade. That's how how we're able to accommodate the mezzanine
space. And then so you guys take measure measures to make sure there's no water in it coming into the ADU. Sometimes that's something yes in our construction drawings. We'll have to take that into account. So,
it'll have to be a waterproofing membrane and drainage tile around the entire perimeter directing that to um actually probably we're probably going to be proposing drywalls for the overall drainage here. The one thing our
elevations doesn't show is gutters and leaders for this structure. Those will all tie into an underground system and we believe a dry well will work for this. Um and then in terms of the methan is
that area included. It is not currently it is not currently accounted for. That footprint is of the first floor. We're not considering the mezzanine fully habitable space. more storage space
because once I cannot remember the residential code off the top of my head, once the roof slope hits a certain point, we can't we can't utilize that space for occupancy. We can use it for storage per se. Um, we could provide I'm not trying to
dodge the question. And we could provide calculations to show that with resolution compliance if we are approved. But a portion of the me is still right. Yes. Towards the front
there is enough clear ceiling height for it to be but that portion there is enough. We'll make sure we stay under the 800 square feet with the calculations and we'll show that between the levels and we can provide a diagram whether it's on
the elevation or plan or both showing where the cut off is between what's considered habitable for humans by building code and what's not. Um and then the area in front of the ADU. Yes. Is there anything planned
between the papers and the ramp? I know there was a gazebo that that you're removing. Do you plan on replacing that with anything? No, the gazebo is being removed in its entirety. We're not replacing it. We are with the stone retaining walls we are showing on either
side of the ramp. On the landscaping side of the ramp, which is the left hand side, the right hand side being the driveway. That's where we're proposing the different plantings we proposed. Mr. Simon, just couple for the the garage, the threec car garage. Are they
three independent units? So, they're not connected or accessible one from the other at all, including the the storage area up top. Correct. They're supposed to be completely independent. So there's actually three separate attic stairs. So it could function for three separate
tenants. Okay. And my other question is for the ADU, you reduce the size um let's just say by 4T to make the 30x 26. Was there any thought to bring it up and away from the property line? So you
would have an increase setback from 6 to maybe 6 to 10. When we did remove that dimension, it was from the front of the ADU. However, I understand your comment. It's somewhat arbitrary. We could look at increasing
the setback at the rear instead to provide better clearance from the adjacent properties. Although although I understand we are currently in compliance. Yes, you're in compliance, but just a thought to to just make it less of a burden on any neighboring properties. We would definitely take that into consideration.
Thank you, Miss Grant. Um, I didn't see um maybe I overlooked it. An elevation of the deck. You're correct. You did not overlook it. There is no elevation for the deck. We did bring a mood board before the Historic Preservation Commission, which
I have an electronic copy of that shows the design intent of the deck, which we feel fits rather nicely with the house. I'd be happy to plug it in and show it if you would like to see it.
Sure. Bear with me one second to get this to work. Um, before I testify to it, we'll have to mark this as Yeah. So, we're up to A3. A3. And just what are we calling this? Mood board. M O D. Yes.
I don't think I ever ran into a mood board before design intent, but okay. Okay. So, it's And that was prepared by by you? Yes, it was prepared by our by your firm. Yes. Okay. And is
there a date on it? We will provide a date with a Well, you can we'll just put today's date on it. That's fine. We'll mark it with today's date. Okay. And just to quantify your question, if you look at the bottom middle, we show
an image of a deck with some screening and a pergola above it. With the pro proposed hot tub, we do want some privacy screening in that area. So, the screening itself we envision sitting on top of the railing up to a height of 8 ft. And we would top that off with a
pergola in that area. And it might be a little bit hard to see, but it is a rather ornate railing in and of itself with multiple colors. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Good question. Yes. Does the debt count towards the
calculation for impervious coverage? It does. Yes. Is that accounted for in your respects? Yes. I did forget to mention during my testimony that if we kept the lot separate, there would be a concern with impervious coverage. However, with the lot merger, even with
the addition of the accessory dwelling unit and the deck, we are still in compliance with the township impervious. We do not require a variance for imperous coverage. So in the um in your bulk table
um for the max impervious coverage is the deck area included in the main residence area or is that separate? I believe it's under the I'm having a hard time reading my own
thing. Bear with me a second. Sorry, my apologies. I simply can't read the numbers on my own sheet. It is included in the main residence and we'd be happy to update that as a condition of approval just to further demonstrate
compliance. Thank you. You're done. Okay. Another question. Um, is there anything about the deck that's um custom to accommodate the hot tub? The only consideration apart from the screening would simply be a structural
concern to make sure we're designing it appropriately for the added weight of the hot tub as opposed to a normal deck occupancy. But it's in a summary, it's nothing visible that you would see. It's all under the deck. Okay. Thank you. And then um uh what is um underneath the
siding? We have not determined that yet. During one conversation with the historic preser with the historic preservation commission last week, there was a lot of back and forth about the residing of the existing house. We did agree that at
some point we definitely have to peel off the existing vinyl siding to see what's there. If we replace the vinyl with vinyl, we would be removing the vinyl siding, not going over it. The commission did have questions or comments about other materials. And our
concern is not just the added cost of the different materials, but all the additional potential added cost that could be incurred to support a different material. I'd be happy to go into further detail. In a nutshell, we're
taking the commission's comments under consideration. We have not peeled back the siding yet to see what is awaiting us. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Gfield,
did you explore putting the ADU on lot 27? No, we did not. We [Applause] when we first looked at the application, we looked at lot 27 in and of its entirety. However, it was more feasible
to combine the lots. It was more beneficial to us in terms of dimensions, variances, and lot coverage to do as such. I mean, I I think it's also for the backyard for that house as well. Um,
are you going to provide the negative and positive criteria since it is a use variance on this? Yes, for the record, we can. I am not a licensed professional planner. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I will go as far as I am allowed
to go in regards to the negative and positive criteria. And if we encounter any obstacles, we can discuss with our clients and potentially reconvene at a later date if necessary. Okay. Um
uh the resident uh the owners live on the property. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. It's a two family the the main house today. That's correct. Okay. Um, do you anticipate a lot of dirt in excavation to get down for 2 feet for
the ADU? Yes, we do. And we know we'll have to And you're going to just put that around that, right? Because you have to have the ramp of the ADU. You want it to be kind of seamless, correct? So, you'll just move that. There there will be some excavation and we'll have to pull the appropriate permits for the excavation.
We understand that. Okay. Um Okay. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. You have any questions? Um Okay, let's I'll try and be quick. I apologize if I repeat my questions from what you've already addressed. Uh
noninyl materials such as cement board, cedar, hardy board for the new ADU and garage structures. That's recommended by the historic notes. I agree with them. Vinyl's not really a nice material for the environment as uh
and so I would think that if you're building anything new that you would maybe take a step forward for the environment and maybe we could talk to the historic preservation commission about matching the color as opposed to
literally repeating a poor material use. Understood. Just to clarify your comment, matching the color of the existing vinyl siding on the existing structure if we propose fiber cement or another material on the garage and the
ADU. I don't care what color it is. I just don't want it to be vinyl. Understood. I think that's in all of our best interest. Okay. Understood. Um uh the deck with the with the 8 foot high
uh 8 foot high fence around it seemingly seems kind of bulky. I I could appreciate wanting to have privacy from the window that's directly looking out onto from the neighbor. I get that. But is that really necessary on all three sides of
the deck? It's not intended to be the entire length of the deck. It's only in the area of the hot tub. There's three sides to the deck. One side has the window of the neighbor. Yes. If you look at SK2 here, again, I apologize because it's a little blurry
across the front. We're we're re with the new door location. We've moved the hot tub to the outer extents of the deck and that's where we're proposing the privacy screen. So, it's in the corner and it's not at the top where the window is. Correct.
The top is where the window is for the neighbor. This is the front corner right here. Here's the hot tub. We're proposing the privacy screen across the front here. and then approximately halfway down the length. So, the back half would just be the railing itself.
Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, so you don't show any mechanical equipment like a heat pump which you probably have outside your house at the ADU. You need to show that. we can add it to the plans to show compliance with
setbacks. And I know this has been discussed before, but I'm going to ask about it again. You're really going down 2 foot6 on the site with a ramp and a stair and collecting all the water at the front door of the home. Is it of the ADU? Is
that right? Understanding this correctly? Yes. Drainage will be provided in that area. And as someone else mentioned, with the grade being higher, all the walls will require waterproofing and drainage with a perimeter drain. Everything will tie in
to a drywall. So you have a drain and an overflow drain down there because you don't want to flood the the new Yes, we will have to the new place. Uh and you're going down. I guess I'm I'm curious and I apologize for this curiosity, but you're going down just to
get the extra height in that in the building. That's correct. and we'll see what we encounter when we excavate. It was interesting with the Historic Preservation Commission's report, all the old structures they identified at various locations on the
lot. We're not sure how accurate it is, but that garage per se appeared in different locations in different years. So, there there could be something underground. We shall see. Um,
in the ADU, you show a stair going from the lower level up to the mezzanine that goes over the bathroom. Depending on which drawing I look at, it doesn't look like you're going to have the required clearance where the toilet is. We will make sure that our construction drawings are fully
compliant with the barrierfree sub code. Um, and I'll stare riser tread height requirements. You show a 2x12 slope on your what I call a flat roof, virtually a flat roof. And you call out asphalt shingles there, right? Correct. Doesn't
look like it's a 212 slope in the drawings. And asphalt shingles can take a 212 slope. It's not recommended. U a different material such as standing seam or non-assphalt would be able to withstand
that slope a lot better. That's correct. Um in one somewhere in one of these sets of documents you mentioned that the ADU will be fully an accessible unit. That's correct. That's what I test.
Okay. And you know, you can get an additional 40T for that. We know that's only for adaptive reuse projects. If it's a new ADU, it's 800 square ft and is required to be complying with the barrier free sub
code. Adaptable use. It's if it's a existing building that's been adaptively reused. Okay. Thank you. And then you get the extra bonus footage. I did not understand that. Thank you. Uh that's it. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, going back to the height
of the ADU, my understanding is you're measuring the height from the existing grade. Is that correct? That's correct. The only It's average grade, right? Yes. The average grade remains around three sides of the building. It will
remain at current conditions. It's only at the front for that width where we're excavating for the ramp where it drops. Okay. The the ordinance says if soil or rock removal lowers the ground elevation around the perimeter of
the foundation walls, building height shall be based on the lowered elevation. So when you were doing the average, did you consider the lowered elevation where you're excavating? We'll provide our numbers and calculations to make sure that the average that when it averages out that we still comply with
requirements, meaning we'll double check our numbers. Okay. Um, going to the garage, I guess to follow up on what Miss Harris was saying,
um, the existing width is counting the area that's currently labeled as storage area. Is that correct? That's correct. And what you're proposing to do is to extend that back
to the current back wall of the garage. Exactly. For for reference, I don't recall the exact dimension of that storage area, per se, but let's say for argument sake and for ease of math, it's 9 ft. We're taking that 9 ft from that small storage space and adding three
feet back into each bay to make those bays uniform and wider to meet the vehicle storage demands. They are simply too narrow. Okay. But you're you're making them
each of them will now be 11'5 in wallto-wall. Is that correct? Yes. The clear dimension inside will be 11'5 in by our numbers. Okay. Uh the largest width parking space I've
ever seen in any ordinances 10 feet. Why? Why do you need the 11' 5 in? I mean, a 10- foot wide parking space, you know, even a 9 foot wide parking space gives plenty of room to open doors. I somewhat agree and I somewhat
disagree. If you're carrying groceries or carrying a child and trying to put them in a car seat, 9 ft simply doesn't cut it. 10 feet is okay. Anything bigger than that, the the bigger the better. But the you're you're doing two things
here. You're exceeding the permitted width by expanding backwards and you're that expansion backwards is keeping the existing twoft set back to the neighbor's property. And I'm trying to
minimize that. And as Miss Harris pointed out, it's you're not needing to do this to provide parking. You're ending up with one indoor parking space for arguably each of the resident each of the three
dwelling units on the property. That's correct. We are we are covered with parking. It's adding one indoor parking space where the current configuration which still it still requires an extensive rehab don't get me wrong but
it would be two park two covered parking spaces in lie of three if we did not expand that storage space. And what happens if when you're doing the work, you discover the existing either rear
wall or the wall that encroaches on the sideyard need to be removed. Then we would have to approach the building official to make them aware of it, update our drawings and remove them in their entirety and rebuild them to the exact dimensions.
Okay. Um we've I want to understand where you are in the various recommendations of the historic preservation commission. Um sure. Okay. So first one is my understanding is you revised the plans
to comply with their um first recommendation concerning the re the bay windows. Is that correct? Correct. We will we are going to comply with that. And you're also going to comply
with partially with the second condition in terms of the door being located between the bay windows. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Then the second part of that is wanting to have a patio rather
than an elevated deck. My understanding is you want to keep the deck. Is that correct? That's correct. We would like to keep the deck. Okay. Um, then go back to what Mr. Griffith said. Are you willing to have a condition that there be nonval materials used for the
ADU in the garage structure? I would have to speak with the owner before I affirm to that. Okay. And then the fourth condition deals with the materials under the existing vinyl siding before making decision. Doesn't require you to do
anything, but requires you to determine what's there before deciding whatever with the main house. Did you have a problem with just knowing what's there? No, we need we need to know what's there. A lot of the back and forth with the Historic Preservation Commission,
apart from the deck itself, was not how cost prohibitive it could be to utilize a different material other than vinyl siding if we tried to reside the vinyl house. Hence that comment. Okay. And then their
fifth condition was add more architectural detail to the garage doors um because they don't like the proposed modern garage doors. Do you have a problem with adding more architectural details? We will comply with that. We do
not have a problem with that. Okay. And then there's six condition is if we're approving the deck, prioritizing transparency and permeability in the upper portions of the railings. I'm not fully knowing the context of
their discussion, but is that an issue? Due to the hot tub location, the the screening we're proposing, the screening would sit on top of the railing and it would be a lattice screening. So, there would be partial visibility. It would somewhat obscure the historic
bay windows on paper. We had a lot of back and forth with them about actual visibility of the bay windows from the road. And we have some photos I could pull up which I can show you. But both myself and the historic preservation consultant happened to visit the site at
the same time before the meeting last week. And we took several photos from the sidewalk showing the existing landscaping along the property as well as the existing grade change that takes place from the sidewalk up to the
existing fence and the landscaping. um without having topographical data by visual observation only. The grade there rises up at minimum 2 feet at least three feet in a very short distance. Then you have
the fence in front of the fence sit arborvite. A whole row of arborvite which is only broken in two places and those arborvite are at minimum six feet at most 7 foot tall and currently growing. And our point to that was that
there is no real good visibility for those bay windows currently. So adding a screen at the deck which would not physically affect the bay window structures does not really further prohibit the
visibility as we maintain there isn't any visibility. And allow me one second to pull that sheet back up to show you the photos in reference. I'm going back to the colorized photo exhibit. At the bottom of the page, the two
photos in the middle are two photos looking at the site. The first one which is exhibit sorry I have a hard time seeing exhibit number nine. It's a view of the subject property looking across orange road. So
taken from someone sitting in a vehicle parked at the side of the road looking across the street at the structure. And it's a little bit hard to see, but the arborvite I'm referencing is this line right here. The existing
structure is right here. Sorry to interrupt, but in uh the exhibit A2 on SK2, you can see those a little more clearly, those photos. Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, of course. A much better version of those. So the
photo on the left is the photo I was just describing taken from sitting in a vehicle looking across Orange Road at the existing structure right here with the row of our of our Bervite. Then a close-up view exit exhibit number 10. A
view from the sidewalk on Orange Road on this side of the road. You can see the site sloping up and you can see the continuous row of arborvite with one break right here where there's an existing tree. This break here is the same that you see on the far left here.
And there's one additional break in that and it's right here right where the fence stops and dies back to the existing residence which is right there. This is the south side of the residence. The deck would sit right in that area. So again, we're emphasizing the point
that there is very limited visibility and we strongly feel that we want the privacy screen for the hot tub. The existing bay windows and their integrity and their construction will not be touched or damaged by the deck construction. So if the deck ever were
to be removed, those would remain intact. Okay. To simplify, you don't want to comply with that condition. You want to provide the privacy when discussed with Mr. Griffith and you don't think in the photos and my own
observation is only if someone is peering very strenuously staring at one of the the gaps will they even That's correct observing a casual passer by would not notice it. You would have to stop take the time and observe to be
able to see the bay windows. Okay. Any other questions from members of the board? Um, okay. I assume you and the applicant were the only witnesses. That's correct. Okay. Are there any members of the public who happen to
arrive for this application who previously expressed an interest in ADUs who would have any comments on the or or questions about the application? Pick pick a microphone. Any microphone. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to
tell the truth of a matter pending before the board? I do. State your name and address. Frank Frank Reachi, 398 Upper Mountain Avenue, Montlair. Um I apologize. I haven't seen the updated
plans. I was working what what was posted on the website. So um just top of head top of mind going back in order. um you're using permeable pavers for the
uh area around the ADU and you're c you're not counting that as impervious but you're putting in under drain which negates the ability to count as impervious. So
my question is I found a lot of mistakes in the impervious calculations. Would you be willing to reset those and specify each separate item because I don't believe you're complying with the
impervious? Yes, we we have to comply with it. If for some reason we're not, we would have first off, we would be happy to submit detailed updates. I think you're I would like to see it documented so that I can review it. Yes. Happy to provide a break to that. Okay,
that'd be great. Um, as far as the privacy screen, um, on the deck, um, I understand your argument is that the HPC ordinance as far as
HPC ordinance covers what is visible. What is not visible is not covered by the ordinance. Am I to understand your argument because this is not visible that the HBC ordinance the
HP ordinance doesn't apply? I am by no means stating that the HPC ordinance does not apply. But you're saying it's not visible. Yes, we're saying we're not referring to an ordinance. We're referring to actual physical visibility as taken from the site. I'm not trying
to discredit the HPC in any way. We we explicitly went into that in candid conversation with the HPC last week when we made the argument about visibility. They said, "Well, it it simply doesn't matter that it's not visible. They're
there and they should stay there." And we accept that 100% and we've taken steps to rectify our design to ensure that those bay windows remain whether they're visible from the road or not visible. We recognize their importance.
Thank you. Um you um you have an unusual dormer setup on the ADU. Um am I misreading the plan? But the way the stair well as I recall the
the stairs to the second floor mezzanine there are 14 risers and you end up with a in a three-foot area at the top that's not under the dormer. So there's no roof line to allow for anybody
but a three-foot person to We will double check our numbers and our calculations and make sure that well you can you could see it on the plan if if the dormers only if the dormer set in 2 feet whatever on each side and the
stairwell is adjacent to the outer wall. Clearly the part of the stairwell can't I can't fit it and I'm the standard. We standard side we have to comply with code for minimum headroom. If this design is flawed we will ensure the
stair location is remedied. Okay. So um on code 3478D11 says the which is the ADU ordinance. It says the ADU ordinance um can't face the street. The entrance
can't face the street. Yes. But your entrance is facing the street. Correct. So, can you rec tell me it's We recognize and acknowledge that part of the ordinance. I don't know if
it explicitly states that it cannot face the street or it's recommended it cannot face the street. However, this ADU sits at the far back of the property. It will not be directly visible given the gray change to go down to the
entrance as well as the gray change at the front exhibited in this. Okay. So, but you do understand that ADUs by definition can only be in the rear yard. Correct. And that's why we placed it in the rear yard. And so this ordinance was written to say that even though the or
the ADUs are in the rear yard, you still can't have a doorway facing the street. If the board feels that that doorway presents a conflict with the ordinance, we would simply redesign the ADU to relocate the doorway to
a different facade. Okay. Um, let me just there's some other issues, but let me just jump to Okay, let's go with a a tickytacky one. This is an R1
zone and as I understand the ordinance 34731B, it's only permitted to have four vehicles off street parking. I recognize it's a contradiction
to have four, you know, to have the RSIS standard saying you have to have a certain number of parking, then you have our ordinance that says you can put an ADU and you have to have another one. But somewhere along the lines, this has to get reconciled that the ordinance
doesn't permit the amount of parking you're talking about, but you're going to insist on the amount of parking. We're not insisting on an amount of parking. We'll go we're just trying to show that we can easily comply with any parking requirement whe I'm sorry. Go ahead. Whether it's what's
on paper with the RSIS or Monontlair, I I agree there's definitely a conflict. will go with whatever we are requested to in terms of compliance. I was only stating in my testimony to state that all parking would be essentially state that all parking would be on site and that by adding this ADU we're not
creating any parking concerns or being underparked. That was the intent of our testimony for parking. Okay. And is the parking spot um ADA compliant? Is it is a full handicap accessible spot?
That's a great question. I believe it would have to be and we would have to because I don't know if the ordinance def the ordinance I don't know defines it but the barrier free sub code if if the ADU has to fully comply with the barrierfree sub code part of the
barrierfree sub code is from the parking space to the residents so I believe that the parking space would have to be barrier free and we could accommodate that okay and going back to the mezzanine
the mezzanine I mean you it was little I got confused there. You were saying it was going to be use office space as extra space and then you said it was just going to be storage space. What I don't understand is from a design point
of view the plans indicate that this ADU is going to be 17 foot6 in total height. Two six below grade and another 15 above grade. The plans indicate that the mezzanine,
and maybe I'm reading the plans wrong, I'm not good at that, is 9 ft above the first floor. It's it says it in the center of the plan. At least that's what I think it says.
Therefore, most of the mezzanine by my calculations would it would suggest to me, wouldn't it, that most of the mezzanine space is above 6 feet in height, if not 7 feet in height. I don't want to do calculations off the top of
my head that I feel are critical to showing compliance with both square footage requirements that were allowed not allowed to exceed and in addition building code requirements for minimum ceiling heights for habitable space.
It's okay. It's a it's a little bit too much to do off the cuff. Okay. Um the the biggest I'll just wrap this up. The biggest thing that I don't see and I don't understand why it's not there is our ordinance requires that the ADU be
no more than 40% of the inhabitable living space not gross floor area the living space is the term it's the technical term in our ordinance
of the principal dwelling of the principal structure You don't indicate it anywhere on your application. It was not checked off. There's no zoning box. What am I supposed to make of that?
We again if we didn't comply with that and we missed it on our application and we were approved by this board and we went forward, it would be on us to rectify that, we would either have to
amend the plans and come back for an additional variance or change the ADU to show compliance. Off the top of my head, without running the numbers, I do not I would have to check
the definition of the ordinance, but I don't think we have a concern, but that doesn't excuse us for not filling that out in the application. Well, I'm just sorry. So, no, if we were acted upon favorably by the board, we would have to show that as a
condition of approval in our resolution compliance documents. And we would explicitly show those calculations and that compliiance with that section of the ordinance either how it complies existing or we've revised the dimensions meaning square footage to demonstrate
compliance. Okay. I I I guess when I review the plans, I felt very comfortable that if you use the ordinances living area standard, which as I understand the application, you
basically you take each room, you speck it out, you total it up, and that's your living area. And the difference between that and the gross floor area can be 10%, maybe more or whatever, depending on the design.
I thought you were in compliance. Now that you didn't show the living area measurements on the and now you have a new bigger ADU.
I I how am I supposed to know you are in compliance or is basically what's my role as the public in this process? This is my What do you think my role in the You think I should be able to make some comments and then you'll
say, "Well, we'll deal with it with the construction officials and we'll get an approval." That's Thank you very much, Mr. Burbachi. I'm a little frustrated as you could tell because can I can I do Chair Harrison, is it okay to for me to add comment at this
point? Yes. That's why you were sworn in, Mr. Rubaki. Thank you. So I'm relying on the the information that the planning department puts online. There have been subsequent subsequent revisions to documents in in key
important ways. There's material I mean serious fundamental material omissions in the application. So I don't know how it got here in the first place. And now I'm being told that my part of
the process, my concern is, thank you very much. The big boys will take care of it. We'll go off with the construction officials and you won't get a chance to comment again on this. You're done. I'm done. The public is done. Is that the process that you
envision? I am not going on the record as the design professional stating what any members public of the any member of the public's role is in a land use board. Okay. Here. That's fair. That's not my jurisdiction.
I hope you guys are continuing this. Thank you very much. Let me let me and maybe Mr. grew back. You might have run away too quickly or this I'm directing the question to you. So the ordinance
provides that with respect to new construction which this is the external entrance to the ADU shall not face the same street as the external entrance to the principal dwelling unit. And then there's the qualifier which is what I'm asking about if such external entrance
to the ADU is visible from the street. So will the um entrance to the ADU be visible from Orange Road? Yes, I believe it will be. Okay. Um let me now follow up on to some extent on
what Mr. Cfield said and other board members feel free to comment. I have a number of concerns not with the end result as such but we're dealing with three sets of plans which I've been having difficulty going
through sorting oh this from the original set I'm still using this from this first revision this from the second revision as to exactly what I am approving. There have been a number of questions raised both by us by Mr.
Rubaki um on how are you going to comply with this and you're saying we'll have to go back and calculate and make sure on you know the my issue on the height of the ADU um it issue on the habitable floor area on
the mezzanine of the ADU and how that relates to the 800 foot square foot maximum. Um we have the awkwardness um of the ordinance of no more than four
parking spaces yet ordinance saying ADU shall have one additional parking space which creates a conflict and I'm not uncomfortable with the and seeming we have to give a variance for one of those. I'm not uncomfortable with
the notice not covering that. Um, but I think, you know, but that ties into the questions on the garage and the testimony on you have the ability to do seven parking spaces, which is
definitely more than five, which under the ADU you have to have and more than the four you're allowed. Um, and then why do you need three garage spaces with the two variances that are associated
with ex expanding the garage? Um, so and then you have the issue Mr. Cfield raised as to the absence of planning testimony that I think actually addressing some of
these issues through planning testimony as well as the use variance issue would be helpful to the board. Um, you know, I, you know, I don't know if other board members have thoughts on where we are
be, not to interrupt by any means, but based on all the calculation, concerns, and questions raised by both the board and the public, we understand and we hear you and we agree wholeheartedly.
We don't deny that we moved in haste. As we understood the ordinance was changing. Um haste creates confusion in lie of clarity. I think clarity would be provided by us adjourning updating our drawings to
address all the questions comments let's say in regards to height square footage everything and putting that on the drawings in detail. So the board and the board professionals and the public has the opportunity to fully review this and
vet this. By no means am I am I intending to defer this and say we will comply, we will comply, we will comply or it's a building code construction official. That's not so that would include just one single set of plans consolidating everything addressing the
new issues that have come up here. Can I add something? I mean please. And a planner. Yeah. I mean, there's been ADUs that have gotten gone through this town, but they have not come through this board. I mean, you I mean, they've gone through the planning and they've
gone that way, but to come through this, it's never happened so far. As far as I'm know, it has. We We approved one. When was that? I don't remember. A meeting you probably weren't here. Maybe 11. It was two meetings, right? Two. We
We had one where they ultimately withdrew the application. Got it. But I mean the one that we approved it was over two hearings. Oh, that that was the one that had the garage on that side. Okay. Which is different. It had an entrance to its own self in that way. Okay. But I
mean that's just something for the applicants to understand that as well. Thank you. Yes. As in addition, I want to make sure that uh I want to make sure that in the new set of drawings you do that you provide some sections and elevations especially of the porch and
the privacy fence cuz all we have are plans and all I do is hear you talk about it and read about it but I can't see anything to understand the relationship at the top of the deck to the brackets on the windows to the the hot tub and how high is 8 ft. where's
that relationship to your window heads and things like that like what's it look like and then most basic thing also I think it would be just relevant or calming to see a section uh through the ADU that shows
this uh what I call water collector that you have at the front door and uh show me the drain that you have and I I just like to have more confidence that that's realistic Um whether or not it's a good idea or not
is another thing is one thing, but can it really work? Is it is it really thought through? Cuz you know, I'm looking at plants. I'm seeing elevations. It's flat. There's no difference between the outside ped the outside paving and
the inside floor. So, and you say there's a drain, but there's no drain drawn. I want to see more. I I think you know I don't it might be the mezzanine you might just have to get rid of in that sense and because it's causing a lot of issues you have to go down on the
property there so think about that. Yeah I was just going to say it seems like a lot of gymnastics to get some height. Um and I don't know if it's actually uh realistic and in practice and I think it might cause a lot of issues in the future for the homeowner if you actually
do move forward that way. So I would either yeah consider getting rid of the mezzanine or you're already in for so many variances possibly a height variance for the ADU um to make it work instead of excavating down.
We will definitely take your comment into consideration. At the bare minimum, we promised to provide elevation, detailed elevations showing the deck as well as a section addressing all of the
grading and heights and the drain dinkage. Okay. So, our next hearing is July 23rd. Will you be able to be ready by then? Bear with me one minute. I need to check
my calendar, please. What is the resubmission date to allow the board enough time to adequately review at least 10 days in advance of the 23rd? Days or days? Calendar days. Calendar days. So the 13th.
That's a Sunday. What's the next date? August. What is the August date if you don't mind? Okay. We we currently have scheduled two. We would in an ideal world not like to have two, but they are
August 6 and August 20th. And if uh August 20th is more likely depending on your schedule. Yeah. Yeah. We I assume our current pending applications don't require two meetings
in August. Is that correct? Currently not. Yes. How's August 20th sound? That's what we would like. We would like August 20th. That gives us enough time. I believe that gives the board more than enough time. Okay. So, we need an
extension of time to act. No. Okay. Okay. So, the hearing in this matter is being um carried until August 20th. Uh revised plans will be submitted no later than August 10th. Uh will be available
for inspection in the municipal building in the planning office and online. Um if Mr. Rubaki is listening or any other members of the public and um we will see you then. Thank you.
Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? See you in over a month. It's like a vacation.